Natural and "Fortean Natural"

[Michael Allen]

@Michael Allen ... I should hope you would be thinking of a better response. Jeff's opinion that, "When we make time based measurements, we are making them strictly relevant to ourselves." can be demonstrated to be false in about 2 seconds. The time based measurements in the following link for example deal with time based measurements for other people in a completely different place that have nothing to do with me. In fact I didn't even read through them: http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do;jsessionid=92E499FB85AB6C76E821FF03CDD76A1A.web2:8009?airportCode=YYZ&airportQueryType=1

Of course there are also more examples. In the kind of experiments where we send clocks into space, there is also a control clock back on the ground to compare the moving clock with, and therefore the "relevance" of the measurements is what is happening between the two clocks, regardless of the time on them or who is looking at them. Consciousness has no bearing.

The only exception to these kinds of examples is if we assume that "relevance" is only determined by a subjective observer, in which case we can reduce everything to the same weak subjective idealism that we've already been through.

Well I am struggling with the notion of time as pure phenomenon vs. the factuality of time. There's an existential time which bears on our interpretation of the clock readings and in our noticing relations like before and after with reference to some simultaneity. Simultaneity is of course dependent on your reference frame, but that reference frame is also recognized by the reading of a locus of measuring devices located in that frame. Now the mechanism(s) that register the event might as well be the human sensory apparatus alone (you lose nothing by locating the registration to a human body organism as opposed to a physical extension thereof). Now consciousness does not bear on this relation, however the physical basis of simultaneity seems also to be a basis for consciousness. Without these relations in time of the observer consciousness would cease to exist. So my struggle should not be presumed to be yielding to a consciousness-causality relation going toward time, but in reverse--i.e that temporality underlies the formation of our ability to ascertain our own being and that of objective presence. That this means that we "make them strictly relevant to ourselves" is a phenomenon itself where we seem to turn our model inward or otherwise make an interior-izing presence-ing of the spatiality and temporality of events and then project them out into the world of existence. This relevance, being based on our encounter with being and the world of things (both the modes of pure presence and our own artifacts like tools, equipment and methods...) is strictly interior, but also strictly ourselves working in the world. Without this world of things that are objectively present there is nothing for which we can base anything like "consciousness" on--and also we cannot even imagine formulating temporality in either the world of things as themselves (without a being that makes an issue for itself) nor can we strictly confine the phenomenon of temporality to pure "mental" existence. It as almost as if we need to dispense with the "interior/exterior" way of looking at things and ourselves (again the cartesian virtual machine gets in the way!).

 

[Randall]

Well I am struggling with the notion of time as pure phenomenon vs. the factuality of time.

What's to struggle with? Time is simply change. It's been taking place since the beginning of the universe, long before humans ever existed, and will probably continue to do so long after were gone. Therefore time itself is not the least bit dependent on our subjective ( phenomenological ) interpretation of it, unless of course you believe that all the scientific evidence regarding what happened before humans came along is some kind of illusion built into your purely subjective experience? Somehow I don't think you're all that invested in such nonsense. If that were the case we might as well give equal credit to the creationists who think the world is only 6000 years old and dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith and confuse non-believers. After all their "phenomenological reality" should be just as valid as anyone else's? Right?

 

[Jeff Davis]

What's to struggle with? Time is simply change. It's been taking place since the beginning of the universe, long before humans ever existed, and will probably continue to do so long after were gone. Therefore time itself is not the least bit dependent on our subjective ( phenomenological ) interpretation of it, unless of course you believe that all the scientific evidence regarding what happened before humans came along is some kind of illusion built into your purely subjective experience? Somehow I don't think you're all that invested in such nonsense. If that were the case we might as well give equal credit to the creationists who think the world is only 6000 years old and dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith and confuse non-believers. After all their "phenomenological reality" should be just as valid as anyone else's? Right?

The above emboldened statements are sheer opinion for which there is zero scientific fact to back. There are only group approved inperpretations. Your example in no way whatsoever disavows human observation. That cannot be done, no matter how you distance or separate yourself as the actual measurements take place. There is also the fact that time has never been demonstrated to "be" change. That change is only, and completely, relevant to our observations and have zero relevancy apart from those observations. Demonstrate differently, or simply admit that you HOLD a differing opinion.

