Page 4 of 5

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 3:55 am
by popeye1945
My view is not incomplete the world is not a projection of the mind the world is a cognitive representation of the bodily experience of what it is capable of sensing. I agree the world has a relative existence and this is because subject and object stand or fall together. If you are trying to make the two views agree this won't happen, for one thing, I do not personally agree there is anything eternal anything immortal. So, if finding my view correct is dependent upon it agreeing with the view you find in the Upanishads of course you won't find it correct. Again, there is nothing mystical in my view represented here.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 4:07 am
by popeye1945
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 9th, 2021, 3:37 pm AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.
The body-mind complex and the world is not your true self. You have to look within, not outwards, to find your Self.
AmericanKestrel,
Well, have you looked within, and if so, what did you find, what does this self look like or of what is it composed, again your view taken from the Upanishads is a mystical one. If you are content with a mystical view that is fine, but You will never make the two views agree.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 8:03 am
by AmericanKestrel
popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 4:07 am
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 9th, 2021, 3:37 pm AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.
The body-mind complex and the world is not your true self. You have to look within, not outwards, to find your Self.
AmericanKestrel,
Well, have you looked within, and if so, what did you find, what does this self look like or of what is it composed, again your view taken from the Upanishads is a mystical one. If you are content with a mystical view that is fine, but You will never make the two views agree.
Dont forget Schopenhauer himself was quite impressed with the revelations in the Upanishad and mentioned them in his writings. He never explained what Will is and that is a hole in his philosophy. The concept of Advaita is sound and the realization arises from complete understanding and meditation on the concept. This realization brings peace and harmony within, which no amount of materialism can bring. Atma is indescribable because there is nothing to compare it to.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 5:53 pm
by popeye1945
AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 6:57 pm
by AmericanKestrel
popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 5:53 pm AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.
Upanishads is philosophy of the self. It is not religion, there is no such religion. I dont think you have a sound understanding of all that you are stating.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: June 10th, 2021, 11:55 pm
by popeye1945
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 10th, 2021, 6:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 5:53 pm AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.
Upanishads is philosophy of the self. It is not religion, there is no such religion. I dont think you have a sound understanding of all that you are stating.
AmericanKestrel,
Yes, the Upanishads are of the Hindu faith with a tradition many thousands of years old. Although they have many many gods what they really believe is the there is a basic energy of which these gods are but manifestations.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 22nd, 2021, 9:40 pm
by popeye1945
The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience ---Duh!

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 22nd, 2021, 11:28 pm
by Tegularius
What it amounts to is new stuff being added to the old stuff making the old stuff new again...or so it seems. If the old stuff becomes too top-heavy memory starts a slow culling operation to make room for new stuff...a kind of mental recycling process. What remains of the old stuff are the most intense memories and experiences, which more often than not, are not the kind one hopes to have permanently recorded.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 23rd, 2021, 8:51 am
by 3017Metaphysician
RJG wrote: June 8th, 2021, 8:17 am
RJG wrote:The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.
AmericanKestrel wrote:If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.
Not so. The physical body* is the experiencer. Bodily reactions are the experiences.

Consciousness itself is an experience (a bodily reaction called "recognition") made possible by memory. Those bodies that possess memory have the capability to experience consciousness, as do those bodies that possess eyeballs have the capability to experience sight/vision.

Note* -- To be more specific, the "self" ("I"; consciousness; experiencer) is the memory portion of the physical body. Take away someone's memory and you take away their consciousness. (...take away their eyeballs and you take away their sight.).
I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence. Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory. Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive. Much like emergent instinct (Emergence), no memory required.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 27th, 2021, 1:50 pm
by RJG
3017Metaphysician wrote:I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence.
Without memory, we could not "know" that we experience anything.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive.
Agreed. Though it does not matter if the body is a newborn or an adult. We all auto-react accordingly (all the time!). Only those of us that can experience recognition (made possible by memory) can "know" that we experience some of these auto-reactions.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory.
True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 28th, 2021, 12:45 pm
by 3017Metaphysician
RJG wrote: July 27th, 2021, 1:50 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote:I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence.
Without memory, we could not "know" that we experience anything.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive.
Agreed. Though it does not matter if the body is a newborn or an adult. We all auto-react accordingly (all the time!). Only those of us that can experience recognition (made possible by memory) can "know" that we experience some of these auto-reactions.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory.
True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
RJG!

I think you can have both memory and Will that in-turn break the rules of P and not P. In phenomenology and reality, of course, logical impossibility exists in many forms, whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.
The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.

For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind? The answer is a little of both (which is not allowed in formal logic). In that descriptive case, the logically impossible proposition/judgement/explanation would be: I was driving and not driving my car. Though that proposition on its face is objectively logically impossible/not sound, it remains subjectively true for the individual and their experience of driving. And that’s because he didn’t know if he was on the beach or consciously/physically driving the car at the same time. He was confused, it was a little of both. His body was somewhere else at the same time his mind was somewhere else.

