Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 11

[Pharoah]

I don't see where that follows.

To say "if I was someone else" is only a manner of speaking - I can't be me and someone else - if I was someone else I would be someone else and would be that me, not this me, but then I could still ask the question - but as that someone else not as (me as someone else) or as everyone else. In other words, we are all in the same position to ask the question: WAIMANSE.

No... but if the question is indeed identical for each person asking it then the person asking it is one and the same as everyone else asking it regardless. If however, the question is non identical—not for being non identical words though of course—then WIAMANSE is pertinent.
I’ve been looking for this paradoxical rationale for a while.

 

[Pharoah]

I guess these are largely rhetorical questions...

1. so nature in itself does not emerge from nature in itself? or does not have physical properties?
How should I know?
How should you know that: "Everything physical (that has a physical property...) emerged from nothing but that nothing might be deemed to be nature in itself ..."?

2. antimatter is physical, I thought?

3. how do we conceive of "nothing" that may be nature in itself and therefore something?
no idea
Can it properly be said that one holds an inconceivable idea?

4. Finally, how does this relate to the idea of a singularity (Big Bang)?
it relates to the idea of a singularity completely.
Again, I thought a Singularity (the Big Bang) is a physical(ist) concept or idea?

Re antimatter you are probably correct. Re the Big Bang. Well... just ‘before’ it if that’s not an oxymoron.
Re. Inconceivable idea. What a fab term.

 

[smcder]

No... but if the question is indeed identical for each person asking it then the person asking it is one and the same as everyone else asking it regardless. If however, the question is non identical—not for being non identical words though of course—then WIAMANSE is pertinent.
I’ve been looking for this paradoxical rationale for a while.

The question is both - identical and non-identical:

Each persons asks, identically, why am (non-identical) I me and not someone else?

 

[smcder]

I think it's a logical, lexical "problem" not a philosophical one - we can all ask the identical question (if one has the cognitive capabilities - does that change things? and it occurs to them) without being an identical self - but having a self, in this instance, we are in an identical relation to it - vis a vis I/someone else ... I point to you, but you (I) point to me (you) ... if there is something metaphysical here, I really want to see it!

The symmetry is broken though for things like dead people:

WAIMANSDP?

Why am I me and not some dead person. WHEW! Dodged a bullet! (If I were everyone all at once this could be a problem!)

And we don't make the confusion of why am I someone else and not me? (And if so, what happened to the other person? When babies are born, what happened to the person they might have been!?)

If these questions were symmetrical to WAIMANSE, I wouldn't look to the I/me that we all are for the problem (lexicallly/logically).

 

[Pharoah]

The question is both - identical and non-identical:

Each persons asks, identically, why am (non-identical) I me and not someone else?

The words are identical. And the query has equal in origin. But the question is non-identical otherwise it would be the same person asking it

 

[Pharoah]

I think it's a logical, lexical "problem" not a philosophical one - we can all ask the identical question (if one has the cognitive capabilities - does that change things? and it occurs to them) without being an identical self - but having a self, in this instance, we are in an identical relation to it - vis a vis I/someone else ... I point to you, but you (I) point to me (you) ... if there is something metaphysical here, I really want to see it!

The symmetry is broken though for things like dead people:

WAIMANSD?

Why am I me and not someone already dead? WHEW! Dodged a bullet! If I were everyone all at once this could be a problem.

And we don't make the confusion of why am I someone else and not me and what happened to the other person? When babies are born, what happened to the person they might have been!?

If these questions were symmetrical to WAIMANSE, I wouldn't look to the I/me that we all are for the problem.

Lol. That cracked me up... WAIMANSD. Actually... you could be both!

 

[smcder]

The words are identical. And the query has equal in origin. But the question is non-identical otherwise it would be the same person asking it

I give the same response. And I edited the above a bit.

 

[smcder]

The words are identical. And the query has equal in origin. But the question is non-identical otherwise it would be the same person asking it

In some sense it is the same person (self) asking it - because it turns only on the bare I/me of personhood, not a particularity of the person. As opposed to questions like:

why are some people short?

Which is different from "Why did I turn out short? Could I have been taller?"

 

[Pharoah]

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

I think it's a logical, lexical "problem" not a philosophical one - we can all ask the identical question (if one has the cognitive capabilities - does that change things? and it occurs to them) without being an identical self - but having a self, in this instance, we are in an identical relation to it - vis a vis I/someone else ... I point to you, but you (I) point to me (you) ... if there is something metaphysical here, I really want to see it!

The symmetry is broken though for things like dead people:

WAIMANSDP?

Why am I me and not some dead person. WHEW! Dodged a bullet! (If I were everyone all at once this could be a problem!)

And we don't make the confusion of why am I someone else and not me? (And if so, what happened to the other person? When babies are born, what happened to the person they might have been!?)

If these questions were symmetrical to WAIMANSE, I wouldn't look to the I/me that we all are for the problem (lexicallly/logically).

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

 

[smcder]

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

Not in an identical relation to what? WAIMANSE? I think we are.

But what is the metaphysical conclusion you draw? Or why does your not being a physicalist turn on this?

 

[Soupie]

Nature you define as "nature in itself" the idea of in-itself at least brings up Ding an sich which is fabulously controversial

yes... I kind of prefer 'intrinsic' to 'in itself'; perhaps @Soupie thinks of them as different (?).

I do prefer the term "in itself" to intrinsic, if intrinsic is defined as the non-relational property of nature. The reason being that nature appears to be, in itself, relational, that is to say, interactive. Again, the distinction between relational and nonrelational properties is not what I'm after.

I could use the term "mind-independent" nature, but someone will inevitably say "oh, you mean matter."

How about "nature as it is" versus "nature as we perceive it to be." That is the difference I'm trying to capture.