Proof is a strong word, and it is my contention that you have none apart from group accepted opinion. I have that much myself.

 

[Michael Allen]

What's to struggle with? Time is simply change. It's been taking place since the beginning of the universe, long before humans ever existed, and will probably continue to do so long after were gone. Therefore time itself is not the least bit dependent on our subjective ( phenomenological ) interpretation of it, unless of course you believe that all the scientific evidence regarding what happened before humans came along is some kind of illusion built into your purely subjective experience? Somehow I don't think you're all that invested in such nonsense. If that were the case we might as well give equal credit to the creationists who think the world is only 6000 years old and dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith and confuse non-believers. After all their "phenomenological reality" should be just as valid as anyone else's? Right?

Neither ontic time nor ontological temporality depend on our subjective interpretation, however both underlie and form the condition for the possibility of what you call subjective experience. Experienced "time" or "temporality" is not an interpretation as if you are processing the understanding as symbols. Nor is the "understanding" something that is explicitly or overtly "noticed" aside from a breakdown--i.e. "I didn't get to the train station before it left!" I am not talking about anything like "pure subjective experience" and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism. Neither am I endorsing an 'anything goes' notion of "phenomenonology" -- in fact what you are citing are examples of really really bad phenomenology. You're coming at this problem from an epistemological perspective--which is an outdated way of looking at the problem (who now teaches courses on "epistemology?") The "problem" of validity is not even in question here because the problem itself arose from the bad assumptions applied from cartesianism to the logics within representational and functional models of the mind.

(1) Formulating a "world" without a being that makes an issue for itself
(2)Formulating a being that makes its being an issue to itself without a world

Both views are extremes are taken in retaliation to the other and they are both wrong because they dismiss the equiprimordiality of both aspects or modes.

 

[Jeff Davis]

1.Neither ontic time nor ontological temporality depend on our subjective interpretation, however both underlie and form the condition for the possibility of what you call subjective experience. Experienced "time" or "temporality" is not an interpretation as if you are processing the understanding as symbols. Nor is the "understanding" something that is explicitly or overtly "noticed" aside from a breakdown--i.e. "I didn't get to the train station before it left!" I am not talking about anything like "pure subjective experience" and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism. Neither am I endorsing an 'anything goes' notion of "phenomenonology" -- in fact what you are citing are examples of really really bad phenomenology. You're coming at this problem from an epistemological perspective--which is an outdated way of looking at the problem (who now teaches courses on "epistemology?") The "problem" of validity is not even in question here because the problem itself arose from the bad assumptions applied from cartesianism to the logics within 2. representational and functional models of the mind.

(1) Formulating a "world" without a being that makes an issue for itself
(2)Formulating a being that makes its being an issue to itself without a world

Both views are extremes are taken in retaliation to the other and they are both wrong because they dismiss the equiprimordiality of both aspects or modes.

1. Can science demonstrate this apart from sentience Michael?

2. Do these exist as fact, or are they scientific theoretical propositions?

I have a serious problem accepting things scientifically based on empirical opinion alone, minus the extensive hard and controlled testing part. That which is observed as repeatedly testable under controlled conditions produce factual information as a beneficial followup. That which is not should be labeled "unknown".

The dangers of as much have been documented via many processes. One that comes to mind wherein actual big pharma commercial application's initial studies showed one result, whereas no real life relevancy other than a decline in effectiveness over time was shown in relation to that initial testing via follow up testing. Objectively, it would seem that "trust" shouldn't be something in anyway considered ontological, but rather an absolute provision of science.

as an example: The decline effect and the scientific method : The New Yorker

How much more so dangerous is it to accept things that have never been tested under controlled circumstances?

 

[Randall]

Neither ontic time nor ontological temporality depend on our subjective interpretation, however both underlie and form the condition for the possibility of what you call subjective experience. Experienced "time" or "temporality" is not an interpretation as if you are processing the understanding as symbols. Nor is the "understanding" something that is explicitly or overtly "noticed" aside from a breakdown--i.e. "I didn't get to the train station before it left!" I am not talking about anything like "pure subjective experience" and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism. Neither am I endorsing an 'anything goes' notion of "phenomenonology" -- in fact what you are citing are examples of really really bad phenomenology. You're coming at this problem from an epistemological perspective--which is an outdated way of looking at the problem (who now teaches courses on "epistemology?") The "problem" of validity is not even in question here because the problem itself arose from the bad assumptions applied from cartesianism to the logics within representational and functional models of the mind.