To your point, using a similar sense of logic here, one could say being an “observer” is our own subjective truth that we advance in time by Being, thinking, acting, and so forth (the Will). And the “observed” becomes an independent objective truth that we require to make sense of ‘things’ in an objective world (world of matter/objects). Both truths happen simultaneously to apperceive a some-thing, an experience. We need both truths. And the phenomenon is dynamic; not static, linear or sequential. This is another reason why you cannot use the static rules of a priori logic to explain the nature of (conscious) existence and/or reality (metaphysics). One’s own ‘memory’ then, becomes subordinated into or part of a ‘mottled color’ of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconscious cognition.

In short, embrace logical impossibility and logically impossible explanations for things. Our minds, in and of themselves, is a some-thing that exists that is essentially ‘beyond pure reason’. Its logical explanations become transcendent. A priori logic does not provide for accurate descriptions or explanations for the nature of those existing things. This is a common mistake I see philosophers make, (especially for atheists who rely exclusively on logic or want to somehow deny mystery and so on). The irony rears its head (no pun intended) when one cannot even explain their own existence/reality yet suppose they can ‘objectively’ explain ‘all of’ the nature of same.

Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes? In that case, I might argue that the ‘I’ which is part of self-awareness becomes a synthetic judgement because it’s a given or assumed that I exist, to think that “I am”. Is that part of the self-awareness ‘myth’?

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 29th, 2021, 7:06 am
by RJG
3017Metaphysician wrote:...logical impossibility exists in many forms…
There are two basic forms of logical impossibilities, they are X=~X and X<X.

There is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. So, if we are looking for objective truths (true knowledge), one method is to weed out the "logical impossibilities" from our contaminated pool of beliefs and knowledge.

3017Metaphysician wrote:...whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.

The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.
I see nothing that defies logic, or is paradoxical, regarding time or the explanation of consciousness. Remember, paradoxes are not real, they are much like magic. They rely on our ignorance to make them seem real.

3017Metaphysician wrote:For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?
There is no real "mind" (or controlling entity within us) per se. Consciousness cannot logically do anything. To best understand this impossibility, take a look at my OP entitled The Logical Implication of CTD (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102).

As I see it, we are like everything else in this universe. We are physical objects/entities that auto-react/interact accordingly (to applied stimuli). Those of us entities that possess memory function, and can therefore recognize (experience recognition of) our physical bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" entities. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious physical bodily experience into a "conscious experience".

Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory.

Those entities that possess eyes have the capability to experience seeing.
Those entities that possess ears have the capability to experience hearing.
Those entities that possess memory have the capability to experience recognition (aka "consciousness").

RJG wrote:True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
3017Metaphysician wrote:Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes?
No, true "self-awareness" is clearly logically impossible on at least two fronts.

Firstly we can only experience (or be aware of) experiences (physical bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't actually experience things, or "selfs", themselves.

Secondly, the "self" can't logically be in two places at once. [X<X] He can't simultaneously be both the observer and the observed. For example, pick up a stone and tap it on anything you want. Now tap it on itself. It can't be done. And likewise, the experiencer (aka "self") can experience many things, but never himself. True "self-awareness" is not logically possible.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 29th, 2021, 10:50 am
by 3017Metaphysician
RJG wrote: July 29th, 2021, 7:06 am
3017Metaphysician wrote:...logical impossibility exists in many forms…
There are two basic forms of logical impossibilities, they are X=~X and X<X.

There is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. So, if we are looking for objective truths (true knowledge), one method is to weed out the "logical impossibilities" from our contaminated pool of beliefs and knowledge.

3017Metaphysician wrote:...whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.

The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.
I see nothing that defies logic, or is paradoxical, regarding time or the explanation of consciousness. Remember, paradoxes are not real, they are much like magic. They rely on our ignorance to make them seem real.

3017Metaphysician wrote:For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?
There is no real "mind" (or controlling entity within us) per se. Consciousness cannot logically do anything. To best understand this impossibility, take a look at my OP entitled The Logical Implication of CTD (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102).

As I see it, we are like everything else in this universe. We are physical objects/entities that auto-react/interact accordingly (to applied stimuli). Those of us entities that possess memory function, and can therefore recognize (experience recognition of) our physical bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" entities. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious physical bodily experience into a "conscious experience".

Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory.

Those entities that possess eyes have the capability to experience seeing.
Those entities that possess ears have the capability to experience hearing.
Those entities that possess memory have the capability to experience recognition (aka "consciousness").

RJG wrote:True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
3017Metaphysician wrote:Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes?
No, true "self-awareness" is clearly logically impossible on at least two fronts.

Firstly we can only experience (or be aware of) experiences (physical bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't actually experience things, or "selfs", themselves.

Secondly, the "self" can't logically be in two places at once. [X<X] He can't simultaneously be both the observer and the observed. For example, pick up a stone and tap it on anything you want. Now tap it on itself. It can't be done. And likewise, the experiencer (aka "self") can experience many things, but never himself. True "self-awareness" is not logically possible.
Hello RJG!

