The atom and the I: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The atom and the I » The atom and the I

The atom and the I

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The atom and the I

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 03:53 AM:	#21
Tobias wrote: So what causes me to remain me? Is it the case that “you” in fact remains “you”? If “you” were to wake up tomorrow as “somebody else” (with all the memories of that somebody else), how would you actually know that “you” had transferred? How could you possibly tell? The question “what causes me to remain me” therefore is not well framed, because you do not in fact know for certain that “you remain you” – you simply assume that you remain you. I suggest that the notion that “you remain you” is one of those intuitions, which may be false. Tobias wrote: What constitutes me, the person that I am, my identification, is my experiences. But what you call your experiences is simply an interpretation that you make based on your memory, nothing more nor less. If you were to wake up tomorrow as someone else, with someone else’s memory, you would never be aware of the fact that you were no longer you, but someone else instead. The assumption that there is some continuity of personal identity is therefore just that – an assumption – an assumption which cannot be tested or verified. Mako wrote: As for the 'causa sui,' it's principal practical purpose, as far as I can gather, is for morality (moral agency), which implies practical intentions and strategies, Actually there is no need to posit “causa sui”, or even infinite regress, to understand or explain the mechanisms behind morality or even moral responsibility. wuliheron wrote: The ideas of infinite regress and indivisibles are no more counter-intuitive than the idea that the earth is round. It was not intuition that led people to believe the earth was flat, it was personal experience. Intuition may be defined as the apparent ability to acquire propositional knowledge without inference or the use of reason. Taken to an extreme, we could then argue that NOTHING can be intuitive (since the mind must perform some minimal information processing, which can then be construed as basic inference or reasoning, in order to reach any conclusion about the world). Such an extreme view of the meaning of the word would render intuition a completely useless concept. To bring usefulness back to the concept of intuition, we must allow that intuition can be based upon minimal inference and minimal use of reason. When intuition is viewed in this way, we can see that the belief that the earth is flat does indeed seem intuitively correct (such a belief accords with our basic sense impressions, not only that it looks flat on a local scale, but also that “things fall downwards”). I prefer to think of an intuitive belief as a belief which is minimally justified based on a simplistic, shallow or cursory interpretation of sense impressions. In effect, when one has an intuitive belief, one is taking one's sense impressions at face value, without analyzing these impressions in depth and without searching for a greater rational coherency with the rest of one’s worldview. Intuitive beliefs often seem to make sense when viewed “locally”, without reference to one's other beliefs, when one does not seek a deeper level of coherence. In this category I would cite the following as examples of intuitive but false beliefs: That the world is flat That the earth is the “static centre” of the solar system That there is a “self” which exists in absence of consciousness That the world was created by an intelligent designer That humans possess free will of the metaphysical libertarian variety That humans can somehow be ultimately responsible for their actions That a machine could never possess consciousness To Mega Therion wrote: Do you ever experience an 'I'? Because as I see it all that we are immediately aware of are our perceptions; an ego is a kind of useful fiction but I wouldn't say it would be parsimonious to admit it into our ontology. Agreed. The “I” or the “self” is simply an abstraction, a fictional character within a 1st person story (narrative) taking place within our brains when our brains indulge in the kind of information processing which leads to what we call conscious awareness – the “I” is simply the logical centre of narrative gravity of the story being told (see post #21 of the thread “Consciousness” in the Metaphysics section). Edited by reincarnated on 11/05/09 - 08:37 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:25 AM:	#22
The famous "turtles all the way down" anecdote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down evidences the ready intuitiveness of infinite regress.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:36 AM:	#23
brainpharte wrote: The famous "turtles all the way down" anecdote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down evidences the ready intuitiveness of infinite regress. good one, brainpharte... and also evidences the abusurdity of some naive intuitions
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:49 AM:	#24
Dictionary.com wrote: intuition –noun 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. 2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way. 3. a keen and quick insight. 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight. 5. Philosophy. a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object. b. any object or truth so discerned. c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge. Intuition can also be rendered a useless term if its definition is so broad as to include life, the universe, and everything. Hence in philosophy its use is generally more circumscribed than you might find in other arenas.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:07 PM:	#25
I think there's much reason these days from cognitive science to understand that what people call their intuitions are more on the order of the processes that reincarnated suggests. It is undisputed that a great deal of lower level background processing is going on in our brains before an idea pops into our heads. Our brains routinely function as automatic inference generators, well below conscious awareness. When such inferences rise to conscious levels, many of them seem to be intuitions out of nowhere or direct apprehensions or self-evident facts, but they are the result of great amounts of processing. A belief that the whole world is flat, for instance, is not the result of an actual experience of observing the whole world at once, rather it is an automatic inference derived from multiple experiences.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Jehu
Revealer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 883

