Whitechapel - Being in Time

Whitechapel - Being in Time 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/ Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312902#Comment_312902 2011-10-19T00:40:48-07:00 2011-10-19T00:41:27-07:00 tedcroland http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2106

I put this in London Zoo for lack of a better place. So I've been looking at a very specific question from a philosophy perspective for a little while now. Those familiar with philosophy will note ...

So I've been looking at a very specific question from a philosophy perspective for a little while now. Those familiar with philosophy will note that I stole the title of this thread from Heidegger, who is not someone I necessarily agree with but the construction of his phrase is pretty much perfect so I stole it and you'll never pin it on me so shut up.

Anyway. I'm counting on the breadth of members' specialties to give me some really great, diverse points of view on this question (forthcoming). I posted it to facebook and got one undergrad neuroscience major, one economist and my brother who has degrees in economics, business, and educational development (currently director of projects at TenMarks).

I phrased it this way on Facebook:

Is it safe to say that consciousness is the juxtaposition of physical states of mind as suspended in time? Anyone interested in neurology?

Basically what I'm getting at is this: We exist. We're fairly sure of that. We're not as sure that the rest of the world exists, but that's fine, we can disregard that for the time being. Historically, the thought has been that we are temporarily occupying bodies and that our essence is transcendental, however more and more we are realizing that we are very much tied to the world in a many number of ways. My interest is in time itself: we construct ourselves out of what we remember and what we expect to happen, but at any given moment we are nothing but a grid of firing neurons reacting to external and internal stimuli.

I want to hear every perspective: I will converse and argue with anyone, though expect me to quietly observe at times to see where the conversation says. I want a giant brick of raw knowledge to cut my thesis out of, and I want your thoughts and I want your selves and I want beliefs and histories and opinions.

For reference of where I'm coming from culturally, right now things that I'm reading, watching and listening to are as follows:
Heidegger's Basic Writings
John Carpenter's film Dark Star
Flaming Lips' The Soft Bulletin
No small amount of Nietzsche, Sartre, Zizek, other existential stuff as well as Marx and some Anarchy stuff...
Guided By Voices (specifically Alien Lanes)
Some Aristotle before summer
Hellboy (the comics)
Doctor Who

A bunch of other stuff, but that's the misc stuff that I'm working with. I don't think any of them are less valuable than anything else, though I suppose there are things that will be more USEFUL (like the actual philosophy).

tl;dr - Why are we?]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312947#Comment_312947 2011-10-19T12:57:16-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 allana http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4019

In terms of raw knowledge, you'll want to pick up a copy of Julian Offray de la Mettrie's Man A Machine. It's mostly funny, rudimentary "Hey what's with guys who eat red meat always being fired ...

Man A Machine. It's mostly funny, rudimentary "Hey what's with guys who eat red meat always being fired up all the time" kind of observations, but it's one of the earliest instances of a non-secular, non-self theory of behaviour.

And now, to ramble:
There's a passage in Hume's Treatise of Human Nature that's about trying to mentally capture the origin of your own thought that is also really great. When I talk about conscious in this sense I think of the brain's composition of sensory information being like endless onion layers.
Once, when I was a kid, I was given a cabbage to carry, which I thought was a cauliflower. So I started ripping off the leafy layers, trying to find the good edible stuff inside. Then I got yelled at. It's my favourite analogy: The supposed "good meaty stuff" (the soul, the personality, a person's essence, a concrete thesis statement for an individual existence) isn't actually there - it's an illusion created by endless waves of data and data-processing. Or, it IS there, but we'll never dig so deep, or clear away the constant waves of excess stimulation, to find it. Thus, the point is moot.
(Which, unfortunately, brings us to the way Pitchfork writers construct their album reviews: the theory that no amount of context regarding the state in which the critic was in at the time of critiquing will ever be too much, and that no correlation between the critic's tastes and mindsets and those of the audience can ever be assumed. It's not, on its own, a misguided theory, but there are times and places in which demographic and dietary information are requisites to relating to a person's viewpoint. Most contemporary pop-cultural uses are not those times and places.)