I would rephrase it to something like: There is nothing more certain in life than uncertainty. Whether it is the paradox of time, Gödel, Turing, or Heisenberg's uncertainty, it's all the same. There remains something unaccounted for...using logic. Embrace logically impossibility. As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?

With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist. The rock does not know its a rock. In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible? The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?

Maybe it's back to the driving while daydreaming analogy... .

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 29th, 2021, 1:35 pm
by RJG
3017Metaphysician wrote:As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?
Sorry, I don't follow. How does consciousness operate out of logical impossibility???

3017Metaphysician wrote:With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist.
Our knowledge of our existence (of "I am") is logically derived; it is not an 'absolute' truth, nor an 'experiential' truth (via awareness); it is a 'logical' truth.
  • P1. Experiencing exists
    C1. Therefore an Experiencer (called "I") exists.
P1 is the starting premise (the seed upon which to build all true knowledge) that Descartes was searching for but never found. "Experiencing exists" is an absolute; undeniable truth that requires no supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness (i.e. absolute certainty).

Descartes failed logic:
  • P1. I think
    C1. Therefore I am
Failure #1 -- this is a classic "begging-the-question" fallacy (pre-assuming the conclusion). Note the "I" in the premise statement and the "I" in the conclusion statement. He pre-assumes the "I" in the premise so as to then claim it in the conclusion. This logic is therefore invalid, and therefore unsound.

Failure #2 -- Premise statement P1 "I think" is FALSE. It is logically impossible [X<X] to "think" (to cause/create/script/author our own thoughts). We can only 'experience' thoughts (and other bodily reactions), not "think" (or cause/create) them. This logic is therefore unsound.

We only know we exist ("I am") through logic, not through any direct experiential "awareness" (which in itself is logically impossible [X<X]).

3017Metaphysician wrote:The rock does not know its a rock.
Correct. The rock cannot experience 'recognition' and therefore cannot "know" of its existence.

3017Metaphysician wrote:In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible?
Yes, true (direct) "self-awareness" is logically impossible [X<X]. We only know we exist through logic.

3017Metaphysician wrote:The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?
We can't. There is no "conundrum". If we are not aware, then we cannot be aware of anything, including the logic that tells us that we exist.

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Posted: July 29th, 2021, 2:00 pm
by 3017Metaphysician
RJG wrote: July 29th, 2021, 1:35 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote:As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?
Sorry, I don't follow. How does consciousness operate out of logical impossibility???

3017Metaphysician wrote:With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist.
Our knowledge of our existence (of "I am") is logically derived; it is not an 'absolute' truth, nor an 'experiential' truth (via awareness); it is a 'logical' truth.
  • P1. Experiencing exists
    C1. Therefore an Experiencer (called "I") exists.
P1 is the starting premise (the seed upon which to build all true knowledge) that Descartes was searching for but never found. "Experiencing exists" is an absolute; undeniable truth that requires no supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness (i.e. absolute certainty).

Descartes failed logic:
  • P1. I think
    C1. Therefore I am
Failure #1 -- this is a classic "begging-the-question" fallacy (pre-assuming the conclusion). Note the "I" in the premise statement and the "I" in the conclusion statement. He pre-assumes the "I" in the premise so as to then claim it in the conclusion. This logic is therefore invalid, and therefore unsound.

Failure #2 -- Premise statement P1 "I think" is FALSE. It is logically impossible [X<X] to "think" (to cause/create/script/author our own thoughts). We can only 'experience' thoughts (and other bodily reactions), not "think" (or cause/create) them. This logic is therefore unsound.

We only know we exist ("I am") through logic, not through any direct experiential "awareness" (which in itself is logically impossible [X<X]).

3017Metaphysician wrote:The rock does not know its a rock.
Correct. The rock cannot experience 'recognition' and therefore cannot "know" of its existence.

3017Metaphysician wrote:In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible?
Yes, true (direct) "self-awareness" is logically impossible [X<X]. We only know we exist through logic.

3017Metaphysician wrote:The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?
We can't. There is no "conundrum". If we are not aware, then we cannot be aware of anything, including the logic that tells us that we exist.
Hi RJG!

Consciousness/subconsciousness works out of logical impossibility by virtue of the logical proposition: He was driving and not driving his car.

Descartes was correct by using Modus Tollens. Or if you prefer, Kantian synthetic a priori logic. Either way, it's a given that we must first exist to think.

I'm glad to see now you understand that we only know our self consciousness/self-awareness through logical impossibility. That's an important distinction. Much like Time itself, this is a kind of paradox or contradiction that is part of reality. Nonetheless, we still don't understand these things-in-themselves (the nature of same/reality). That is a metaphysical question. Did I get that right?

And so I agree that the rock cannot be aware, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, we become aware through logical impossibility. Or said another way, our thinking and/or self-awareness, logically, is logically impossible.