(1) Formulating a "world" without a being that makes an issue for itself
(2)Formulating a being that makes its being an issue to itself without a world

Both views are extremes are taken in retaliation to the other and they are both wrong because they dismiss the equiprimordiality of both aspects or modes.

I'm not seeing valid counterpoint. I'm seeing proclamations of "bad assumptions" and "bad phenomenology" without reference or explanation. Particularly troublesome is your claim that, " pure subjective experience and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism." Cartesianism is an extremely vague term that if anything, by its association with Descartes, points away from subjective idealism and it's related cousins. So maybe we need to get down to the brass tacks here. Without going into some extended essay, do you believe that reality as a whole is entirely dependent on the existence of our minds or not? If not, then logically you cannot do away with dualism. There appears to be no way around it no matter how gracefully you want to skate.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm not seeing valid counterpoint. I'm seeing proclamations of "bad assumptions" and "bad phenomenology" without reference or explanation. Particularly troublesome is your claim that, " pure subjective experience and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism." Cartesianism is an extremely vague term that if anything, by its association with Descartes, points away from subjective idealism and it's related cousins. So maybe we need to get down to the brass tacks here. Without going into some extended essay, do you believe that reality as a whole is entirely dependent on the existence of our minds or not? If not, then logically you cannot do away with dualism. There appears to be no way around it no matter how gracefully you want to skate.

I know you did not address me personally, but it seems that Michael is like I was yesterday. He may be low on time and he is being leaned on pretty hard here, for which there is a real abundance of gratitude I ahve already witnessed from you and others on the forum.

With respect to your bottom line question: I certainly do not, and I am thinking that nothing in science supports as much beyond crazy opinion. There are so many aspects to "Dualism" that it's easy to see where confusion could run away with the whole nine yards. The subject and the object are one, but of course man and woman with respect to procreation is another, evil vs. good, endless dichotomies.

 

[Randall]

Time is simply change. It's been taking place since the beginning of the universe, long before humans ever existed, and will probably continue to do so long after were gone.

The above emboldened statements are sheer opinion for which there is zero scientific fact to back. There are only group approved inperpretations ...

Really? Zero scientific fact that time has been taking place since the beginning of the universe? You've really gone and stepped off the edge with this one. I'll grant that we don't have scientific proof that time will continue long after we're gone because that is impossible to know until after the fact ( in which case we'd be gone ), but that's also beside the point. Let's start with something close, the Sun. Are you saying there is zero scientific fact to show that the Sun existed before humans? How about the Milky Way Galaxy? You're sounding so absolutely completely ridiculous that I can't even believe I need to defend my position with all the billions and billions ( to quote Sagan ) more examples there are out there. In fact I'm not even going to go beyond this point with it. I'm just going to shake my head instead.

 

[Jeff Davis]

But is it not true that time could just as easily be a distance?

I NEVER stated that what we observe as time does not exist. It exists for us, relative to us, because our consciousness and it's interactions with the universe that make it so. This is called experience. What I did state however is that time, apart from our own sentience, has no way of being measured or defined so we cannot therefore claim it exists apart from us as we perceive it to be measurable and exist for us. How can we emphatically state that time exists apart from us?

IMO, relativity exists because of consciousness. Remember, ALL of Einstein's discoveries/theories (many are being dramatically called into question everyday these days) were initially contrivances based on his personal philosophies as a very young person first, and science second. That's precisely why he had several nervous breakdowns during his lifetime. He was far more right than he was left and the taxation on his mind was not only uncompromising, it was literally too much for him. He's still the man however, and always will be. What a guy! He was a thousand times the philosopher than he ever was the mathematician.

 

[Randall]

But is it not true that time could just as easily be a distance?

Just as easily as what? Just as easily as a pigs can fly? Sure.