I'm sure I'll have lots of more on-topic rambles to come, but I want to point out how awesome it is that you're keeping your cultural artifacts in the same list as your philosophical texts. Thumbs up.
Also, you're gonna get a lot of anecdotal evidence by way of drug trips, which is sometimes useful and sometimes not. Muting certain mental processes and slowing down others often results in a fascinating dataset, as long as you don't get too distracted by how robot-like our brains can be sometimes. (Logically, that should be "how human-consciousness-derived our artificial data structures are," but, you know what I mean. Yeah, we created computers in our own likeness. Don't act like you didn't know.)]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312960#Comment_312960 2011-10-19T14:34:35-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Verissimus http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3379

The mind trying to grasp itself is a bit like a dog chasing its own tail. Anyway, it's a big subject. We are our brain, I think. That is the ego, it's an organ, or a machine that has several tasks ...

Anyway, it's a big subject. We are our brain, I think. That is the ego, it's an organ, or a machine that has several tasks to perform in maintaining the body; one of these tasks, is processing sensory stimuli in order to found out in which way to steer the body in order to find food, or evade attackers, or find a mate to reproduce. The brain developed through evolution to gain more understanding of the world, enabling us to become better at these vital tasks which aid in our survival, and through an evolutionary fluke the brain developed self awareness, whatever that is, and this self awareness served us well so far.

You say,

We exist. We're fairly sure of that. We're not as sure that the rest of the world exists

but isn't it also possible to turn this around? "The world exists, we're fairly sure of that. We are not as sure that we exist as a separate entity from the rest of the world."]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312962#Comment_312962 2011-10-19T14:57:06-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Flabyo http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=1306

Taking the simpler question 'why are we?', then despite all my time at uni, my reading, my friends, everything. The only answer I have is: Because we are.

Because we are.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312965#Comment_312965 2011-10-19T15:29:05-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 tedcroland http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2106

@Allana - I got a .pdf of it off the intertrons, it'll go on the reader and I'll get to it sooner or later. Thanks for the rec! I'm not a Hume fan, but I do own that book and I will look at it ...

I'm not a Hume fan, but I do own that book and I will look at it closer. Mostly I disagree with the whole inertly compelled to the Good thing. I more closely agree with the Nichomachean ethics rather than the later theories that seem to just emphasize one small thing Aristotle was talking about. But I digress.

I TOTALLY agree with the onion example! though I would add that there are sections to the layers: The outer, the inner, and the further inner (you might be able to call this the "Real"), and I think the very, very core of this is the biological function of the brain. Externally, we have atoms colliding, and interally we have atoms colliding, but there's something between those two things: the self. But I'm thinking that the juxtapose between the external and internal is the self...yeah. I kind of dig holes. :P

I feel that all stimuli relating to culture has a certain cultural geneaology, and is therefore relevent in a discussion about Being. Culture is the way we attempt to fill the gaps between onions, I feel, and philosophy is a part of culture, no greater or lesser than any other.

I'm starting to get the feeling that the way I think sober is pretty similar to the way other people think when they're high.

@Verus Really what gives us this ability of self-awareness is the advanced frontal lobe. Aristotle actually talked about our ability to know ourselves is what separates us from animals, and he was mostly right! He just didn't poke around in a brain to find out why.

Though, for your second comment, I point out Descartes: Cogito Ergo Sum. This is a cornerstone in the history of philosophy as it provides a causal argument for self-existence. Though we can't know if we are living in a simulation or not, I find that the question doesn't matter at all, that it is your responsibility to act upon the information you have, and even if you consider that it may be incomplete, not acting because you may not know everything ever seems like an inert moral exercise. I think that makes sense.

If you want to expand your assertion with a more complex logical reasoning, I'd love to hear it! I'm really all ears, I want to hear all arguments. I like your claim, I just want there to be more behind it.

@Flabyo Probably the most practical answer, but I bet we can each find a very different meaning/intent behind the question and draw a collection of truth out of it.

Thanks for responses! Moar! Moar! :D]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312973#Comment_312973 2011-10-19T16:25:10-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 nigredo http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2373

No one has topped Borges in capturing and expressing so succinctly the anguish and exasperation of experiencing time, finitude, life and death. "Time is the substance I am made of. Time is ...

