Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[Constance]

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hmmm ... this appears to be cruxy ... have a look at the first bits to see if you might agree.

From the IEP page above

7. The Incoherence of Solipsism

With the belief in the essential privacy of experience eliminated as false, the last presupposition underlying solipsism is removed and solipsism is shown as foundationless, in theory and in fact. One might even say, solipsism is necessarily foundationless, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing that he purportedly refuses to believe: the reality of intersubjectively valid criteria and a public, extra-mental world. There is a temptation to say that solipsism is a false philosophical theory, but this is not quite strong or accurate enough. As a theory, it is incoherent. What makes it incoherent, above all else, is that the solipsist requires a language (that is a sign-system) to think or to affirm his solipsistic thoughts at all. Given this, it is scarcely surprising that those philosophers who accept the Cartesian premises that make solipsism apparently plausible, if not inescapable, have also invariably assumed that language-usage is itself essentially private. The cluster of arguments - generally referred to as "the private language argument" - that we find in the Investigations against this assumption effectively administers the coup de grâce to both Cartesian dualism and solipsism. (I. § 202; 242-315). Language is an irreducibly public form of life that is encountered in specifically social contexts. Each natural language-system contains an indefinitely large number of "language-games," governed by rules that, though conventional, are not arbitrary personal fiats. The meaning of a word is its (publicly accessible) use in a language. To question, argue, or doubt is to utilize language in a particular way. It is to play a particular kind of public language-game. The proposition "I am the only mind that exists" makes sense only to the extent that it is expressed in a public language, and the existence of such language itself implies the existence of a social context. Such a context exists for the hypothetical last survivor of a nuclear holocaust, but not for the solipsist. A non-linguistic solipsism is unthinkable and a thinkable solipsism is necessarily linguistic. Solipsism therefore presupposes the very thing that it seeks to deny. That solipsistic thoughts are thinkable in the first instance implies the existence of the public, shared, intersubjective world that they purport to call into question."

 

[smcder]

Yes, I saw that. I was replying to his idea, not necessarily him.


Black box - Wikipedia


I've been wanting share my thoughts on this. I've been thinking about the best way to express them. Probably will take a drawing or two.

Re: solipsism

I think the article you linked is very interesting. Will read it entirely. I agree it gets to the heart of things discussed here.

I will be interested to see how they deal with the suppositions noted at the beginning.

Just to be clear, I'm not an idealist. I do believe there is an external, mind-independent reality. And that there are other minds.

yup, yessir I do know what a black box is ... but is this your idea/phrase and, if so, what are you trying to say by using the phrase?

 

[smcder]

Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

5) The Problem of Other Minds in Continental Philosophy

 

[victimized]

From the IEP page above

7. The Incoherence of Solipsism

With the belief in the essential privacy of experience eliminated as false, the last presupposition underlying solipsism is removed and solipsism is shown as foundationless, in theory and in fact. One might even say, solipsism is necessarily foundationless, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing that he purportedly refuses to believe: the reality of intersubjectively valid criteria and a public, extra-mental world. There is a temptation to say that solipsism is a false philosophical theory, but this is not quite strong or accurate enough. As a theory, it is incoherent. What makes it incoherent, above all else, is that the solipsist requires a language (that is a sign-system) to think or to affirm his solipsistic thoughts at all. Given this, it is scarcely surprising that those philosophers who accept the Cartesian premises that make solipsism apparently plausible, if not inescapable, have also invariably assumed that language-usage is itself essentially private. The cluster of arguments - generally referred to as "the private language argument" - that we find in the Investigations against this assumption effectively administers the coup de grâce to both Cartesian dualism and solipsism. (I. § 202; 242-315). Language is an irreducibly public form of life that is encountered in specifically social contexts. Each natural language-system contains an indefinitely large number of "language-games," governed by rules that, though conventional, are not arbitrary personal fiats. The meaning of a word is its (publicly accessible) use in a language. To question, argue, or doubt is to utilize language in a particular way. It is to play a particular kind of public language-game. The proposition "I am the only mind that exists" makes sense only to the extent that it is expressed in a public language, and the existence of such language itself implies the existence of a social context. Such a context exists for the hypothetical last survivor of a nuclear holocaust, but not for the solipsist. A non-linguistic solipsism is unthinkable and a thinkable solipsism is necessarily linguistic. Solipsism therefore presupposes the very thing that it seeks to deny. That solipsistic thoughts are thinkable in the first instance implies the existence of the public, shared, intersubjective world that they purport to call into question."

