Filosofi!
Är subjektivitet ens är ett aktivt tillstånd enligt dig? det kanske bara ditt medvetande i standby läge, medans det objektiva förnimmelsen är allt det som väcker djupt rotade inneboende tankar och handlingar i hjärnan.
Citat från tetro
Är subjektivitet ens är ett aktivt tillstånd enligt dig? det kanske bara ditt medvetande i standby läge, medans det objektiva förnimmelsen är allt det som väcker djupt rotade inneboende tankar och handlingar i hjärnan.
Vi vet att det finns olika tillstånd av medvetande, olika vakenhetstillstånd där individen upplever sig själv och omgivningen annorlunda. Man kan vara viss om att ens upplevelse utgörs av ett kontinuum av lägre och högre regioner som inte alla yttrar sig samtidigt eller är av samma fenomenologiska kapacitet, men att de ändock hör till samma agent i en själv och samma subjektsupplevelse. Subjektet är således inte ett specifikt kognitivt tillstånd, även om det kräver kognition för att manifesteras, utan en fundamental del i en tillvarons dualitet.
Här är enkelt för att illustrera subjekt-objekt-förhållandet, och hur det är reciprokt:
Mer avancerat diagram för att visa hur objekt gestaltar och gestaltas genom varann ömsesidigt:
Förstår inte din sista illustration, Orks, men är intresserad av dina tankar.
Skulle inte varje enskilt ögonblick (i brist på bättre ord) kunna upplevas i ett unikt tillstånd?
Vad menar du med lägre och högre regioner?
Den sista illustrationen kanske är lite otydlig, och kan kräva en ytterligare förklaring, men om vi medger att verkligheten får definition genom betraktaren, ger vi därmed alla upphov till den objektiva verklighet som existerar i förhållande till oss själva, och i det förhållandet definieras även vår subjektsbild, hur vi upplever oss själva. Nu vill jag inte påstå att alla direkt står i relation till varandra, och magiskt påverkar andras självbild, utan en främst ge en hypotetisk bild.
Förklara vad du menar specifikt med "specifikt tillstånd".
Ja, med lägre och högre regioner syftar jag till olika delar av psyket eller medvetandet, och olika närvarotillstånd som tillsammans bidrar till den totala sinnesupplevelsen. Jag kan ge ett mer exakt och specifikt svar senare om så behövs. Jag är inte i fullgott skick att fördjupa mig i detta tillfälle.
Citat från nemoralia:
tänker att det hade varit väldigt givande att elever fick en grundgenomgång i logik och argumentationsfel på filosofilektionerna i skolan så att folk skulle kunna göra relevanta inlägg i debatter och inte bara käfta
Instämmer absolut! I allmänhet anser jag att logik och argumentation bör undervisas i större utsträckning.
Men för att fortsätta trådens spår som verkar dra åt medvetandefilosofin:
Thomas Nagel kritiserar reduktionismen som metod för behandling av medvetandet i sin "What is it like to be a bat?" som går att läsa här: http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf
Han går till och med så långt att han hävdar att fysikalismens försök att greppa medvetandet, eller snarare the mind-body problem, är att jämföras med den försokratiska filosofins hypoteser om att massa är energi.
Jag undrar om (1) reduktionismen faktiskt inte kan lämpa sig i medvetandefilosofi, trots allt? Jag kan förstå att han menar att qualia inte kan beskrivas med reduktionism, men qualia har fysikalismen sedan länge likställt med de kemiska/fysiska processerna i hjärnan som ett måste för att processerna ska äga rum. Och (2) vad skulle kunna vara ett smidigare tillvägagångssätt?
Bonusbild:
Slänger ut en chattlog som jag sparat av intresse, så att den som vill kan få läsa, av intresse:
(Kommer an på bl. a. materialism/idealism, determinism/indeterminism och lite medvetandeproblematik)
Stranger: what is philosophy to you?