"Time is the substance I am made of. Time is the river that carries me away, but I am the river; it is a tiger that mangles me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire that consumes me, but I am the fire. The world, alas is real; I, alas, am Borges."]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312980#Comment_312980 2011-10-19T17:00:40-07:00 2011-10-19T17:01:10-07:00 256 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4827

Just dropped by to say - check out Dan Dennett. I only really know his stuff from stuff I've read and seen online, so I'll try not to mangle it too much, but he has authored the "Multiple Drafts ...

Which is pretty eyebrow-raising.

I think the logic behind this is that the brain has a lot of identifiable functions, but cannot realistically create anything that is "more than the sum of its parts". Thus, the appearance of consciousness is the cumulative effect of these processes - which, significantly, don't always run continuously or at the same speed.

The standout part of the wiki article on MDM:

"The conscious self is taken to exist as an abstraction visible at the level of the intentional stance, akin to a body of mass having a 'center of gravity'. Analogously, Dennett refers to the self as the 'center of narrative gravity', a story we tell ourselves about our experiences.".

Worth a look.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312981#Comment_312981 2011-10-19T17:30:25-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Jason A. Quest http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5192

I've always considered cogito ergo sum to be a bit of a cheat. Descartes sneaks himself into the premise with the word "I" (technically the first-person singular conjugation of a verb in ...

cogito ergo sum to be a bit of a cheat. Descartes sneaks himself into the premise with the word "I" (technically the first-person singular conjugation of a verb in Latin) then acts all clever when he pops out at the other end of the argument with another "I". But I don't dispute the conclusion: I do exist. Likewise, his second conclusion (a world exists) is sound enough, at least up to the point where he calls God as a reliable witness to corroborate it.

As for "why are we?", I reject the underlying assumption of the question: that there is a reason. I do not have a "purpose", and neither does humanity, nor our ecosystem, nor even the universe. It just is. Some people find this notion of existentialism dispiriting, and conclude that if there's no reason for us to live then that's a reason to die. Which is completely unsound logic; there's no purpose in dying, either. Personally, I find it liberating and invigorating: if there is no prior reason for me to exist, no grand purpose which I am already committed to serving, no meaning of life... then I'm at liberty to choose or create my own. I... am... free!]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312982#Comment_312982 2011-10-19T17:51:24-07:00 2011-10-19T17:56:57-07:00 Verissimus http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3379

@tedcroland: Cogito ergo sum seems simple but it is a problematic statement. The problem with "I think, therefore I am" is that it's a bit of a circular argument. In order for there to be ...

So it makes more sense to remove the "I" from the first part of the statement: "There is thinking," rather than "I think." From that statement it is much harder to come to conclude the existence of the "I". "There is thinking, therefore I am" doesn't make a lot of sense. So we're left with just the first part "there is thinking."

Another problem is: How does the "I", the subject, know that it is thinking? The subject perceives that to be the the case, through it's mental capacity. He or she perceives "thought events". Now the mental capacity of the subject, by which it perceives these thought events, works somewhat similar to the senses, which are also functions of the brain. Like seeing something, or hearing or smelling or touching something, we hear the thoughts in our head. Descartes himself has pointed out that we cannot trust everything our senses tell us at face value, yet somehow for his own thoughts he feels he has to make an exception.

So Descartes would contradict himself in a way if he were to claim that "There is thinking therefore I am". It is like saying "There are flowers in the garden therefore I am." Just as those flowers are not necessarily proof for the existence of an I, neither are those perceived thoughts...]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=312993#Comment_312993 2011-10-19T18:38:47-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Jason A. Quest http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5192

Cogito ergo sum isn't presented as an objective proof, but a subjective one. The only person it proves anything to is the thinker. I call it a "cheat", but it works as far as it goes. ...

Cogito ergo sum isn't presented as an objective proof, but a subjective one. The only person it proves anything to is the thinker. I call it a "cheat", but it works as far as it goes. Descartes was asking: "How do I know that I exist? I know this because I'm asking the question, and if I didn't exist, that wouldn't be happening." He doesn't just "sense" that he's thinking; the existence of his thought itself proves it.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313000#Comment_313000 2011-10-19T20:30:09-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Verissimus http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3379

In that way it is a self evident truth, yes. In order for me to have any feeling or sensation or awareness at all, I must exist. But in that way, I am not sure how much you can read into it. It ...

for me to have any feeling or sensation or awareness at all, I must exist.