The human review status of self states....my 2 parents manifested as adult male and female. They were an equal body of manifested androgynous light selves who manifested world wide. The genetic difference of DNA per continent caused by the amount of magnetic interactive irradiation. The manifestation slightly different in each continent, yet the spirit was an equal self.

They lived spiritually on Earth as spiritual beings, they had sexual intercourse and they eventually died.

Their sons and daughters continued to sexually procreate the species....they lived communally and naturally, without science, occult practice or any conversion.

One day their son, a human male as a self owned consciousness, as a continent equal decided to do exploration about changed chemical reactions, after he began to take drugs.

Science/occultism the application taken by a drugged human male....therefore how can any of your concepts be valued as real?

The only reality exists as reality. The photon interaction with conversion of energy recorded each stage of the image/conversion change.

The male, a manifested self was converted from a higher spirit light body state into a lower condition organic state by the highest light sound in the atmospheric body....the body of the mass.

When the content of the mass of the atmosphere alters, so does his cellular health, his cellular life and his aging condition.

The human conception...a female has sex with a male as adults. The adults information for a baby within the female's body. The baby, born innocent is indoctrinated by its parental beliefs.....yet it is born without knowledge.

Occultists in modern time reviewing consciousness try to state that our innocent selves "know it all" and have been artificially attacking our consciousness by interacting it with machine applied AI transmitted and interactive states.

They gained this information from human phenomena after the human self was irradiated in conception and gained a changed physical and spiritual condition involving the condition phenomena. Phenomena is an increased cause and effect of converting nuclear matter increasing the amount of irradiation interaction with the cell.

Real condition on Earth as an occultist ideal....1 male adult and 1 female adult in near perfect health. The rest of the information is only formed/caused by the act of sexual procreation.

Do you as an occultist have our origin parents spirit....the answer is no. The only spirit present on modern day Earth is the spirit and physical DNA condition of a baby being conceived, a baby growing into an adult. Our origin parents manifested, not us.

Has the spiritual versus occult attack on our life caused our spiritual parents to advise us who we really are? Yes, at times human beings with real spiritual lives have lived as a human demonstration for the status....such as Sai Baba, the ability to manifest and demanifest as spiritual proof in the organic nature.

In the occult nature, the nature is natural in a chemical bond. The occultist attacks the chemical nature to convert the chemical and causes artificial states to exist in the conversion method. These conversion methods have nothing to do with any naturally formed bonds created in evolution as a status.

Information of occultism, conversion and cause and effects was never previously taught as concepts to the natural conscious self. Indoctrination against occultist cause and effects was taught to the human population for the purpose of saving the human and natural population from occult belief and occult destruction.

Destruction is the ability to purposefully attack evolution to alter evolution for the gain of power. The occultist has never been a Creator, he is in fact an inventor who takes natural creation and attacks/converts it natural product as an act of destruction.

So when an occultist who considers his own person in consciousness is the creator, he has always lied to his own self about his self conceived concept....for the only creation he achieves is through sexual intercourse.....not science.

 

[smcder]

In summary from the SEP article on Other Minds:

This article has been almost entirely concerned with the epistemological problem of other minds. What generates the problem has been carefully delineated. The standard solutions have been outlined and the various critical responses discussed. What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem. It has been argued that the problem cannot be removed, nor can it be made easier to solve, by embracing any particular philosophy of mind.

 

[Randall]

I didn't need a definition of either 'solipsism' or the term 'oxymoron' but rather was looking for an explanation of how you viewed the justification of the phrase 'neurological solipsism' as a philosophical concept and, further, how the concept could be described as an 'oxymoron' [which doesn't seem appropriate to me].

That's a different question. To answer it you'd have to clarify what you mean by "justified as a philosophical concept", otherwise technically speaking, all concepts are justified as being concepts, just like all people are justified as being people, but just like there are people who don't make much sense, not all concepts make sense. On why the phrase "neurological solipsism' is an oxymoron: Because you understand all the related concepts that were included in my first explanation, I can only conclude that you do understand the rationale there.