You: well, philosophy to me is a systematic form of "meta-analysis", if that makes sense
Stranger: go on
You: or systematized perhaps
Stranger: tell me a bit more what you mean
Stranger: meta analysis of what?
You: its a way of orderly examining the foundations of questions regarding any subject that can be perceived
Stranger: like a starting point?
You: yes, i think so
You: like, what is a thing really?
Stranger: right. and then we can say well there are some things which are like this, and some things which are like that
You: do you disagree?
Stranger: we can categorize all the different types of things
Stranger: i dont think i disagree, i would say this
You: yes?
Stranger: philosophy begins with first principles. if we are talking about epistemology, we define what it means to know (maybe). if we define morality, we define what it means to be moral.
Stranger: can you see me typing still?
You: you could say that philosophy doesn't deal with the thing itself, it deals with explaining the thing (unless the thing itself is philosophy)
You: i can now
Stranger: right. not the thing itself, but what a thing itself is, and compared to what (like a non-thing)
Stranger: i think you said that before
You: if we are having a conversation about which kind of flavor we like most, we aren't having a philosophical discussion, but if we are discussing why something should be considered good or bad in this context, we have delved into philosophy
Stranger: right. i agree
You: okay, cool. :P
Stranger: shall we tell the world what we have figured out
You: eh, i dont think we're that special. ;) probably lots of people who thought the same thing
You: and im quite sure of it. :)
Stranger: yea, except they're getting tenure :/
You: well, i think theyre long dead. :P
You: depending. ^^
You: anyway... whats your favorite subject?
You: in philosophy
Stranger: epistemology and morality i think
You: also, are you a materialist or idealist? (or neither? dualist?)
Stranger: materialist i think
Stranger: hbu?
You: so basically anything that exists can be explained fully in respect to physical (material) properties?
You: im a dualist i think
Stranger: dualist says there is a physical reality, and then there is a mind which percieves a physical reality?
Stranger: is that correct or close to correct?
You: i think the mind is separate somehow. it may depend on material properties, but in itself is not entirely material
You: can i make a point to that end?
Stranger: sure
You: okay, so basically numbers. first the question: how can they be said to exist?
Stranger: only as concepts
Stranger: i could actually link you a great podcast on this
You: define concept please. :P
You: yes, sure, thatd be great
Stranger: ok. i may make a mistake by accident, which is why i will link you in a minute. but this is my understanding
You: np
Stranger: there are different types of concepts
Stranger: let me link first, one sec
You: in regards to what ontology on existence do we define concepts?
You: also, i like to think that qualia and the "hard problem of consciousness" poses a real issue for materialism
Stranger: im not sure what you mean. i think there is a physical reality, and we use philosophy to designate things which exist in physical reality. like a tree. so a tree is both a physical thing which exists in physical reality, but also a concept which exists only in our mind. then there are concepts which exist *only* in our mind. like a forest.
Stranger: Im sorry, im going to be unfamiliar with a lot of academic refrences
You: yeah, but it seems that you are also implying then that the mind is a physical entity, or are you not?
Stranger: if all humans die, forests die. but if all humans die, trees are still there. does that make sense?
You: yeah, but that doesnt really challenge dualism. ;)
Stranger: right. which i was actually going to say i might be a dualist!
You: then i think we are both onboard :D haha
Stranger: good
Stranger: let me link you, then i have to go eat dinner
You: because a materialist has to also concede the mind being material somehow
You: okie
You: how could an object be such that its only material property is of being caused by material properties and still be defined as material?
You: i don't think there's a reasonable explanation for it on materialism. therefor i find materialism irrational
Stranger: what do you think of the free will determinism debate?