But in that way, I am not sure how much you can read into it. It is subjective, it already assumes there is a me before there the statement is produced.

There is of course a "me", on certain different levels. I can poke myself, point at myself in the mirror, and say "Look! there I am." But that is defining a certain chunk of meat as me. But does that mean that when that me in the mirror changes, for instance when I get an artificial limb, or when I lose ten pounds, that it is no longer me? The ten pounds that I lost, is that me? Does Descartes also exist when he isn't thinking?

For Descartes his thoughts are the ultimate expression of the ego, and therefore he chooses it as his identity. But it is pretty arbitrary.

Why must there be an "I" at all? Why is Descartes so concerned with proving he exists?]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313001#Comment_313001 2011-10-19T20:48:18-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 allana http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4019

"Time is an active construction of the brain. We can set up simple experiments to make you believe that a flashed image lasted longer or shorter than it actually did, or that a burst of light ...

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/19/an-interview-with-david-eagleman-neuroscientist.html]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313025#Comment_313025 2011-10-20T05:07:02-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Jason A. Quest http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5192

@Verus: Descartes was a mathematician at heart. He was trying to determine what he could know with absolute certainty – the metaphysical equivalent of 1+1=2 – and see what he could deduce from ...

Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313029#Comment_313029 2011-10-20T06:36:50-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Finagle http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5254

Dealing with the epistemological issue before the ontological issue is just putting Descartes before the horse.

Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313059#Comment_313059 2011-10-20T11:29:36-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Solario http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=58

@Verus, Descartes doesn't use thinking as his first example - he says that he doubts his own existence, and if there is doubt, there must be something that is doubting. And if you end up doubting ...

His major problem is that he presupposes that logic, space, time and causality actually exists and aren't just the same as the illusions, he's attempting to combat.

@Finagle, I'm not sure you can divy up the two anymore. I don't think it's impossible to talk about existence without a thinking subject relating to it, because we can't transcend our own subjectivity. It's totally unknowable and unthinkable to us as rationally thinking beings to go beyond ourselves. We'll never be able to talk about the thing-in-itself, only the thing as it appears to us. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we'll never be able to see it as it is. When we see something and agree that it's a chair, that's just a consensus reality that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual reality. (At the back of my mind I keep thinking Kant had a rebuttal for this, but for the life of me, I can't remember it - anyone want to prove me wrong? And what about stuff like common culture and language? Goddammit, I'm forgetting everything I've ever learnt.)

And I'm with Jason on why of it all: existence isn't teleological and the only meaning it has is what, we imbue it with.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313098#Comment_313098 2011-10-20T23:16:00-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 D.J. http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3196

We are because if we weren't, there'd be no one to ask the question.

Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313109#Comment_313109 2011-10-21T04:05:57-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 oddbill http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4272

"Time is an active construction of the brain. We can set up simple experiments to make you believe that a flashed image lasted longer or shorter than it actually did, or that a burst of light ...

"Time is an active construction of the brain. We can set up simple experiments to make you believe that a flashed image lasted longer or shorter than it actually did, or that a burst of light happened before you pressed a button (even though you actually caused it with the button), or that a sound is beeping at a faster or slower rate than it actually is, and so on. Time is a rubbery thing."

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/19/an-interview-with-david-eagleman-neuroscientist.html

In case you don't want to read the wonderful brief interview Allana has pointed you to there, I have read it for you, while drunk:

There are some eerily appropriate compression errors in this video at key portions that makes the experience all that much more immersive.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313119#Comment_313119 2011-10-21T07:51:56-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Stoto http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=757

Cheers, oddbill! That was smashing :)

Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313121#Comment_313121 2011-10-21T08:05:39-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 allana http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4019

Eerily appropriate, indeed. Amazing! It's so soothing to have a voice droning on about the fabric of reality in the background, during breakfast. Thanks for doing that. (I say video series. Maybe ...

(I say video series. Maybe you could collab with Philosophy Bro?)