Posted 11/05/09 - 02:04 PM:	#26
180 Proof wrote: Jehu wrote: The real (absolute/mind) and the apparent (relative/thought) abide together in an interdependent and complementary relationship, the result of which is neither real nor not real, nor both nor neither. Well, glad that's been cleared up. It is not so perplexing a statement as it might first appear. Real and unreal , like all dichotomous pairs, are jointly exhaustive of some higher universe of discourse wherein they complete one another. For this reason, we cannot assert that this higher universe (the result of their union) is wholly real or wholly unreal. Neither can this higher universe be said to be both real and unreal, for this would violate the law of contradiction. However, neither can it be said to be neither real nor unreal, for then it would be completely non-existent.
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 199

Posted 11/05/09 - 02:23 PM:	#27
Jehu wrote: On the contrary, Parmenides held that all things (i.e., mentation, sensations, objects, properties or activities) were existentially One, and differed only in their appearance (essence). He reasoned rightly that the domain of being (existence) was a singular and continuous one; given that there can be no non-being (non-existence) that might act to separate one existent from another. This one absolute, independent and immutable Being he held to be what is real, and what underlies the appearance of all things; while the things themselves he held to be mere appearances (phenomena). The real (absolute/mind) and the apparent (relative/thought) abide together in an interdependent and complementary relationship, the result of which is neither real nor not real, nor both nor neither. Sorry, I didn't see this until now. I don't think we can say with any certainty that Parmenides was an existential monist; I tend toward the predicational monism interpretation, which would allow for a plurality of Parmenidean Ones. Ater all, in the Way of Truth Parmenides only describes a One, without spelling out how many there are (I think Melissus was the only Elean to hold that there is only one One explicitly); and the Way of Belief makes much more sense if we assume that there are at least two, Light and Night. Apart from that, your interpretation is certainly a possible one, with two exceptions. First, I don't think there is any evidence that Parmendies held that the One had mental properties. Perhaps you're relying too much on his connection to Xenophanes? And as for your last sentence, while some presocratics were dialetheists there is no evidence Parmenides was. After all, his argument rests on denying that what is is what is not so many times it's not even funny.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:29 PM:	#28
brainpharte wrote: I think there's much reason these days from cognitive science to understand that what people call their intuitions are more on the order of the processes that reincarnated suggests. It is undisputed that a great deal of lower level background processing is going on in our brains before an idea pops into our heads. Our brains routinely function as automatic inference generators, well below conscious awareness. When such inferences rise to conscious levels, many of them seem to be intuitions out of nowhere or direct apprehensions or self-evident facts, but they are the result of great amounts of processing. A belief that the whole world is flat, for instance, is not the result of an actual experience of observing the whole world at once, rather it is an automatic inference derived from multiple experiences. I agree that people commonly call straightforward inferences "intuition", but words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Usually when people do talk about straightforward inferences as being "intuitive" they are really talking about their emotional attachments to said inferences. Otherwise, a common colloquial response to assertions of such straightforward assertions is "Duh!"

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/06/09 - 12:16 AM:	#29
exel+two wrote: Quick question: Why are you so convinced of the existence of atoms? I mean is not this just empty speculation once you consider the other half of this sub-category of forums (epistemology) and the fact that science (meaning evidentialism and foundationalism) as the only way to really understand this universe doesn't stand up to thirty seconds of intellectual scrutiny? I agree, atom is just a definition for an spacial area we encounter quite frequently. It is just a spacial displacement having specifically defined properties. end of story. But the same can be said of time.
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 11/06/09 - 01:58 AM:	#30
The problem with your (rather Kantian) argument for the I is: (1) that the 'I' is never observed (and it is almost certain the Greeks didn't posses the concept as you use it); (2) that it explanatorily redundant. Or do you think there is anything in our experience that could be explained by an ego but not by individual sensations? Before you say 'the unity of consciousness', I would say that the concept is supect. There is a sensation of red, and there is a certain tactile sensation corresponding to the tomato, but of what exactly are you talking when you claim these two are in some sort of unity? The I is never observed, I don't think that is really true. The I seems to be never observed but I observe myself calling me me and starting a sentence with 'I' lots of times. The I as a whole can also be observed. I recount memories and treat them as intimate. The 'I' is seldom articulated, but that is exactly what I mean. It lays dormant in philosophy but it might well be influential. The same idea I have about sexuality actually, but that is another topic. No, I don't think the I is redundant. It is funny how much influence Hume has. The whole atomistic theory of perception is I think suspect. We don't experience a sensation of red and a tactile sensation which we combine in a notion of tomato. How can this red be abstracted from the red object it is a property of? We always experience sensations in combination and always as my sensations, be it impliitly or explicitly. Otherwise every object would fall apart. I hold that in order to have a world, which we must have if we make claims about its unity or its flux, we need an I. The Eleans didn't have the concept explicitly, but I wonder if they could have the concept implicitly. This must be if Kant is right that every experience must be accompanied by an I.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.