You: its a tough one
You: im not settled on it, but i sort of believe in freewill
You: dont ask me too much about it, or i will be angry with you. lol
Stranger: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2888/thou-shalt-not-talk-about-my-momma-saturday-call-in-show-january-17th-2015
Stranger: it doesnt start at 1 hour and 56 minutes, but that's where the call is. you can find the beginning for yourself.. lol sorry
Stranger: me neither, mostly because sometimes i think the determinist position isnt even really a position
Stranger: and of course religious free will have muddied the idea of what free will even is
You: yeah... also, if reality is completely or mostly arbitrary on the quantum level, what does it mean for objects to be linked casually?
You: causally*
Stranger: maybe if i write and erase my answer more i will have a good answer to your question
You: hehe. nice
You: its not something i expect you to answer
You: i dont know the answer
Stranger: this area is all kinds of uncertain for me.
You: im just throwing questions out :p
Stranger: i think a few things might be important to ponder though
You: yeah?
Stranger: can we understand any process in any other way than through cause and effect?
You: we can understand geometry, cant we?
You: we can understand logical relations
Stranger: right. physical phenomena i should say
You: we can understand emotional states
You: so basically a lot of stuff
Stranger: right, good points.
You: im sure i missed something
Stranger: i mean in terms of scientific understanding
Stranger: of the physical world
You: hm. probably not, when natural science is mostly mechanistic
You: well, science is about describing physical reality through math. but of course it implies linear entropy based progression
You: so if we have time, we have cause and effect
Stranger: right
You: science therefor struggles to explain how something can come from "seemingly" nothing
You: but quantum mechanics can be a way around that
You: since they don't rely on casuality in the same way
You: causality* damn it
You: so yeah, quantum mechanics are non-deterministic in some ways :P
Djupa grejer precis som min avgrund. Jag bara faller och faller, men tittar sällan ner.
Är osäker, passar sånahär frågeställningar här?
Iallafall
Är man altruist eller egoist ifall man ter sig empatiskt mot andra i syfte för att må bra själv?
Eogist.
kanske inte är egot som är drivkraften i att investera i lyckan att hjälpa andra. altruistisk egoism? egoistisk altruism?
Schopenhauer is where it's at.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."
"The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity."
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
"To live alone is the fate of all great souls."
vet inte hur mycket filosofiskt värde jag finner i one-liners som medelåldersmänniskor delar på facebook
The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.
Citat från Orks:
[i]Slänger ut en chattlog som jag sparat av intresse, så att den som vill kan få läsa, av intresse:
(Kommer an på bl. a. materialism/idealism, determinism/indeterminism och lite medvetandeproblematik)
Stranger: what is philosophy to you?
You: well, philosophy to me is a systematic form of "meta-analysis", if that makes sense
Stranger: go on
You: or systematized perhaps
Stranger: tell me a bit more what you mean
Stranger: meta analysis of what?
You: its a way of orderly examining the foundations of questions regarding any subject that can be perceived
Stranger: like a starting point?
You: yes, i think so
You: like, what is a thing really?
Stranger: right. and then we can say well there are some things which are like this, and some things which are like that
You: do you disagree?
Stranger: we can categorize all the different types of things
Stranger: i dont think i disagree, i would say this
You: yes?
Stranger: philosophy begins with first principles. if we are talking about epistemology, we define what it means to know (maybe). if we define morality, we define what it means to be moral.
Stranger: can you see me typing still?
You: you could say that philosophy doesn't deal with the thing itself, it deals with explaining the thing (unless the thing itself is philosophy)
You: i can now
Stranger: right. not the thing itself, but what a thing itself is, and compared to what (like a non-thing)
Stranger: i think you said that before
You: if we are having a conversation about which kind of flavor we like most, we aren't having a philosophical discussion, but if we are discussing why something should be considered good or bad in this context, we have delved into philosophy
Stranger: right. i agree
You: okay, cool. :P
Stranger: shall we tell the world what we have figured out
You: eh, i dont think we're that special. ;) probably lots of people who thought the same thing
You: and im quite sure of it. :)
Stranger: yea, except they're getting tenure :/
You: well, i think theyre long dead. :P
You: depending. ^^
You: anyway... whats your favorite subject?