In other news, here's some of the passage I was talking about (to save you from having to read the rest of Hume's drivel):
“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov'd for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of mself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions remov'd by death, and cou'd I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my body, I shou'd be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity.... If any one upon serious and unprejudic'd reflexion, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can no longer reason with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu'd, which he calls himself; tho' I am certain there is no such principle in me.”
- Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, p 165]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313157#Comment_313157 2011-10-21T17:50:48-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Finagle http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5254

Aw guys, I was trying to make a joke so I wouldn't have to really engage with the philosophy. The problem with putting the epistemological issue before ontology is just what @Allana ...

The problem with putting the epistemological issue before ontology is just what @Allana posted....close your eyes, poof it all goes away.

Kant dealt with all this by turning the whole problem on its head. The universe *has* to be for the most part(*) how we perceive it, because otherwise our brains wouldn't work. All of us humans who are operationally functional do the pragmatic thing, get up in the morning and go do our stuff. We don't suddenly worry that we'll step outside and gravity won't work, or the sun will be dark or the sky will be green.

That's just the problem of episteme, though. Kant only addressed what we can *know*. As far as *that* goes, though, he put it on pretty solid ground - the universe pretty much (*) works how we humans think it does, and we manage to go through out our lives being pragmatic persons who just do "what works" and manage to exist that way.

Now, when you go talking Being, capital "B" Being...that is a whole different deal. It drove Heidegger and Nietzsche both insane. Or maybe that was just because they're Germans (**).

But I'm going to put myself waaaay out there, and say that most of the major issues with dealing with epistemology and perception have been sorted in modern philosophy. The latest update to my mind is the work of Maturana and Varela dealing with "autopoeisis" and self-organizing systems. Philosophy has had to deal with the input of the empirical sciences, like evolutionary biology, and we've gone on to deal with it. How and why does the eye perceive a figure against a background? Existentialism and phenomenology (*pace* Descartes) have dealt with this in great detail.

The how and why of Being, though? Why should we do one thing and not another? Still something quite not dealt with.

--------
* - I am discounting for the purposes of discussion anything microscopic, sub-atomic, or otherwise not an observable phenomenon, because it doesn't influence how "natural humans" behave on a macro level.

** - I'm of German descent, and married to a German, so I can say stuff like "Alle hat ein Ende nur die Wurst hat zwei", laugh it off and not be racist. Unless you count self-hating, which is another discussion.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313164#Comment_313164 2011-10-21T19:24:57-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 allana http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=4019

Since it was brought up, some Daniel Dennett (Content and Consciousness) quotes I conveniently have tucked away in the same text file as the Hume: “... A particular pathway through the brain might ...

Content and Consciousness) quotes I conveniently have tucked away in the same text file as the Hume:
“... A particular pathway through the brain might just happen -- entirely fortuitously -- to link an afferent (input) event or stimulus to an efferent (output) event leading to appropriate behavious, and if such fortuitous linkages could in some way be generated, recognized and preserved by the brain, the organism could acquire a capactiy for generally appropriate behaviour....
“Given a brain with an initial plasticity or capacity for producing different functional structures as a result of input, the key to utility in the brain must be the further capacity to sort out these functional structures, keeping and using those that are useful to the survival and comfort of the organism, and eliminating or refraining from using the harmful ones.”
"The quest for a plausible and consistent analysis of consciousness develops into the hunting down of that elusive quarry, the little man in the brain, who is driven first from his role as introspector only to reappear as perceiver, reasoner, intender, and knower.... Expelling him from our thinking about mind requires, I hope to show, more radical alterations in our views of mental phenomena than are usually envisaged. It is one thing to exorcise the ghost in the machine, but he can reapper in more concrete form, as, for example, a stimulus-checking mechanism or -- as we have seen -- as a brain-writing reader, and in these guises he is equally subversive."
"You enter the brain through the eye, march up the optic nerve, round and round the cortex, looking behind every neuron, and then, before you know it, you emerge into daylight on the spike of a motor nerve impulse, scratching your head and wondering where the self is."

It's really too bad we take all the fun out of it with "Neurology > Philosophy."]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313171#Comment_313171 2011-10-21T21:07:49-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Verissimus http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3379

Time as we commonly perceive it is pretty much just part of our "stories", the things we build our identities with, from the building blocks we find in our memory. We can't go from being a ...

