Your Thoughts? — boagie

You should put a lot more effort into your opening posts.

Perhaps if you expand your idea a bit more, it would be easier to answer. To say that perceptions, experiences and identity are stored memory doesn't say much about the title of the thread. So first of all, in relation to the title, you might want to say what you mean by reaction consciousness.

Do you mean to suggest that consciousness is necessarily reactive? Why can't it be essentially active? The world having a function is surely something we state about the world and not a fact about it.

Perhaps you have in mind the idea that we create everything through consciousness. In short, say a bit more and try to see if you find a relation between the ideas. Only then can someone give an assessment of the general idea.

Perception is reaction — boagie

Psychologically, it is more complex. We react to what we think is important and ignore everything else as mere noise. So a perceptual response is a reaction to a meaning we read world. It is as much about what we can dismiss as about that which feels demanding of our attention.

The world is what it is. Our response divides into some useful balance of “whatever” and “OMG!”.

apokrisis
Yes, indeed, but probably there is a scan involved. You do not seem to disagree that perception is reaction, is experience, is consciousness, many do.

You do not seem to disagree that perception is reaction — boagie

Define reaction more precisely then. That way my disagreement, or agreement, would become clearer.

Hi Manuel, Well most people I've discussed this with disagree that perception is reaction. Personally, I believe that apparent reality is a biological readout, the reason apparent reality appears as it does to us is because our biology is just so. Feed us all the data we are capable of sensing and excluding all the rest we get the readout that we do. Yes, it is passive, it is not an intellectual decision one makes to perceive just as you are not the author of your next thought, it just being in the world, which you didn't decide either. You are a function of the world, or as , his name leaves me now, said, an apple tree apples and the world peoples--lol!! I believe its all reaction, consciousness as well, we do not act, we react. Your thoughts?

Yeah, I guess that is why they would post just one sentence--LOL!! Actually I think a lot of people would find much to object to. I was feeling a bit flippent, haven't made a lot of posts here. I see there is no quote function. That might be a blessing.

Ah, good information. Sounds somewhat like transcendental idealism, similar to Kant or the Neoplatonists. I think what you say has to be true as a matter of fact: because we are the way we are, we view the world as it appears to us, not as it is in itself or from a "view from nowhere".

Where I disagree is with the idea that consciousness is passive. I think it may appear to be passive, but I think it's constantly active. It's always intentionally-anchored (about) object or thoughts, real or fictional. If you close you eyes and cover you ears in a dark room. You will see plenty of activity. It seems as if consciousness is just "wanting" to be anchored in something that "makes sense."

But in general, I think what you say is on the right path.

Reaction is a response on a biological and/or behavioural level to an affect, and that which is the ultimate affect for a conscious subject is the world as object, in which subject and object are a duel function to produce perception/reaction/consciousness. The world affects, the subject is effected/reacts. You are the eyes, ears and consciousness of the world, it is through lifes consciousness that the world knows itself.

Hi Manuel,
The mind is what we think of as active in sleep, working the night shift. If apparent reality is a reaction to the affects of the physical world as object, the mind at night is just tidying up the conflicts which the community perhaps deems unresolved. Just a thought, but we dream a jumble of experiences of the physical daytime world, it is not to say reaction is limited to our waking life. There seems to be a common negative reaction to the idea that we are reactionary creatures but historically we also distanced ourselves from lifes family tree, which is still carried on by the religious, the religious, not so humble after all, and we let them vote for Trump.

Reaction is a response on a biological and/or behavioural level to an affect, — boagie

So the reaction is to an affect rather than the world as the thing in itself? Are you making my point that perception is a triadic modelling relation rather than a Cartesian representation?

The world affects, the subject is effected/reacts. — boagie

The world affects what exactly? Again, every moment I am being “affected” by any amount of physical information. But most of it I don’t notice or remember. Something more must be going on than the old cogsci “neural data display”.

Your subject matter here is psychological science. It is unclear how your use of the term “reaction” either agrees or disputes any particular theoretical position.

Hi apokrisis, Something simply being is an object of possible affect upon a conscious being/read subject. The old philosophical statement that subject and object stand or fall together could not be more true. If all life was not reactive to that greater reality the world and the cosmos evolution could not be a fact. The world as you probably know on the more ultimate level is motion, frequencies of various kinds some of these we perceive/sense some we do not, but those that we do affect of biology and it reacts to said stimulus. No doubt, we are effected/react to some stimulus we are not aware of. It sounds like you requesting some sort of authority for my views, no doubt there are to many to count. Apparent reality is a biological readout, meaning add all the stimuli we are capable of sensing and the readout is apparent reality. Biology defines apparent reality, it is through the body the mind know apparent reality. Best authority that comes to mind Spinoza.

I still have no idea on which side of any argument you stand. So I’m out.

OK! The argument is this, that there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction as such life is a function of earth. All life on earth is reactionary, if this was not so, evolution itself would not be a fact. So, if you wish to challenge the idea that there is no such thing as human action, then you're in the game so to speak. If you disagree, give me an example of some action which could not be better understood as a reaction, this overlaps into free will as well.

The world is cause, and organisms are ALL reactive creatures, give me one example of human action, there just isn't any.

The world is cause, and organisms are ALL reactive creatures... — boagie

ALL reactive creatures are part of the world and are therefore causal, right?

give me one example of human action — boagie

Every cause is fundamentally an uncaused cause if so willed and taken on faith by the bullshit maker.

Every act is an act of God, the 1st cause and the uncaused cause.

Each organism is part of the world, such that other organisms become objects in the relation between subject and object. So, in your experience, other organisms are cause as being part of the outside world is cause.--that is a yes to your statement!