... but many would not equate ... nature interacting with itself as physical properties...

Also I agree with the questioning of 'nature interacting with itself'

I thought physical properties were relational properties? Is it problematic to equate relation and interaction? If the physical properties are not nature interacting/relating to itself, what are they?

but many would not equate ... nature perceiving itself as phenomenal/perceptual ... properties.

Also I agree with the questioning of 'nature perceiving itself'

If nature is not perceiving itself, what is perceiving itself? Do we need to bring in a supernatural element? A supernatural self/observer? Something outside of nature?

I agree that many would not equate perception with phenomenal/perceptual properties. Many people seem to think that perception is direct; that our mind (?) somehow flows out of our bodies and directly interacts with nature.

Some would say that all of nature does not perceive all of itself ... or might try to relate this to how they might perceive themselves.

To clarify, I don't mean to say that all of nature perceives all of nature. Perception is a process that happens within nature, most notably with organisms. As to the second concern, I mean perception in the nervous system sense, not the psychological sense.

This is along the lines of problems with "subject"/"experience" - an experience requires a subject and subjects require experience

Gotcha. If we say an organism evolved that had the property of perception, it would be coherent to say that "nature was perceiving itself." In fact, that's what I mean.

(I'm about to lose any and all free time, so I will have to step away for the forseeable future.)

 

[smcder]

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-you-you-and-not-someone-else

 

[smcder]

r/philosophy - Why am I me, instead of someone else?

 

[smcder]

I think I posted Klaasen's paper a while back too.

https://philarchive.org/archive/KLAWAI-2

"Because I, as the subject, am also part of the presentational content that constitutes my point of view, I am at once subject and object to myself. So in addition to my thoughts, emotions, and my perceptions of the external world, I myself am also presented as an object within the confines of my particular point of view. And this further adds to the sense of contigency that is involved in grasping the fact that I happen to be Tim Klaassen. When I think about myself as the subject of my perceptions, I become a kind of object to myself. But in this act of cognizing myself there seems to occur yet another kind of subject/object distinction. And this makes it that not only I can imagine that I could have had different perceptions from the ones I currently have, but also that this object, that I conceive of when I think about myself as subject, could have been different. However, if the presentational contents of a particular point of view are wholly defined not only by the objects that appear in it, but also by the particular subject that is perceiving them, it is not difficult to see that no two subjects could ever have access to the same point of view. For even if it is metaphysically possible for two subjects to occupy each other’s point of view, the very presentational contents by which these points of view are defined, would immediately be altered. And consequently, I could never enter another subject’s point of view without changing the contents of that point of view. The only way in which I could experience another one’s point of view is to become the other one. But in this case, it would not be me who is experiencing that point of view, but the other. And thus, we would suppose a change in perspective without any change. It seems then that the sense of contingency that accompanies the fact that I am Tim Klaassen is really illusory. Wherever there exists the selfconscious human being that is Tim Klaassen, I am necessesarily there, present to his point of view. And this gives my existence a very real and robust quality. No matter what, as long as Tim Klaassen is alive, I am here and no one else. It could not be otherwise."

 

[smcder]

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

But... @smcder we are not in an identical relation to it.

Here is a better answer to it - neither one of us, alone, is in an identical relation to it (the dyad) - one relating to two, but together we are (two relating to two, closing the symmetry). You keep saying it in relation to "I" (you) when I think of it in terms of we:

WAWWWAANEE!

Why are we who we are and not everyone else?

 

[Constance]

On another subject (excuse me for interrupting) there is something happening today/tonight called The Full Flower Moon, being captured by telescopes around the planet as it comes into view. Here is a link to a live program, with video taped for later, from the Shooh Observatory in the Canary Islands:

Watch Live Tonight! Slooh's Full Flower Moon Webcast Starts @ 7 pm ET

 

[smcder]

On another subject (excuse me for interrupting) there is something happening today/tonight called The Full Flower Moon, being captured by telescopes around the planet as it comes into view. Here is a link to a live program, with video taped for later, from the Shooh Observatory in the Canary Islands:

Watch Live Tonight! Slooh's Full Flower Moon Webcast Starts @ 7 pm ET

Please do interrupt!

 

[Soupie]

From above, yesterday, I can't tell whether this last sentence is Steve's or @Soupie's. But my question is the same no matter which.



When/where did we pick up this usage of the verb 'infer' to refer to the ways in which we acquire -- gradually acquire -- knowledge concerning parts of the world and what we call 'the world' and the differing and various ways in which we do so, by virtue of our own awareness and developing consciousness? If I recall correctly, it was @Soupie who began using this term, so I hope he will reply and clarify his reasons for doing so.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Is Perception a 'Controlled Hallucination'?

 

[Pharoah]

Not in an identical relation to what? WAIMANSE? I think we are.

But what is the metaphysical conclusion you draw? Or why does your not being a physicalist turn on this?

What a hangover... last thing I remember is fangs rising from my gums and hair sprouting from the back of my hands!
@smcder "Not in an identical relation to what?"
you said
"we can all ask the identical question ... without being an identical self - but having a self, in this instance, we are in an identical relation to it - vis a vis I/someone else ... I point to you, but you (I) point to me (you) ... if there is something metaphysical here, I really want to see it!"

 

[Pharoah]

Here is a better answer to it - neither one of us, alone, is in an identical relation to it (the dyad) - one relating to two, but together we are (two relating to two, closing the symmetry). You keep saying it in relation to "I" (you) when I think of it in terms of we:

WAWWWAANEE!

Why are we who we are and not everyone else?

"one relating to two, but together we are" is that another madonna quote?
We? there is no "we" about it. Perhaps, 'why is one who one is and not someone else'?... if you like, but I don't... perhaps we should move on from this old chestnut.