Still, I am pretty sure I don't remember anything from when I was a baby. For more than 99 % of all the time that I've lived by now, I have no memory, no story. Can I still claim that time as being part of me? I have no memory of being a baby. So was that baby me? Or was that another person? Was I that baby anymore than I am any random person I see on the street? It's a bit like the "Ship of Theseus" paradox. Am I still the same person or am I so changed that all that was somebody else?]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313186#Comment_313186 2011-10-22T01:26:05-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 tedcroland http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2106

Alright guys! I took a couple days to take in your various points of view and do some thinking for myself. Commence response! @256 - I'll put Dennet on "the list"! Reccomendations are a ...

@256 - I'll put Dennet on "the list"! Reccomendations are a great resource for me. Consciousness being a phenomena of colliding atoms is kind of what I'm getting at--and that we can't put more physical, natural value on it than anything else. The curiosity of self-perpetuating consciousness is on of the things I want to examine. Good help on that! The self being instantaneous collapse of the narratives that frame our momentary existence is definitely something I've considered.

@Jason - I have been considering myself a nihilist for a while now, and I don't see that as a conceit or a bad thing, but I do take the existential principle to be a fairly solid basis for action and thought. So i agree! But I think that the question itself means many things to many points of view, and they are not necessarily answered by the existential or nihilist position, but maybe an array of leveraged positions and thoughts? The implication of freedom is nice as well.

@Verus, Solario, re: Decartes - Like Jason said, Cogito Ergo Sum is a subjective proof and should be taken as such. It's also the basis for the Emprical, Existential and Phenomonological positions, as far as I can surmise. Considering many arguments, axioms and forms need themselves to prove themselves (I'm looking at you, Symbolic Logic), but, as others have said, Decartes' thinking was that thought is self-evident, and that something must be causing it. The empirical goes on to determine that sense data is not enough to prove anything individually, because sense data is unreliable, and in some cases concludes that the objective exists between individual consciousness, and external confirmation is how to determine objectivity, but then (I think it's Berkeley who was a strong proponent of this) the objective confirmation can be erroneous sense data, so we can't "know" anything by the empirical perspective. Existentialism built on this, and phenomonology further...

My conclusion on the matter is, as far as action goes, one must be an actor in the world (the act of thought being the original action), and while the objective world is unknown, it is an actor's responsibility to act upon the information they have (which is what everyone does despite what they think about the objective/subjective nature of the world), and assume that there is an objective world that they are influencing through action. Influence being any consequence to action, just to be clear.

Ethics emerges out of the assumption, too: we can understand that others suffer, and so our course of action would be to reduce the suffering of those around us. And ethical action has a few components: empathy, intuition, intent and calculation. Using those tools one can behave in such a way that would be objectively, rationally sound and ethical. I guess. I haven't gotten to the bottom of the rabbit hole on that one. :P

Oddbill - Awesome! Thanks, man, that totally rocked!

Re: the subject of the man's work: INSANELY fascinating, but I posit that there are two facets to time, two controlling clocks: the internal and external (Yeah three colons in one sentence). The internal is part of the brain's memory synthesis. It needs an order and tempo for actions to take place, and these are not perfect, so it is a simple matter of confusing the processes that govern the creation of memory. Externally, though, there must be dimensionality for time. Based on chemistry and the like, there is a assumed amount of time an atom can perform a given action, thus making a (possibly irregular) external tempo to the objective world. The relationship between the two makes us objects in time, and our evaluation of the whole thing is a major component of the self and consciousness, as we define ourselves as histories and potentialities. Am I making sense? If I am, I hope it's not just overponderous bunk.

@Finagle - Man, you say you don't want to engage with the philosophy but you're damned good at it if I may say so. I hope you remain active in this thread. :D

@Allana - You've been a great input! Thanks for taking the time with this stuff. Though the "Neurology > Philosophy" thing troubles me a bit. A lot of our sources are going to be scientific in nature, but philosophy itself, at least from my vantage point, informs and contextualizes the sciences. Neurology can tell us how the gears work, but philosophy deals with the more dense task of attempting to answer the why, and in the meantime attempting to give the culture a modicum of radical thought to latch onto. This conversation would get nowhere without the science, which is kind of why I started it here to begin with, but the science puts something down and says "take it or leave it," and the philosopher picks it up and shows you what to do with it.

Maybe that's just from me, attempting to dive into the academia of the whole thing head first with little regard for whether or not it will actually make my life better or worse.