Yet there remains an interpretation of inappropriateness on your part. So If you would identify what part specifically doesn't seem appropriate given the parameters that were given in my explanation, and explain why you don't think it's appropriate, then perhaps that will pinpoint the issue and help us reach a resolution.

 

[Soupie]

yup, yessir I do know what a black box is ... but is this your idea/phrase and, if so, what are you trying to say by using the phrase?

No, it's definitely not my idea/phrase.

What I'm trying to say is that the brain creates a unified experience of external reality using non-unified input from external reality. Input that it receives indirectly by way of our sensory organs and pathways.

 

[smcder]

Here are some uses of "neurological solipsism" in context:

» David Lodge’s Thinks… Casting the Burden of Proof

Review: Why God Won't Go Away - Science on Religion

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...a4l-dVqyH-C6Pok8g&sig2=DVH_vuZfPS25d6uWI5OpTQ

 

[smcder]

No, it's definitely not my idea/phrase.

What I'm trying to say is that the brain creates a unified experience of external reality using non-unified input from external reality. Input that it receives indirectly by way of our sensory organs and pathways.

OK ... now what do you mean by unified experience and non-unified input? Do you just mean that the brain paints a picture of what is going on outside of it based on the input it gets from the various senses?

 

[Soupie]

OK ... now what do you mean by unified experience and non-unified input? Do you just mean that the brain paints a picture of what is going on outside of it based on the input it gets from the various senses?

Just? Haha. Sure. But it's important for my approach to highlight that the input it gets from the senses to paint the picture is often sparse and ambiguous, but the picture the brain paints is rich and phenomenally non-ambiguous. (Although some people apparently dispute this. That is, they argue that experience is not as rich as we experience it to be. Block touches on this in the Philosophy Bites podcast I linked above.)

 

[smcder]

Just? Haha. Sure. But it's important for my approach to highlight that the input it gets from the senses to paint the picture is often sparse and ambiguous, but the picture the brain paints is rich and phenomenally non-ambiguous. (Although some people apparently dispute this. That is, they argue that experience is not as rich as we experience it to be. Block touches on this in the Philosophy Bites podcast I linked above.)

I say "just" because I re-write the phrase:

"... the brain creates a unified experience of external reality using non-unified input from external reality. Input that it receives indirectly by way of our sensory organs and pathways."

as

the brain paints a picture of what is going on outside of it based on the input it gets from the various senses?

Here's another example of confusing language:

"... that is, they argue that experience is not as rich as we experience it to be."

I would need to track down Block's comments, but I don't want us to get side-tracked from clarifying our positions. For now we can look at:

But it's important for my approach to highlight that the input it gets from the senses to paint the picture is often sparse and ambiguous, but the picture the brain paints is rich and phenomenally non-ambiguous.

1. when you say "approach" do you have a comprehensive approach - or do you identify with a current approach? For me, I see value in a lot of ideas and possibilities, but I do not think any current approach has the possibility of answering all of our questions about consciousness, I'm not sure any given direction is yet correct ...

2. so it seems in the ital. phrase above that compared to the input from the sense, what we experience is rich and non-ambiguos, but I would ask "compared to what"? Are you saying that based on the input we get from the senses, you are surprised at how rich and unambiguous our experience is? If so, I would ask based on what expectation are you surprised? And it seems to me that initially our experience is ambiguous and not very rich, when we are very young, but as we grow and develop we have build this picture with memory and imagination ... which it seems is exactly what we would expect to happen ... right?

 

[smcder]

I'm afraid I don't see the 'essential identity' you do. Perhaps we can all make a collective effort in the thread to clarify the distinctions in our thinking about the relationship between consciousness/mind and world.

I agree that we should do this.

1. consciousness is fundamental - I do think consciousness, experience, maybe even POV are in some sense fundamental ... I think it is very hard for me not to think about this the way I think of fundamental aspects of what we call the physical/material - in other words, I think we should be careful thinking about little tiny bits of consciousness or proto-consciousness, for Chalmers thinking about it this way leads to the "combination problem" ... so it's very hard not to think about consciousness as a fluid or a field, or a particulate building block from which we build up our experiences - but I think we should try, because I think these metaphors are misleading.

2. I think we have no idea what to do with all the studies that show there are phenomena which are not currently explainable ... @Constance I recently came across something which was considered to be an update of "Irreducible Mind" I'll try to find it. For me, it may well be that ignoring this information is a major handicap to understanding consciousness.

