Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Sartrean nothingness, anxiety & freedom

Expand Messages
  • hermit crab
    Ok, thanks Mary, I will. I just ordered it from Thriftbooks.com. I remember you talking about Bohm in past emails. hc ... [Non-text portions of this message
    Message 1 of 70 , Jun 4 2:44 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok, thanks Mary, I will. I just ordered it from Thriftbooks.com. I
      remember you talking about Bohm in past emails.

      hc

      On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I think you'd enjoy reading or reading about David Bohm's theory of the
      > Holomovement in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order."
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:
      >
      > ===These are great questions, Mary.
      >
      > > 1. How are you distinguishing between thought and consciousness?
      >
      > ===I don't know but it's possible that consciousness is a chaotic flow of
      > information and a thought is just an ordering of a tiny bit of that chaos.
      > Sometimes it in the form of a visualization and sometimes it comes in a
      > word or
      > string of words (language).
      >
      > > 2. If thought and neurons are both consciousness, which acts upon which?
      >
      > ===I don't know. Will think about that. I think thoughts, neurons, and
      > consciousness are all information but I don't know how it works. Probably
      > they
      > act on each other is a loop of some sort.
      >
      > > 3. How does the brain order thought?
      >
      > ===I don't know.
      >
      > > 4. How does communication NOT change thought and/or consciousness?
      >
      > ===I think communication must have an effect on consciousness.
      > Communication
      > probably changes the patterns in the chaos, maybe strengthens some of the
      > info
      > making it multiply, helps the info grow by passing onto other
      > communicators.
      > I'm thinking about memes, for instance. We have a tendency to add and
      > subtract
      > info, change info when we communicate. We are creative with info.
      >
      > > 5. Do you see this as consciousness communicating with itself through its
      > parts?
      >
      > ===Yes, I think all the information (consciousness) communicates with
      > smaller
      > bits of information (every thing which includes us).
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • eduardathome
      Well we have two things here... mental states and the digital bit. As to mental states I can only go by what is in sources like Wikipedia Look up Being and
      Message 70 of 70 , Jun 13 1:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well we have two things here... mental states and the digital bit.

        As to mental states I can only go by what is in sources like Wikipedia

        Look up Being and Nothingness and you will find such as ....

        (1) The great human stream arises from a singular realization that nothingness is a state of mind in which we can become anything, in reference to our situation, that we desire.

        (2) Sartre's recipe for fulfillment is to escape all quests by completing them. This is accomplished by rigorously forcing order onto nothingness, employing the "spirit (or consciousness of mind) of seriousness" and describing the failure to do so in terms such as "bad faith" and "false consciousness".

        These are references to a state of mind

        But then one does not need to go to side references, all of Sartre bit about bad faith, the look, negation etc. are states of mind. It is the statement of mind that Sartre is speaking about. In the waiter he is speaking against the person acting out a role of waiter versus his existence as human. These are states of mind.

        With respect to photoreceptors they are in effect digital. The protein molecule in the receptor will react to a certain level of visual energy entering the receptor. At some point it will generate a signal to say that it has received the energy. This is the same as a switch. Granted it is not a clean as all that. You might be able to fool a blue receptor with red light if there is a sufficient quantity. The response of the receptor is like a probability curve centre on a particular wavelength. However, it is still digital.

        Digital systems do not have to be literally ones and zeros. They can be twos and threes, as long as there is a difference between one state that is defined as zero and the other which is higher or lower and defined as the one. Or it can be an electrochemical signal of so many microvolts versus a rest state that has a lesser value. Or perhaps more ions versus less ions.

        In any case, my main point is that the retina transmits to the occipital lobe on the basis of pixels. The photoreceptor is the pixel sampler. And because it is pixels, it has a certain resolution. That is, the ability of the human eye to resolve distance objects into two rather than to merge them. If a line is fine enough, what you see is a series of dots. It is the brain itself which concludes that these dots represent a line.

        I do not understand your last sentence. I am not talking about resolving differences, but only pointing out that we see pixels of information.

        eduard



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:13 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: retina

        Please provide a scientific or academic source for this assertion as well as a philosophical citation which supports your contention that existentialism concerns "mental states." You are grossly oversimplifying to fit your schema and preferring to reduce thought and perception to simple formulas. But it's not existentialism. Ones and zeros do not equate with the on-off complex biochemical transactions within photoreceptors. Measuring digitally doesn't mean that what you measure is inherently digital. The eye converts pixels but has no digital receptors. Cells transact biochemically not digitally. Almost without exception existentialist thinkers, were concerned with intersubjectivity not with understanding internal biochemical processes. Even with the ability to observe and comprehend every single biochemical transaction in our brains, we'd still be no closer to resolving differences which are in themselves nearly impossible to decipher causally.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
        >
        > The retina is composed of a matrix of rod and cone photoreceptors which react to the incoming image. The image itself may be continuous after it travels through the lens of the eye and is cast onto the surface of the retina, but only small pixel portions the image are actually “seen” by the retina. Say you have a 10 thousand cones in one square millimeter, that means 10 thousand pixels of information that are gathered from the image. The density is probably less per colour when you consider the individual cones are dedicated to short, medium or long frequencies. The neurons which are the cones have a switching mechanism. If the photon hitting the cone is sufficient, the neuron will switch from a zero to a one. Very digital. And this digital information is then sent to the occipital lobe in the back of your brain. You don’t have the image at the back of your head, only the signal information that has to be processed further from what occurs in the retina itself. Our eyes are limited by the amount of light that is needed by the cones and rods to make them react and the spacing of these elements. We have 3 types of cones. Some birds have 4 types and thus have a large range of colour evaluation. Some crustaceans have 10. But it’s all digital.
        >
        > Basically it is the same process as a digital camera which has a sensor chip composed of thousands/millions of light reacting elements.
        >
        > I am not saying that you need to know how the eye works in order to enjoy art. But if one is talking about how art is “seen” it becomes of some importance. It is the same as speaking about the neural processes in order to explain how we react for certain mental states. Existentialism is about mental states.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:21 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] retina
        >
        > The retina does not require pixels anymore than it required a grid to view art before art which used a grid for composition came into use. I can't remember what century that began. Maybe Peter C. knows. We do not have digital brains, contrary to your robot fantasies. Digital art, whether reproduction or new creation, is for the convenience of compatibility with computers and now of course cameras. Wil's point is right on. We don't need to know how the eye works to enjoy art though it may be of interest.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        >
        > you are seeing it as a mass of pixels which is the manner in which your retina works.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.