Thanks guys, for your posts so far! This is a long response for me, but I really want to have something to work with whenever I respond. I really want to see you guys talking this stuff out. I'm big on external thought and input, and I really don't want to clutter up with constant little posts about everyone's thoughts. I really appreciate you all coming here and including yourselves in any capacity.

Also, optional "Homework" is to go watch Dark Star, the John Carpenter movie I mentioned in my opening post. It's relevant and amazing and you'll all like the shit out of it.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313189#Comment_313189 2011-10-22T04:02:38-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Mercer Finn http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5496

I've been pondering this all week, Buddha-like, seeking insight in the furthest reaches of my mind. An insight that just wouldn't come, until, earlier today, I sat, close to despair under a tree as ...

cheap iphone 4 is on sale.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313219#Comment_313219 2011-10-22T12:34:00-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Solario http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=58

The problem with ethics is that it's built on assumptions that you can't verify: that other people exist and are similar to yourself; that you ought to do the right or good thing (depending on ...

The only thing we really have to depend on in these matters is our intuitions, our empathy and our cultural context. It's practical to rely on these things, but it's not necessarily logical. And that's why my ethics classes are freaking me out a little bit - if the foundation is shaky, then all the formel logic and argumentation that rests on it is questionable.

In regards to the non-existence of objective reality: Yeah, it was Berkeley - he's the immaterialism dude. "To be is to be perceived." So if something stops being perceived it stops existing. Which means that if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to see it, then it couldn't have fallen, because it didn't exist.

Apropos of everything here - has anyone read Action Philosophers by Fred Van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey? They're great.
http://www.eviltwincomics.com/ap_mill.php]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313425#Comment_313425 2011-10-24T14:30:37-07:00 2011-10-24T14:34:52-07:00 Mercer Finn http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5496

our intuitions, our empathy and our cultural context I think the way we use / create these things is worthy of study. How and why we have acquired such dispositions as community-minded animals is ...

our intuitions, our empathy and our cultural context

I think the way we use / create these things is worthy of study. How and why we have acquired such dispositions as community-minded animals is also worthy of investigation. Both these projects can can be pursued "logically", no? These foundations are about as firm as any other science...

ETA: this approach isn't really part of the consequentialist, deontological or virtue ethics traditions, but rather tries to ground the assumptions about the human character that lie behind such systems on an empirical basis. I think it's the only way forward, and one of the most interesting subjects for modern philosophy and social science to address. But I'm REALLY derailing this thread now...]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313469#Comment_313469 2011-10-24T22:31:08-07:00 2011-10-24T22:32:25-07:00 tedcroland http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=2106

@Mercer My read of Aristotle is that we are, as humans, given special abilities to seek the Good, to discover self-evident virtue, and the intellect, upbringing (enculturation), empathy or (to ...

So you flash forward a bit to Hume (and others) and you find that many (Kant as well) attempt to establish that virtue will be discovered by use of some very particular piece of what Aristotle had attempted to establish were the tools toward the virtuous life.

Hume said that we, as a group, will self-direct toward the Good. Or, maybe more accurately, that what we direct ourselves toward is the Good. I say "Fuck that noise," results and intentions are everything. Where we get is not as important as what we get and how we get there.

Re: your second post:

That's what I'm trying to get at! I feel like I have a pretty well developed ethics that I want to be as strongly grounded as can possibly be, which means I need to contemplate how we exist, and the mechanics of self-understanding, self-positioning in existence. I don't want to be comfortable in assumptions, I want an argument. Even if it's inaccurate or outright wrong, I want a deliberation. So here we are. :D

@Solario

I will agree that those assumptions are up for debate, but not that they are unverifiable. We have yet to verify them, maybe, but that doesn't equal unverifiability. Also, if you have a choice of assumptions to make, the responsible choice is clearly the ethical one. You can't know that there is an outside world, but you can assume there's one because that is what your sense data reveals to you. It may be inaccurate, but it's all you have, so work with it. Edited for clarity: As opposed to the alternative, which would be to assume there isn't one, which gets you exactly nowhere.