3. We need to pay more attention to our own experience - I think the corrective that phenomenology provides needs to be a constant force, I do like what "neuro-phenomenology" says and does, but we also need a base corrective, a constant signal telling us that the real phenomena, the real thing is experience and to pay attention to it - not get abstracted from it - I have a nearly constant sense of "waking up" and I think it comes from trying to be rooted in this experience - as frightening as that can sometimes be. There is something crucial about having some aspect of our thinking unconstrained - in not laying down artificial tracks - I feel some research is based on subjective/cultural factors "free will" research or not noting the difference in outcomes between attentionally trained and naive subjects - instead of exploring the plasticity and open-mindedness of our experience and imagination.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder But you're assuming that what you've written is less confusing than what I've written. I can guarantee you that if I wrote the phrase "the brain paints a picture" you and @Constance would express bewilderment and confusion.

I'll respond to your last post when I get a moment.

 

[smcder]

@smcder But you're assuming that what you've written is less confusing than what I've written. I can guarantee you that if I wrote the phrase "the brain paints a picture" you and @Constance would express bewilderment and confusion.

I'll respond to your last post when I get a moment.

Try it some time ... ;-)

And think about this ... Constance and I are different people with different thoughts and ideas ... if we were twins, then you could dismiss both of us with the same argument, but since we are very different thinkers, you have to account for how you consistently manage to engender confusion in both of us! ;-)

Also, @Constance I believe has some experience as an editor of a university publication and has edited work for other people.

 

[smcder]

@smcder But you're assuming that what you've written is less confusing than what I've written. I can guarantee you that if I wrote the phrase "the brain paints a picture" you and @Constance would express bewilderment and confusion.

I'll respond to your last post when I get a moment.

And I would say TEST this theory - take your writing to a local college or post it on line, there are dozens of philosophy forums and writing forums, pick a few and post some writings with the express purpose of finding out if it's clear or not.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder And the two of you don't engender confusion in the rest of us? How about holding @Constance to the same expectations as you do me and @ufology and others in this thread.

Constance completely misunderstood the Chris fellows post. Thoughts on that?

She went on a 4 paragraph diatribe on my "bridge" typo.

It's a confusing topic. You have confused me and others and Constance has confused me and others.

For example, how consciousness can be fundamental is confusing. Is there one universal consciousness are there multiple individual consciousness? Hey, I'm confused by what you wrote!

 

[smcder]

That's a different question. To answer it you'd have to clarify what you mean by "justified as a philosophical concept", otherwise technically speaking, all concepts are justified as being concepts, just like all people are justified as being people, but just like there are people who don't make much sense, not all concepts make sense. On why the phrase "neurological solipsism' is an oxymoron: Because you understand all the related concepts that were included in my first explanation, I can only conclude that you do understand the rationale there.

Yet there remains an interpretation of inappropriateness on your part. So If you would identify what part specifically doesn't seem appropriate given the parameters that were given in my explanation, and explain why you don't think it's appropriate, then perhaps that will pinpoint the issue and help us reach a resolution.

@ufology post here is for me, a good example of another thread of the conversation I think is very important and that's that we have two quite different hemispheres at work - Ian McGilChrist explores the implications of the left hemisphere gradually gaining dominance in our culture in The Master and His Emissary

 

[smcder]

@smcder And the two of you don't engender confusion in the rest of us? How about holding @Constance to the same expectations as you do me and @ufology and others in this thread.

Constance completely misunderstood the Chris fellows post. Thoughts on that?

She went on a 4 paragraph diatribe on my "bridge" typo.

It's a confusing topic. You have confused me and others and Constance has confused me and others.

For example, how consciousness can be fundamental is confusing. Is there one universal consciousness are there multiple individual consciousness? Hey, I'm confused by what you wrote!

I don't remember @Constance completely misunderstanding Chris' post, so I will have to go and look at it - and she can also respond if she wants to.

How can I help you be less defensive? If I say something that seems pointed or cut and dried, too much, let me know - I know I can come across that way. With @ufology I don't think there is a root sincerity or interest in these issues and I intentionally came out hard on him when I came back to this thread. As I told him, I don't have time for nonsense or extremely literal logic-chopping pedantry that I sometimes feel is motivated by a need to prove himself smarter than EVERYONE or simply to create confusion and try to take control of the discussion. I may be wrong about all of that pop psychology, but I've not found interacting with him to be productive. That may be me - but it seems to be a pattern that goes over many threads on this forum with many others.