I NEVER stated that what we observe as time does not exist.

Whatever. I don't know what that refers to.

It exists for us, relative to us, because our consciousness and it's interactions with the universe that make it so. This is called experience. What I did state however is that time, apart from our own sentience, has no way of being measured or defined so we cannot therefore claim it exists apart from us as we perceive it to be measurable and exist for us. How can we emphatically state that time exists apart from us?

We can emphatically state that time exists apart from us because the universe, galaxies, the Sun, and even our planet were all here long before we were, and it was only by the passage of time before we were here, and hence apart from us, that humans eventually evolved. We didn't just pop into existence along with everything around us. Honestly.

IMO, relativity exists because of consciousness.

If you want, you can reduce everything down to "It only exists because of consciousness." and therefore it's a meaningless argument unless you are taking the position that all reality is the product of your mind alone, in which case you'll end up having to justify all the observations to the contrary as elaborate illusions designed for some unspecified purpose.

Remember, ALL of Einstein's discoveries/theories (many are being dramatically called into question everyday these days) were initially contrivances based on his personal philosophies as a very young person first, and science second. That's precisely why he had several nervous breakdowns during his lifetime. He was far more right than he was left and the taxation on his mind was not only uncompromising, it was literally too much for him. He's still the man however, and always will be. What a guy! He was a thousand times the philosopher than he ever was the mathematician.

And your point? If you want to understand time ( as opposed to our experience of time ), try looking at it objectively ( with a rational mind ). It will give you a more coherent picture.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Just as easily as what? Just as easily as a pigs can fly? Sure.

Whatever. I don't know what that refers to.

We can emphatically state that time exists apart from us because the universe, galaxies, the Sun, and even our planet were all here long before we were, and it was only by the passage of time before we were here, and hence apart from us, that humans eventually evolved. We didn't just pop into existence along with everything around us. Honestly.

If you want, you can reduce everything down to "It only exists because of consciousness." and therefore it's a meaningless argument unless you are taking the position that all reality is the product of your mind alone, in which case you'll end up having to justify all the observations to the contrary as elaborate illusions designed for some unspecified purpose.

And your point? If you want to understand time ( as opposed to our experience of time ), try looking at it objectively ( with a rational mind ). It will give you a more coherent picture.

Ufology,
How condescending of you. Thanks so much for your time.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, How condescending of you. Thanks so much for your time.

Will you never start dealing with the issues and stop making it personal whenever you don't like an answer? Condescension is, "behavior or an example of behavior that implies that somebody is graciously lowering himself or herself to the level of people less important or intelligent." ( Encarta ). For starters I'm not saying you're less or more intelligent, nor am I "graciously lowering myself". I'm simply telling you how things are with an emphasis on the fact that it should be painfully obvious. If you don't agree with that, then like I've said before, provide valid counterpoint by addressing the issues and providing evidence or reasons, not by making personality judgments.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ufology,
I will wait on Michael if it's OK with you. He doesn't find it necesary to take the same tone with me that you do. I have never avoided any issues, nor have I ever failed to provide an intelligent discussion. We just simply do not agree. You call Quantum Physics and Mechanics based research new age mysticism. I call the notion of aliens from outer space contrivances from Star Trek. Aparently we are each too small to get over ourselves without playing games with no one other than ourselves.

You cannot prove your position. I cannot prove mine. These limitations should be impetus for discussions a plenty amongst us, instead we find our egos battering around a puck of sheer paranormal ambiguity all in the name of our glorious self importance.

I am finding it easier and easier to admit that I really don't know so many things. For me, this what keeps life interesting and vital.

 

[Michael Allen]

1. Can science demonstrate this apart from sentience Michael?

Consider the alternative, which actually destroys the scientific method altogether: if time and temporality had its totality of bases within subjective interpretation, then were would you find the role for subjective experience? In fact it is the other way around, both time and temporality are the condition for the possibility of any subjective experience and subsequent interpretation. Without it we wouldn't even know what we meant by "method."