I'm super down for Action Philosophers!]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313491#Comment_313491 2011-10-25T06:52:10-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Solario http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=58

@Mercer Finn, It's a metaethical discussion basically. It's not what we should do, but what the premisses for us doing anything is. Problem is that if we want our ethics to be purely logical and ...

It's a metaethical discussion basically. It's not what we should do, but what the premisses for us doing anything is. Problem is that if we want our ethics to be purely logical and normative, then we need to find an argument for ethics, rightness and goodness in ways that aren't based in, at best, coincidental and, at worst, arbitrary. If we come into contact with a culture that has intelligence, but not empathy, intuition or communities, then it's difficult argue against on a purely logical basis, why they ought to act as we do.

@tedcroland,

It's true that the respondsible choice is clearly the ethical one, but that presupposes that we ought to be responsible.

I'm 100% with you guys on the fact that the common sense and pragmatic approach, for me at least, is just to assume the existence of an outside world and that goodness, happiness, freedom and righteousness are desirable - I've just reached a point, where I'm struggling with rationalizing it in a meaningful manner.

And I think I can trace a lot of my motivation for the choice of major (philosophy) back to Action Philosophers. It also really helped me out with Kant's epistemology. So thanks again, Fred Van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey!

And can I just say that I think virtue ethics is kinda terrible? Basing your entire value system on ethos and the actions of others is even more problematic and arbitrary than picking thresholds for definitions of actions like deontologists or picking end consequences for consequentialists.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313495#Comment_313495 2011-10-25T07:23:59-07:00 2011-10-25T07:24:27-07:00 Verissimus http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=3379

Ethics relies on concepts of good and bad which I think are evolutionary concepts. Good has evolved from "what aids in our survival", bad from "what works against our survival". ...

Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313525#Comment_313525 2011-10-25T12:26:43-07:00 2011-10-25T12:33:44-07:00 Jason A. Quest http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5192

....one has to start from the assumption that "being" or existing is superior to non-being. Speaking of which, that question is on the table in the current scene of my comic Captain ...

....one has to start from the assumption that "being" or existing is superior to non-being.
Speaking of which, that question is on the table in the current scene of my comic Captain Miracle.]]> Being in Time http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=10295&Focus=313528#Comment_313528 2011-10-25T12:55:04-07:00 2013-05-21T03:55:31-07:00 Mercer Finn http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/account.php?u=5496

@tedcroland I don't think I agree with your reading of Aristotle. For example, intuition doesn't play a large role in his ethics. Neither does he believe that all humans are given special ...

I don't think I agree with your reading of Aristotle. For example, intuition doesn't play a large role in his ethics. Neither does he believe that all humans are given special abilities to seek the good. To my mind, Aristotle keeps a lot of Plato's emphases (about the primacy of human reason, education, an aristocratic polity). If you're interested, I've posted some of my notes on the Nicomachean Ethics over here.

I should come out and say that I LOVE Hume, and pretty much think he's on the right lines meta-ethically, even if some of the technicalities of his system now seem a bit crazy (to be fair, he was writing in the 18th century -- we know a lot more about human nature now). I have to admit that I don't quite understand your misgivings about him: for Hume ethics was ALL about 'how we get there'. There are no transcendent 'oughts'. A scientific approach to moral philosophy seeks to understand the emotional processes by which 'oughts' are generated in different societies.

@Solario
What you say about societies w/o the capacity for empathy is true, but this is hypothetical, right? Human beings have evolved to live in groups, have certain instincts, empathy, because all of these things help us survive. And ethics is a human phenomenon: we can only empirically study what's in front of us. That's about as 'logical' as ethics can get, no?

Basing your entire value system on ethos and the actions of others is even more problematic and arbitrary

Hume argues that we do this all the time, that it's a natural disposition humans have. I think a lot of that makes sense. It's arbitrary from a transcendental point of view, maybe. But if you ground ethics on the real-world experience of how humans behave, then its quite a logical point to make.

Just generally, my sense is that what is so difficult to accept about this stance is that it inevitably leads to some kind of relativism. Criticizing alternative belief structures becomes difficult when you don't have deontological laws or utilitarian calculuses. Then again, the understanding that your ethical beliefs are grounded in illogical, emotional assumptions might also teach humility, and perhaps tolerance as well. You might say (and some have) that this awareness can have a moralizing effect!]]>