Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Waechter418]

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.
However, the coordination capabilities of latter improve continuously, whereas mind seems to have problems handling the increase of external & internal, objective & subjective data.
This is often blamed on its hardware, i.e. the physiological aspects, yet rarely on the programs that coordinate the data, despite that many of them are obviously outdated, inefficient, hijacked by emotions and/or malwares which question the capabilities and sometimes even deny the functions of mind, thus impeding the possibility to repair & update its software.
But to alter something requires knowledge and understanding of its structures and dynamics – in this case of the mind. Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.
Admittedly, Self-response-ability can be a pain in the butt – yet it can also be a blessing, as it may entail the realisation that all (external/internal/subjective/objective) phenomenon are interrelated - and coordinated by/in the mind.

[Pattern-chaser]

Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.

In general, bootstrapping usually refers to a self-starting process that is supposed to continue or grow without external input. [...] The saying "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" was already in use during the 19th century as an example of an impossible task.

There is also the impossibility of bootstrapping to consider. You can't lift yourself up without a skyhook! You need something to lean on!

Do you really think a mind, using only itself as a tool, can discover and understand itself?

[Waechter418]

depends what you mean by "itself"

waechter418 offers in wordpress com - under the heading "Selfrealisation" - a vaiety of respective interpretations and ways of operation.

[Raghadabass]

I understand your point, however rather than comparing machinery to our human minds I would recommend the plant system since we both are living things.
You described everything but what about hormones, moods, feelings. You can't deny that computers don't have such things.
For example: if a human has a bad day all it's functions are affected, if a mobile was charged less all it's functions are affected. The question here is: Are they both comparable?
From my video no, why?
Because a human feeling was from itself, however the mobile battery was out of it's control.

The same is true for the mind mind. We might know who we are, we deny because of our inner selves rather than outer self. We have control over our actions computers don't.

Regards,
Fellow beginner reviewer

[Waechter418]

This post is not about computers, but about subjecting ourself blindly to AI and quanta-powers.

[Waechter418]

------and whatever else makes us gravediggers of our civilisation

[Thomas3333]

A recent idea, I became privy to was that humanity's curse is that humanity has to be right-wing in order to follow science, and the scientific method.

Politicians, sorority houses in America, teachers, militarists, workers, celebrities and manufacturers are all the right-wing, and thus, the notion is that all of the listed - from their right-wing index of citation logic - are the way for the scientific method to be enacted. Thus, is it insurmountable that the world of gardening and the world of tree gardening have to be activated by right-wing politics, in order to be used as nominally normal?

A further advance, from this state, is that the inherent - seeming inherent left-wing status - left-wing status of tree spirituality, of worshipping trees in public - the seeming connection being to do with the conspiracy notion that alien mystic beings purposefully disallow macro tree spirituality of the globalism context - is in fact a ruse by aliens, per "the self-imposed parameter by Earth civilisations" of the right-wing methodology as inevitability means to science activation state.

Naturally, this is a notional value of idiosyncrasy, where the notional conceptualism's application derives from the abyss of understanding the true causal truth state, regarding science's impetus and humanity's natural disposition.

[Waechter418]

Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.

In general, bootstrapping usually refers to a self-starting process that is supposed to continue or grow without external input. [...] The saying "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" was already in use during the 19th century as an example of an impossible task.

There is also the impossibility of bootstrapping to consider. You can't lift yourself up without a skyhook! You need something to lean on!

Do you really think a mind, using only itself as a tool, can discover and understand itself?

Hindus & Buddhists developed a variety of respective methods and Yogas.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you really think a mind, using only itself as a tool, can discover and understand itself?

Hindus & Buddhists developed a variety of respective methods and Yogas.

That doesn't really answer my question, does it?

[Waechter418]

Do you really think a mind, using only itself as a tool, can discover and understand itself?

Hindus & Buddhists developed a variety of respective methods and Yogas.

That doesn't really answer my question, does it?

Yes

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you really think a mind, using only itself as a tool, can discover and understand itself?

Hindus & Buddhists developed a variety of respective methods and Yogas.

That doesn't really answer my question, does it?

Yes

No. No, it doesn't. By what means can a meditative approach allow X to understand X, using nothing else to do so, other than ... X? How can a mind understand itself? I'm not sure that it can. Not in any complete way.

[Waechter418]

When is the understanding supposed to be complete ?

[Pattern-chaser]

When is the understanding supposed to be complete ?

Your question seems to illustrate my point of view beautifully, as it is (I believe) unanswerable. When we try to understand ourselves, using only ourselves (the object of scrutiny) as tools, we fall short. We encounter questions that we cannot answer, questions like the one you have posed here.

[Waechter418]

I can not, is often used for i do not dare
Apropos: wo dares, can win too

[Pattern-chaser]

I can not, is often used for i do not dare
Apropos: wo dares, can win too

Are you commenting on my sig, "Who cares, wins"? Or are you saying something else?