You: in philosophy
Stranger: epistemology and morality i think
You: also, are you a materialist or idealist? (or neither? dualist?)
Stranger: materialist i think
Stranger: hbu?
You: so basically anything that exists can be explained fully in respect to physical (material) properties?
You: im a dualist i think
Stranger: dualist says there is a physical reality, and then there is a mind which percieves a physical reality?
Stranger: is that correct or close to correct?
You: i think the mind is separate somehow. it may depend on material properties, but in itself is not entirely material
You: can i make a point to that end?
Stranger: sure
You: okay, so basically numbers. first the question: how can they be said to exist?
Stranger: only as concepts
Stranger: i could actually link you a great podcast on this
You: define concept please. :P
You: yes, sure, thatd be great
Stranger: ok. i may make a mistake by accident, which is why i will link you in a minute. but this is my understanding
You: np
Stranger: there are different types of concepts
Stranger: let me link first, one sec
You: in regards to what ontology on existence do we define concepts?
You: also, i like to think that qualia and the "hard problem of consciousness" poses a real issue for materialism
Stranger: im not sure what you mean. i think there is a physical reality, and we use philosophy to designate things which exist in physical reality. like a tree. so a tree is both a physical thing which exists in physical reality, but also a concept which exists only in our mind. then there are concepts which exist *only* in our mind. like a forest.
Stranger: Im sorry, im going to be unfamiliar with a lot of academic refrences
You: yeah, but it seems that you are also implying then that the mind is a physical entity, or are you not?
Stranger: if all humans die, forests die. but if all humans die, trees are still there. does that make sense?
You: yeah, but that doesnt really challenge dualism. ;)
Stranger: right. which i was actually going to say i might be a dualist!
You: then i think we are both onboard :D haha
Stranger: good
Stranger: let me link you, then i have to go eat dinner
You: because a materialist has to also concede the mind being material somehow
You: okie
You: how could an object be such that its only material property is of being caused by material properties and still be defined as material?
You: i don't think there's a reasonable explanation for it on materialism. therefor i find materialism irrational
Stranger: what do you think of the free will determinism debate?
You: its a tough one
You: im not settled on it, but i sort of believe in freewill
You: dont ask me too much about it, or i will be angry with you. lol
Stranger: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2888/thou-shalt-not-talk-about-my-momma-saturday-call-in-show-january-17th-2015
Stranger: it doesnt start at 1 hour and 56 minutes, but that's where the call is. you can find the beginning for yourself.. lol sorry
Stranger: me neither, mostly because sometimes i think the determinist position isnt even really a position
Stranger: and of course religious free will have muddied the idea of what free will even is
Intressant. Även kul när man inom filosofi aldrig når några absoluta slutsatser gemensamt då man har såpass olika perspektiv på saker och ting. Argumenten går i cirklar till slut. Kommer sämst överens med materialister då jag är idealist. Och tar man hjälp av kvantfysiken så lär man sig att all materia är till 99.9999...% tomrum. Materian och dess soliditet är därför en illusion och idévärlden blir därmed rimligare, i mina ögon. Kvantfysiker har även hittat programmeringskod i ekvationer som beskriver universums fundamentala beståndsdelar, vilket får många att tro att vi lever i ett slags Matrix av information. Det är ej mitt område men jag är öppen för idén. Leker då med tanken om att våra medvetanden lever i The Sims 20 000 medan våra riktiga identiteter ligger däckade i en soffa i framtiden eller i en helt annan dimension av högre existens. Spelet har sina regler; du är konstant attraherad till marken, du kan ej penetrera föremål, du behöver äta, dricka och sova för att överleva. Och som i våra egna spel så är allt omkring dig information. Ett helt liv kanske motsvarar 20 minuter, sen börjar man om om man känner för det. Men det vore ju helt sinnesrubbat.
Du måste vara inloggad för att skriva i forumet