2. Do these exist as fact, or are they scientific theoretical propositions?

They are pre-theoretical--in that they are assumed in the very basis of our scientific interpretive frameworks. They are like the water to a fish, or the air to the bird, unnoticed. We don't know that we've already assumed them in the formulation of our own scientific understanding, so they lie hidden with exception of course where the role of ontic time is assessed within a larger frame of questioning. But the very act of questioning assumes the temporal basis. So much so for the answers to the same questioning.

I have a serious problem accepting things scientifically based on empirical opinion alone, minus the extensive hard and controlled testing part. That which is observed as repeatedly testable under controlled conditions produce factual information as a beneficial followup. That which is not should be labeled "unknown".

Well its not empirical opinion (not sure what this even means to tell you the truth)--it is part of our everyday existence that we take for granted. Just because we turn our attention to the basis or the conditions for the possibilities of our own ability to question and arrive at answers, doesn't make those same conditions lacking in validity.

The dangers of as much have been documented via many processes. One that comes to mind wherein actual big pharma commercial application's initial studies showed one result, whereas no real life relevancy other than a decline in effectiveness over time was shown in relation to that initial testing via follow up testing. Objectively, it would seem that "trust" shouldn't be something in anyway considered ontological, but rather an absolute provision of science.

Trust is definitely not ontic, but the conditions for the possibility of trust lies in the field of the They...without other beings that make their own being an issue for itself in the world, we have no foundation for any "conception" like "trust." But trust is not an absolute provision in science because science itself is the network of interrelations between our own working with equipment, tools, and methods and in our examination of objective presence. That objective presence itself does not present itself as a relation of "trust" phenomenologically, but of a working out or striving and coping with the world and things (as well as other people) in doing the same. The cleared (i.e. opened, freed) shared world between all individuals constitutes the condition of the possibility for moods to develop with regard to our relations with other beings (i.e. people), but these conditions themselves are by nature based on the same shared relations. Trust isn't something to be "encountered" as a negative space of possible lies, but as a deficient mode of existence after a de-worlding has occurred. Trust isn't the active mode of inter-subjective participation toward united goals, but a phenomenon caused by a breakdown when individuals throw away the foundations of their own understanding in order to have a "3rd person perspective" interpretive framework that creates interpretation and understanding without individuals to contain the very roles posited in the framework. Btw, ufology...this is a clear example where bad phenomenology erupts on the scene and destroys its own foundation in trying to answer a ridiculous question: "how do I understand stuff?"

as an example: The decline effect and the scientific method : The New Yorker

Give me some time to read through this ...will comment on later.

How much more so dangerous is it to accept things that have never been tested under controlled circumstances?

This is a bad idea, but even more dangerous is to discount the very unquestioned bases and condition for the possibility of human methods and cooperative activity. We cannot quietly assume these bases within our questioning framework while asking the same question regarding the same without falling off a precipice into an abyss of absolute confusion.

 

[Michael Allen]

I'm not seeing valid counterpoint. I'm seeing proclamations of "bad assumptions" and "bad phenomenology" without reference or explanation. Particularly troublesome is your claim that, " pure subjective experience and indeed those terms are already polluted by the philosophic tradition founded on cartesianism." Cartesianism is an extremely vague term that if anything, by its association with Descartes, points away from subjective idealism and it's related cousins. So maybe we need to get down to the brass tacks here. Without going into some extended essay, do you believe that reality as a whole is entirely dependent on the existence of our minds or not? If not, then logically you cannot do away with dualism. There appears to be no way around it no matter how gracefully you want to skate.

Short answer: No I do not believe reality is either entirely dependent or independent of our "minds."

Longer answer: what you call a "mind" is that on the basis of which a being sees itself in a world of other beings and develops an understanding and interpretation of that world...without the terms of "world," "others" you would have no "mind"--likewise without time or temporality, you have no understanding, no interpretation ...and you don't even have a "world," (though you may have a "universe!") therefore no mind. Dualism cannot claim this, because it asserts mind as a self-sufficient entity. A better formulation of the term "mind" is a self in it's self being absorbed in a "world" of relations between itself and others and other things...without things you have no mind, without mind you have no "relations-to" for which to base any existential claim. That does not mean of course that the conditions for the possibility of existence vanish away because the mind is dissolved into the rest of the objective presenc-ed things. Dualism breaks down because it cannot answer a simple question: how does the mind affect matter and vice versa?

