The sad thing is a lot of people out there would concur with that interpretation. — Whickwithy
As I ponder, I sometimes wonder about our wonder. I would go a step further on panpsychism. It is almost as if the universe desires to be sensed in all its wonder. — Whickwithy
Humanity's sentience has changed the game. It is no longer just a genetic improvement in self-organization. It is a conscious improvement on self-organization. — Whickwithy
Hahahahaha! Yeah. I know the feeling.even a few months after completion I can see blunders. — Pop
Are you equating sentience and emotion? I equate sentience with heightened awareness — Whickwithy
We've got so much nonsense stuffed in our heads from childhood that we can't see a true vista yet. — Whickwithy
I guess I've always thought of emotions as an extension of our heightened awareness. — Whickwithy
But why do you think, and what exactly are you? I bet you are a different person today then you were 5 years ago, or 10, 20, 30, etc....years ago. — Pop
For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Does it work for you? — Pop
I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. — Xtrix
As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable. — Xtrix
So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative. — Xtrix
The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. — Pop
As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.
— Xtrix
We have to start with consciousness. — Pop
But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. — Pop
I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion. — Pop
OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means. — Xtrix
whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, — Xtrix
I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out. — Xtrix
but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? — Xtrix
whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity,
— Xtrix
Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. — Pop
I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.
— Xtrix
He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. — Pop
"By the word 'thought', I understand all those things which occur in us while we are conscious, insofar as the consciousness of them is in us. And so not only understanding, willing, and imagining, but also sensing, are here the same as thinking. For if I say, I see, or I walk, therefore I am; and if I recognize this from seeing or from walking which is performed by the body; the conclusion is not absolutely certain: because (as often happens in dreams) I can think that I am seeing or walking, even though I may not open my eyes, and may not be moved from my place; and indeed, even though I may perhaps have no body. But if I deduce this from the action of my mind, or the very sensation or consciousness of seeing or of walking; the conclusion is completely certain, for it then refers to the mind which alone perceives or thinks that it is seeing or walking." - Principles of Philosophy, Part 1 section 9: "What thought is." —
but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness?
— Xtrix
This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry: — Pop
Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields. — Xtrix
Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative. — Xtrix
we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards. — Xtrix
I'm certain all life possesses them to some degree — Pop
I wouldn't go so far as to say all life has emotions (I'm thinking of amoeba, bacteria, etc here). — Whickwithy
Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing. — Pop
we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.
— Xtrix
Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile: — Pop
Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum. — Xtrix
I think therefore I am.
Thinking is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is the fundamental activity and thinking being its result. So the sentence can be rephrased:
I am conscious therefore I am.
This is closer to the truth, but now the sentence highlights what was implicit and inconsistent in the original phrase –there are two identities where there can only be one.
I am conscious and therefore I am. It can be rephrased:
I am consciousness - the therefore I am, is superfluous - what I am is consciousness.
I like it. It now cannot be reduced any further, and it is closer to the truth of our being. I believe, at its base. I like the way it does away with false identity and equalizes and unifies everyone.
What do you think? Is it logical?
For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Dose it work for you?
The construction is a challenge to the notion of identity and its product the ego, so an exploration of this might lead to insights about human nature. — Pop
Self organization is not something we can break free from, or step aside from, even in pure self aware reflection we are self organizing. This perspective has very broad consequences for understanding everything, but in terms of identity and I am, it puts those static notions in doubt, and replaces them with an evolving process of being, as a biological system, where self organization is always taking place -however it may manifest itself. — Pop
We are an evolving process of self organization. We are not a static - I am. We think because we are conscious, there is no choice in the matter. — Pop
All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. — Pop
I understand this as an underlying, necessary occurrence, and maybe you are aligning this with Descartes' desire for something to connect us (to). But the idea of something inseparable from us, however fundamental, does not replace our possibility to claim our existence, our responsibility to, even, or we may, in a sense, not exist at all. — Antony Nickles
But to say that all of us are is a different claim (factual or general), without the moral force of one claiming their own identity--"I am the means of production!" I'm not saying our thought or identity cannot be forced on us, but, in that case, do I exist? — Antony Nickles
I can agree that "We are not a static - I am", but, in what sense are we agreeing? Factually, sure. But we can also disagree: "I am a static; I've always been a Bruins fan". And maybe if one part stands still, anyways, not all of us does. Sure, but that is to say.... what? Something is always happening? And who would disagree? (Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.) — Antony Nickles
Other than a joke, it is also a play on the idea that the words 'nothing' and 'always' and 'happening' have different senses depending on the context, your focus, your interests--to show that 'exists' changes too, as does 'identity'. — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.