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

Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness

Expand Messages
  • Tony
    Danial, All this you have stated is grandiose, however, you need to explain your self. Explicate the ideas you have mentioned. First of all, Yes, I tend to
    Message 1 of 77 , Jul 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Danial,

      All this you have stated is grandiose, however, you need to explain your
      self. Explicate the ideas you have mentioned.

      First of all,

      "Yes, I tend to not use jargon correctly. It is part of my makeup."

      What do you mean, "It is part of my make up?" If you expect a earnest
      listener to understand and either agree or refute your claims you need to
      clarify yourself.

      "The models of the expressions are also generally less complex. For example,
      the rules of math are simpler than the expression of all equation. The
      domains for those rules as functions on dimensions is even smaller. Nested
      models can be aggregated into a hierarchy to a point where they become quite
      simple. Thus, although the math concepts that you delve into below are VERY
      complex, the model via the word "math" is simple enough so that in common
      usage people understand it to a degree to a point where they can discuss
      ideas. It is when you zoom into the fuzziness of the boundary that the
      complexities arrize."

      Explain how you can make this claim? "via the word math"? There is no simple
      way to understand these ideas, math, physics, cosmology, philosophy, and so
      on, without warping the ideas themselves. And as for vagueness in word
      usage... "Nested models" - "fuzziness of the boundary" -"aggregated into a
      hierarchy"

      Also, you have spoken about new theories to explain this or that by
      individuals, yet where is the actual evidence or argument for such claims?

      "I don't quite follow your logic completely though. If I understand you
      correctly, you reject my references (chaos, systems, complexity theories)
      based on the fact that I do not understand psychoanalysis. However, I don't
      think you understand my references either that you are rejecting. Thus, you
      seem to be applying "rejection" rather haphazardly based on your
      familarity."

      I am hard pressed to comprehend what you said in this paragraph. You don't
      understand which logic being used by james? What statements? The references
      you have made are vague, expand your argument.

      "Using my terminology above, if you glance at the "models" of the two sets
      (psychoanalysis and systems theories) they do seem quite similar in their
      approaches."

      These two systems of thought, psychoanalysis and number theory(if that is
      what you are referring to-I'm not sure because you have yet to explain those
      claims), are similar in which dimensions, functions, whole or partial
      structure, consequence, or something else?

      Sincerely,
      Tony.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:50 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: consciousness