Really long-winded answer that goes on a few tangents:
I think you are correct--I have provided examples of this in other posts and simply forgot to re-add them here again. Pure subjective experience should be an avoided phrase because it assumes the divisions between subject/object and posits this as a false bases for the conditions of the possibility for existence. But as I have shown before, this division is an example of a poorly applied phenomenology whereby you trust your own instinctual (which could be wrong, many human instincts are simply wrong) understanding as a foundation for the source of both your instinctual understanding as well as the fundamental constitution of the "world." Cartesianism, as I define it, is any system that posits an ontological difference between mind and matter. Indeed to even make mention of these notions in discourse betrays the underlying assumptions. Regardless of how you think you see the world in such and such way, that thinking must be conditioned by the very things you are asking questions about--so you forget to notice the foundation of the question. This is not to say that your understanding falls into Jeff's abyss of contextual dismissal--but that to realize your understanding as erupting from a mode of existence--an output from a virtual machine that has pulled together the references of your world into something intelligible, you forget to inquire of the data format of the references. This data format is "transparent" as the very equipment your brain uses to show you as yourself naively connected to the world in an uncannily direct manner. That you are not aware of this connective tissue that forms the brain/world barrier is an astonishing feat of millions of years of evolution. Unless someone pokes your eye out or rips a limp from your body, you feel as though you yourself are immersed in the world directly. This conditioning, which lies even outside your own lifespan, cannot be left alone in the act of questioning being or even of the bad foundations of "mind/matter" dualism. At breakdown you may feel this "duality" and claim it is something that is self-evident or at least obvious to yourself and therefore others.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I will wait on Michael if it's OK with you. He doesn't find it necesary to take the same tone with me that you do ...

OK Jeff. Suit yourself. Pick and choose what to believe based on how good it makes you feel and how much it matches what you want to believe. That's sure to get you all the answers you want to hear, and there will no doubt be more than one person who is happy to oblige you along the way. Don't kid yourself though. I don't think Michael will be one of them.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Consider the alternative, which actually destroys the scientific method altogether: if time and temporality had its totality of bases within subjective interpretation, then were would you find the role for subjective experience? In fact it is the other way around, both time and temporality are the condition for the possibility of any subjective experience and subsequent interpretation. Without it we wouldn't even know what we meant by "method."

Time is assuredly, in an elementary sense, an absolutely accurate measuring device relative to our consciousness induced experience. Literally, you have provided a monstrously powerful insight, into what is the frequency based entrainment of human consciousness. Whether we are stacking and sequencing event information, or utilizing a highly accurate artificial (mechanized) reference device called a clock, we constantly access our memory to establish a cognitive base of reason on which to make time based measurements, further on which relative judgements are made that determine our native relationship between a definitive point in space and infinity. This in itself is proved a fallible method of reasonable discernment due to the existence of memory based perception contamination. Time is either an absolute, or it is inherent in nature. Either it provides unity, or it does not. Since we know that time both warps and dilates due to controlled experimental data, a progressive logic of hypothetical experiential data would suggest that time is being witnessed in accord with both the influence it has over us, as well as the influence we have over it. In other words, in nature, time is both impressionable as well as actively impressed upon, with respect to our relative sentient experience. BTW, I honestly do not believe that the existence of a "time is subjective" platform to be a valid one in the least. That is an utter falsehood and is assuredly not what I am stating with respect to consciousness. What I am stating is that consciousness is not the mind. Consciousness is an unseen sentient field of awareness that actually demonstrates itself via human experience. Consciousness equates to a unity of possibilities, not in a deterministic sense, but rather in a natural interfacial sense.

Well its not empirical opinion (not sure what this even means to tell you the truth)--it is part of our everyday existence that we take for granted. Just because we turn our attention to the basis or the conditions for the possibilities of our own ability to question and arrive at answers, doesn't make those same conditions lacking in validity.

My apologies for the sarcasm. It's really just a poke at the tremendous lack of empiricism vs. what I refer to as "the consensus of contemporary commercial science". What you are stating here is so true, it simply cannot be argued with because of it's definitively pre corruption based nature. No question. One must never throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you so much Michael. I have already learned more than I can thank you for. I am NOT done here. Just out of what else? Time, that's all.