To try and makes sense of this cause business, place yourself in the centre of your universe---not mine--lol!!!! Experience for yourself what moves you, and remember, one needs to be moved within/motivated before one can move without in reaction.

other organisms are cause — boagie

Sure, for instance, if my dog Red bugs me enough to take him fetch'n, I'll take him fetch'n. He causes me to embark on a particular endeavor. Later out on the field, if I throw a frisbee it will cause Red to run like a bat outta hell after it. By throwing the plastic disk I intentionally cause Red to do something. If we're on the field and I don't throw the frisbee soon enough Red will often jump and take little nips at me. This often causes me to throw the frisbee.

Oh, and yeah, Red and I are both part of the world.

Praxis, EXCELLENT!! You caused red to do something as part of his greater world, but to you, it was a reaction to Red, and through your reaction, you affected/caused Red to run liked bat out of hell--reaction.

I guess the big difference is that I possess the explicit concepts of cause & effect and Red does not, and he’s more locked into a conditioned pattern. Although it is true that Red conditions me, I consciously condition (train) him to a far greater extent. THAT, I submit, is human action.

HI Praxis,
Well as far as being locked into a conditional pattern, the roles of both earth as object and you as subject are iron clad for both you and Red. Your submission is wrong, Anything you do must be motivated and where does that motivation come from but your outside world. Remmeber, one must be moved within, before one can move without in reaction too.

:chin: No, for instance, I’m continually motivated both within and without to consume foods that are unhealthy (fat & sweet), at least in too large a quantity, and yet I abstain from consuming them too often (for the most part :grimace: ). I reason and make projections of future outcomes for the dietary decisions I make. In contrast, Red has little if any capacity to realize the consequences his insatiable appetite. I feed him well, but left to his own devices he would eat himself sick at every opportunity. He has no choice, I do.

HI Praxis,

To be motivated to eat, for every true need of an organism there seems to be the counterpart in the physical world to fulfill that need. When one is hungry it is due to an inadequate partaking of the outer world. One is reacting to the need of such things that are considered food to the organism just as surely as the air the organism breaths. Again all organisms are reactive creatures to the physical world, in this behavioural relation through the organisms reactive nature, the creature establishes its oneness, its interdependence, the world as we know it is dependent on us, its reactive creatures. Reactive/consciousness is how we know the world, it's apparent reality dependent upon our biologically conscious /reactive nature.

Being a reactive creature does not limit the ablity to choose, you choose to train Red, and that is a reaction to Red and your will to have him behave in particular ways. I suggest there may be something wrong with Red, was he abused before he became your dog? My experience with animals is that if they are asured of their food, there is none of this behaviour of eating as much as is possiable to the point of illness, has Red ever known starvation? With Red's behaviour and with the behaviours of your fellow humans, it would be wise if you wish to understand their behaviours to ask yourself, what are they reacting to , it might not be something in your immediate presence. By the way, I never said that one cannot excirses judgement in one's choices, if you chose not to eat something, that is a reaction as well, one cannot escape being a reactionary creature.

I suggest there may be something wrong with Red, was he abused before he became your dog? My experience with animals is that if they are asured of their food, there is none of this behaviour of eating as much as is possiable to the point of illness, has Red ever known starvation? — boagie

Most people, in America anyway, are overweight and suffer serious health consequences of poor dietary choices. Dogs do not consider the consequences at all. Red is no exception and has suffered no abuse of any kind. We’ve had him since he was eight weeks old, and he comes from a reliable breeder.

Coincidentally, the photo may suggest that Red is conscientious about what he eats, appearing to be reading the label of a bag of food, but that is not the case. It’s just the earliest photo that I have of him, and when he still lived with the breeder.

Anyway, you’ve asked for an example of human action and I’ve been attempting to provide such examples. I will offer another that also involves Red. I’ve trained Red to howl when he hears a siren. If he hears the siren of a police car, fire truck, or ambulance his reaction to that stimulus will be to howl. There is absolutely no practical reason for this reaction or training for this reaction. I started training him to react this way out of mere whimsy and because I find it amusing to see him howl. So what am I reacting to that I train him to react this way?

Major cute dog! Human action simply is not possible, everything you do is a reaction, and your motivations come from mostly the outside world, but one could be reacting to a medical condition or the presence of a parisite, which has been known to alter one's behaviour. If one believes that people act badly through spontaneous action, this leave us in complete bewilderment as to cause. All reaction of reactionary creatures is first motivated thus, it is reaction. Examine your interactions with Red what is motivating you and what is motivating Red the give and take.

If one believes that people act badly through spontaneous action, this leave us in complete bewilderment as to cause. All reaction of reactionary creatures is first motivated thus, it is reaction. — boagie

Since he was a pup, I trained Red to howl at sirens by simply howling myself whenever one was audible in the neighborhood. I’m not exactly sure what the motivation for his compliance might be, there were no treats involved. Maybe kind of a pack mentality thing and I taught him a pack behavior. Whatever the case, he’s fully conditioned to react in a particular way to a particular stimulus. As I mentioned, there’s no practical reason for this behavior. There’s no goal achieved by it, other than my simple amusement. Though the conditioning may naturally fade over time if not reinforced with practice, Red will never consciously plan to change his conditioning himself. Dogs don’t have the capacity of abstract though and planning in order to do that.

If I don’t like the way that I react to a particular stimulus I can consciously change how I react. In other words, if I have a bad habit that interferes with my goals I can recondition myself to act in a way that better suits my goals. This is a uniquely human ability, it is human action.

Again, human action is not possible. Before one can move in the physical world one must be motivated to do so, where does that motivation come from? Where there is motivation to affect the physical world it is always a reaction. Red, as well as yourself, are reactive creatures. You react to him and he reacts to you.

Red, as well as yourself, are reactive creatures. — boagie

We are also causal creatures. We can both motivate.