      > James,
      > Yes, I tend to not use jargon correctly. It is part of my makeup.
      >
      > Also, I agree with you and your discussion of math. That was close
      > to my point. In general, I agree expressions are complex. The models
      > of the expressions are also generally less complex. For example, the
      > rules of math are simpler than the expression of all equation. The
      > domains for those rules as functions on dimensions is even smaller.
      > Nested models can be aggregated into a hierarchy to a point where
      > they become quite simple. Thus, although the math concepts that you
      > delve into below are VERY complex, the model via the word "math" is
      > simple enough so that in common usage people understand it to a
      > degree to a point where they can discuss ideas. It is when you zoom
      > into the fuzziness of the boundary that the complexities arrize.
      >
      > I don't quite follow your logic completely though. If I understand
      > you correctly, you reject my references (chaos, systems, complexity
      > theories) based on the fact that I do not understand psychoanalysis.
      > However, I don't think you understand my references either that you
      > are rejecting. Thus, you seem to be applying "rejection" rather
      > haphazardly based on your familarity.
      >
      > Using my terminology above, if you glance at the "models" of the
      > two sets (psychoanalysis and systems theories) they do seem quite
      > similar in their approaches.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Daniel
      >
      > --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      > >
      > > daniel,
      > >
      > > just in case u dont know, there is difference between
      > psychoanalysis and
      > > experimental psychology. i just want to make sure we understand the
      > terms
      > > correctly before we could perhaps discuss it more intelligently. i
      > did not
      > > read the 'tao of physics' - but what has this book, or the idea
      > about chaos,
      > > complexity theories, etc to do with what i was saying about
      > psychoanalysis?
      > >
      > > i disagree with u that all things can be explained simply. there
      > are
      > > something that cant be explained simply. since u quote maths, i
      > will give u
      > > an example in maths. take fermat's last theorem for example: it can
      > be
      > > stated simply enough, but it takes only a training of a
      > mathematician to be
      > > able to appreciate the complexity that is involved in that theorem,
      > and no
      > > mathematician will bother to explain it to any intelligent layman
      > how the
      > > theorem is true or untrue for, say n=3 or n=4 or ...for all values
      > of n. no
      > > matter how intelligent is the layman, he will not be able to
      > appreciate the
      > > mathematical proofs - one need to have pretty good foundation in
      > number
      > > theory and its technical languages even to begin know how
      > to 'read', let
      > > alone to understand or appreciate; and besides, 'intelligence' is
      > not
      > > necessarily only mathematical. unless u have experience in
      > psychotherapy, it
      > > is difficult to make u appreciate the value of psychoanalysis; it
      > is not
      > > something that mere words on a forum like that could substitute no
      > matter
      > > how lengthy i might bother to explain. and so i will not bother.
      > >
      > > james.
      > >
      > >
      > > From: "daniel_needles" <Daniel.Needles@C...>
      > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > To: existlist@y...
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:15:39 -0000
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > psychoanalysis is more than what u think. yes, it has
      > > > its unscientific aspects; as i mentioned much earlier,
      > > > it is not a science.
      > >
      > > Ah, there's new evidence via complexity, chaos, and systems theory.
      > > Web of Life by the same guy who does Tao of Physics is a good
      > > overview of these new areas.
      > >
      > > > but it has its
      > > > clinical values. u oversimplify it when u say it is "speaking in
      > a
      > > > comforting way" - it is much more, and it is too troublesome
      > > > to explain to laymen.
      > >
      > > I believe if it cannot be explained simply, it is not understood by
      > > the explainer. For example: Math is a VERY large subject but can be
      > > summed up in a single word. Now I don't think psychoanalysis is any
      > > bigger than the abstract concept of math ;~)
      > > >
      > > > james.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: "clickhereforinsignificance" <livewild@h...>
      > > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:24:51 -0000
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Have dealt with some psychologist's and psychiatrist's in the
      > > > past. From a research perspective (group studies) and a chemical
      > > > perspective I believe they have something to offer.
      > > >
      > > > From a 'speaking in a comforting way' (i.e.
      > psychoanalysis).....
      > > >
      > > > closer to witchcraft and very unobjective.
      > > >
      > > > ~ seeking therapy of some sort
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > nope, psychology as a science is meant to be objective.
      > > > >
      > > > > james.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
      > > > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:25:31 -0400
      > > > >
      > > > > Tony,
      > > > >
      > > > > That is my point. "Science" is more a method than
      > > > > a field. Thus it could involve itself in
      > > > > subjective matters. I should think that such as
      > > > > psychology is a field in which science looks at
      > > > > the subjective.
      > > > >
      > > > > eduard
      > > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Tony [mailto:tylerdurden12@d...]
      > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 5:12 PM
      > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Definitely, it is a presumotuous, but so is every
      > > > > calim about a future that
      > > > > exist that far off in the distance. How could
      > > > > anyone aver characteristic
      > > > > about the future of a feild like science without
      > > > > it being prediction? In the
      > > > > discussing of the future of science we all become
      > > > > futurists.
      > > > >
      > > > > Tony.
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: "EDWARD ALF (vlxeekmm)"
      > > > > <yeoman@v...>
      > > > > To: <existlist@y...>
      > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:01 AM
      > > > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > Tony,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > It begs the question of what is the "subjective
      > > > > > realm" ... how does this differ from any other
      > > > > > realm, if indeed there is some other realm??
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I should think it presumptuous to assume that
      > > > > > science cant involve itself in some field of
      > > > > study
      > > > > > ...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > eduard
      > > > > >
      > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > From: Tony [mailto:tylerdurden12@d...]
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:51 AM
      > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: consciousness
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Unless the scientist or philosopher enjoys
      > > > > > dogmatic orgies, the scientist
      > > > > > should withdraw from the subjective realm, as
      > > > > was
      > > > > > illustrated by Frued or
      > > > > > even Carnap, science cannot explain subjective
      > > > > > notions of exitence on
      > > > > > complex levels.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Tony.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home:
      > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email
      > > > > to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
      > > > >
      > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
      > > > http://messenger.msn.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
      > > > http://www.hotmail.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      > http://mobile.msn.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • eduard at home
      Jo, Although I grant secret code is your words, I only said that it was a code. Or perhaps I should have said that it is a style. It s a code/style which
      Message 77 of 77 , Dec 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jo,

        Although I grant "secret code" is your words, I only said
        that it was a code. Or perhaps I should have said that it
        is a style. It's a code/style which seems to serve the
        purposes of the author and not the reader. As Bill
        mentioned, it is a sort of poetry and I suppose one should
        take it as such. But then, when it comes to philosophy, I
        am not inclined to search out meaning in poetry. For
        example, I could define the individual as "carrot". In
        which case, my writing could be such as to say, "within each
        carrot, there is a desire for carrot purpose". I may think
        of this as a nice* way of saying something, but it gets
        tiring for the reader.

        I was fairly clear in my questions and I am not really
        interested in searching through ExistList to find post
        numbers. Lets try a new start.

        What evidence is there of eternity for the individual
        consciousness. My view is that the individual consciousness
        rises and falls with one's life-time. I believe that this
        view is in line with Existentialism, in that it is
        subjective and a matter of my* consciousness. How can this
        consciousness be millions of years old??

        eduard

        original
        ==================

        eduard,

        Since this is the thread about "unknown knowns", please give
        me the
        post #'s that you are referring to where I have refused to
        respond to
        your questions. I'll try to answer them again. I thought I
        did answer
        and that we did actually have a discussion, but obviously I
        was
        wrong.

        Of course The Blue Rose Project is open to discussion. Which
        concept
        should we try again? You said there was no "evidence" for
        eternity. I
        said there was. You said the author was purposefully being
        convoluted
        and using a secret code (my words). I said this wasn't true,
        since I
        know the author. I also explained that I was excerpting
        material that
        deals with the nascence of consciousness which probably took
        place
        millions of years ago. That's what I recall, but I'm willing
        to try
        again. You don't like the work and feel it's a waste of your
        time.
        That's okay. Like I said before, it's not for everybody.
        Besides
        eternity, author intent, and the state of consciousness
        today, not in
        the past; what else would you want to knock around?

        Of course I'm sensitive. My reasons have been stated. I'm
        biased
        about the author and the material since it's been a part of
        my life.
        I make no apologies. Most people select, digest promote
        philosophy
        and religion based on their existing personal biases. Most
        people
        aren't open to having their perceptions turned inside out.
        So be it.

        Jo
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.