 

[Randall]

Short answer: No I do not believe reality is either entirely dependent or independent of our "minds."

OK the first part of the answer is sufficient. If reality as a whole isn't entirely dependent on the existence of our minds, then whether or not any minds are in the picture isn't relevant the issue of what constitutes reality as a whole. Some portion of reality exists independent of our minds, therefore duality exists.

Longer answer: what you call a "mind" is that on the basis of which a being sees itself in a world of other beings and develops an understanding and interpretation of that world...

No the above is not the basis upon which the issue of minds is relevant. Like I said, as soon as reality as a whole is no longer dependent on minds, then the issue of minds is beside the point and can be taken out of equation altogether, in which case there would only be the universe without any minds to admire it and complicate things. Where minds come into the picture is as soon as a single being that is able of perceiving and contemplating a universe is introduced into it, then we suddenly have the universe + an abstraction of the universe within the mind of that being, resulting in dualism, and I still see no way to avoid this state of affairs.

Really long-winded answer that goes on a few tangents:
I think you are correct--I have provided examples of this in other posts and simply forgot to re-add them here again. Pure subjective experience should be an avoided phrase because it assumes the divisions between subject/object and posits this as a false bases for the conditions of the possibility for existence. But as I have shown before, this division is an example of a poorly applied phenomenology whereby you trust your own instinctual (which could be wrong, many human instincts are simply wrong) understanding as a foundation for the source of both your instinctual understanding as well as the fundamental constitution of the "world." Cartesianism, as I define it, is any system that posits an ontological difference between mind and matter.

OK. In general terms, what you're calling Cartesianism is what I'm calling Dualism, and what appears to be referred to in general as Cartesian Dualism. I'm not committed to any particular existing model of this state of affairs, only the basic condition ( a mind within a universe that is larger than itself that it ( the mind ) can perceive and model in order to relate to it ( the universe ).

Indeed to even make mention of these notions in discourse betrays the underlying assumptions. Regardless of how you think you see the world in such and such way, that thinking must be conditioned by the very things you are asking questions about--so you forget to notice the foundation of the question. This is not to say that your understanding falls into Jeff's abyss of contextual dismissal--but that to realize your understanding as erupting from a mode of existence--an output from a virtual machine that has pulled together the references of your world into something intelligible, you forget to inquire of the data format of the references. This data format is "transparent" as the very equipment your brain uses to show you as yourself naively connected to the world in an uncannily direct manner. That you are not aware of this connective tissue that forms the brain/world barrier is an astonishing feat of millions of years of evolution. Unless someone pokes your eye out or rips a limp from your body, you feel as though you yourself are immersed in the world directly.

OK I'm good with everything so far, but I'm missing the point of the next part ( below ):

This conditioning, which lies even outside your own lifespan, cannot be left alone in the act of questioning being or even of the bad foundations of "mind/matter" dualism. At breakdown you may feel this "duality" and claim it is something that is self-evident or at least obvious to yourself and therefore others.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the above.

• What do you mean by, "cannot be left alone"?
• What do you mean by, "the bad foundations of mind/matter dualism"? Are you referring to the general model I'm using here, or some other model? If it's some other model, let's not get bogged down with it here unless it's applicable, and if it is applicable, please provide the applicable points and explain why they're applicable ( if that's not too much ).

It might be helpful to know that the general model of dualism I'm using is built on a rationalist foundation. In other words it is assumed that through the process of reason we can be confident that certain things are true without having to experience them for ourselves.

 

[Michael Allen]

No it's not on that basis ( above ) that the issue of minds is relevant. Like I said, as soon as reality as a whole is no longer dependent on minds, then the issue of minds is beside the point and can be taken out of equation altogether, in which case there would only be the universe without any minds to admire and complicate things. Where minds come into the picture is as soon as a single being that is able of perceiving and contemplating that universe is introduced into it, then we suddenly have the universe + an abstraction of the universe within the mind of that being, resulting in dualism, and I still see no way to avoid this state of affairs.