The point is, I do feel you have a sincere interest - but it also seems like a personal interest, you have some stake in these ideas and I think that's why you keep getting your toes stepped on - but again, it could be me/my personality - don't let it put you off and I'll try to do better.

As for confusion I engender, re-read and ask questions, that's what I'm here for now - I will try to answer questions and I will try to make my thinking and writing clear. But, I'm not selling a particular idea or point of view - I'm not trying to convince anyone, in particular, I'm not trying to convince myself. So, yes my thoughts and writing are not clear and I do want to improve both.

 

[smcder]

My first response to your 'conceptual translation'/interpretation of Chris's statements is to observe that the problems Chris is dealing with are problems in the Philosophy of Knowledge summarized in the trilemma Steve has referred to in the past, a set of propositions that we all need to become familiar with in order to continue our current discussion. My second response is that it appears that you, like Chris, take "neurological solipsism" to constitute the only valid interpretation of the 'real' nature of perception and consciousness, which remain unresolved issues in Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness Studies, and I disagree as usual with that view. It amounts, in my view, to a presupposition (which seems to fit the category of 'dogmatism' in the trilemma).

Two articles in wikipedia provide an overview of basic expressions of the trilemma in the history of philosophy, beginning with that provided by the Roman philosopher Sextus Empiricus and ending in the writing of the German philosopher Hans Albert in 1968. The trilemma is the source of the claim that 'what-is' is "turtles all the way down." I think we should search for and read Steve's earlier posts concerning the trilemma in addition to reading the two wiki articles linked below in order to reach some mutual understanding of the trilemma's relevance to the issues taken up in Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness Studies.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

@Soupie - this response?

 

[Soupie]

Here's another example of confusing language:

"... that is, they argue that experience is not as rich as we experience it to be."

And I would respond by saying in this case, as with many of the cases, it's the concept that's confusing, not the language.

This is inherent to discussion of consciousness.

I repeat, you, Constance, Pharoah, and others have posted things/ideas about consciousness that are unclear and/or confusing.

For now we can look at:

But it's important for my approach to highlight that the input it gets from the senses to paint the picture is often sparse and ambiguous, but the picture the brain paints is rich and phenomenally non-ambiguous.

1. when you say "approach" do you have a comprehensive approach - or do you identify with a current approach? For me, I see value in a lot of ideas and possibilities, but I do not think any current approach has the possibility of answering all of our questions about consciousness, I'm not sure any given direction is yet correct ...

No, I don't have a comprehensive approach. I am merely thinking about—and attempting to discuss—consciousness from various different approaches. For awhile I was focused on the relationship between consciousness and information. I still think there is a strong link between the contents of consciousness and (phenomena referred to as) information processes.

Lately, I've been focusing on solipsism, the nature of perception, and how they relate to the ontology of consciousness and the physical domain.

2. so it seems in the ital. phrase above that compared to the input from the sense, what we experience is rich and non-ambiguos, but I would ask "compared to what"? Are you saying that based on the input we get from the senses, you are surprised at how rich and unambiguous our experience is? If so, I would ask based on what expectation are you surprised? And it seems to me that initially our experience is ambiguous and not very rich, when we are very young, but as we grow and develop we have build this picture with memory and imagination ... which it seems is exactly what we would expect to happen ... right?

I tried to emphasize phenomenally non-ambiguous so as to distinguish from conceptual ambiguousness. The phenomenal experience of red is the phenomenal experience of red. No phenomena ambiguity.

The comparison would be to other information processes. There seems to be a disparity between output (conscious experience) compared to the input (physiological processes of sense organs) as compared to other systems that "paint pictures" from input.

I think predictive processing can begin to provide an answer here.

But sure making assumptions (hypotheses) and having them proved wrong is part of the process. Why shouldnt conscious experience of the world be rich despite the fact that the input is poor?

As for confusion I engender, re-read and ask questions, that's what I'm here for now - I will try to answer questions and I will try to make my thinking and writing clear. But, I'm not selling a particular idea or point of view - I'm not trying to convince anyone, in particular, I'm not trying to convince myself. So, yes my thoughts and writing are not clear and I do want to improve both.

And I would say the same.