I think you misunderstood me. Let me try it another way. I am not saying that the world of mind is the basis of all reality (simply put), but what I am saying is that primordial mind (if you could call it such) is what creates the condition for the possibility of mind. I am borrowing the formal indicator and applying it to the term "mind" and then looking for the basis. What I did not realize was that my statement could be interpreted as meaning that mind itself (or some otherwise mental substance) forms the basis of reality. Instead I am looking at it all upside down, I am basically saying that what we consider "mind" is itself rooted in the very means for which we cope and work in the world of things--i.e. without the relations between things and our own absorption in this world of relevant things (things we find, things we create, things we talk about) there is not one single "hook" for which we can hang any kind of metaphysical "mind" regardless of what we ascertain as its "substance." The basic thesis then is that the mind is a term applied to a phenomenon whose basis is firmly rooted in the world of references between real objects.

Regarding my esoteric statement (reading it again I realize the confusion--but its really just a bad summary of the previous paragraph)

This conditioning, which lies even outside your own lifespan, cannot be left alone in the act of questioning being or even of the bad foundations of "mind/matter" dualism. At breakdown you may feel this "duality" and claim it is something that is self-evident or at least obvious to yourself and therefore others.

This is just another way of saying that the conditioning of your own body and primordial understanding is left aside temporarily when you turn inward to ask the question regarding the substance of thought. If you ask about the substance of thought, you are--in effect--a thinking about a mechanism that works on a substance called "thought." This is the virtual machine falling into a trap of its own making, but because the conditioning (i.e. pre-theoretical, or firmware programming) regarding the unquestioned ground or instruction set, it likely tries to reset its own instruction set by running commands in its instruction set. Again the problem is mainly that of self-reference. Another way to put it: the questioning of the ground of "being" itself assumes the ground prior to the questioning. This is what I mean by "cannot be left alone" -- a better way to put it would be to say that your thoughts try to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but the bootstrapping procedure itself tears and rips at the fabric of the very phenomenal state machine that trying to do the work. You literally are entangled in your own web when you try to do this--as even I am illustrating right now.

The point of the breakdown was a tangent; in it I was trying to indicate an event that might coax one into de-worlding (removing the objects from their world-derived relations between Dasein relating itself to itself through its interaction with its equipment, tools and practices) their own processes of thinking and extrude them out into physical ontic (i.e. factical) time and space. The problem is that this extrusion is itself an penetration into yet another mode of being or simulation set in place by the thinking virtual machine (which is terminologically indicated as "objective presence," ) in that respect it "thinks" its found its own foundation of thinking, but instead as found a rather hilarious tricksterish imposter or decoy. The self-evidence arrives because you've being taken in by this imposter--but when you go to sleep, the imposter takes off its veneer and slips back into a frenzy of dreams and nothingness (ok I am waxing too poetic here for my own good).

Again this is not to say that the mind is a mere simulation of "unreal holographic visages" dancing around--but that the mind itself stand in its own way when it models objective presence in its own mode of subjectivity. Either it models its own subjectivity in a field of simulated objective things (the embedded mind hypothesis) or it itself is the model trying to virtualize itself in a world which really exists but only as a basis input or conditioning. Either way I think the terms do us very little good in trying to ascertain being--probably better that we just try to rebuilt the system from scratch.

Regarding a better model, I think a big huge entanglement (not a reference to QM please) between beings that make their own being and issue to itself via its engagement with the world of things would be a better alternative. In this you don't assert any dominance of the "bushes and vines" of either what we call "matter" or "mind" but consider them as modes in one reality or monism. This is not to say that these modes take away from the "existence" of the things, but again, the world "existence" is polluted by the tradition as subjective existence which is further divided from ontic existence. That physical unthinking matter begat minds is no longer a mystery, because we have reformulated what is considered to be "physical" to a conditioning that evolves spontaneously from the relations and machines to machines that make their machinations an issue to itself. This never gets reduced to anything like "mental substance" and likewise "matter" never is reduced to "mere objectivity" -- also we get rid of the "problems" of how "mind" affects "matter" or vice versa and of the problem of how we know what we know (it becomes a comical question in this framework).

Hope this helps.

 

[mike]

If only concious beings can be observers........
Then it also stands that observers are concious beings and that includes the kookaburra that just took a lizard outside my window just now

Time..........