On 8/21/2012 9:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hi Bruno,

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


    On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



    On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal
    <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


        On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



        On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal
        <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


            On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
            But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they
            have their own agendas.


            We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction,
            and minimize self-dissatisfaction. This can be
            programmed in very few lines, but needs a very long time
            to bring sophisticated being like us.


        But doesn't concept or computation of "self" makes this
        statement on self's agenda much less clear than it looks?

        Is "self" some conceptual cartoon or program, like
        individual isolated humanist "bag-of-flesh + brain soup", a
        consumer in a market with bank account, a career, set of
        personal experiences, a class idea, is it a tribal idea, or
        is it some esoteric notion of "Gaian world soul", a family
        notion etc.?

        It is more like a control structure. The self is really
        defined by the ability of some program to refer to their own
        code, even in the course of a computation, like an amoeba can
        build another similar amoeba. Or like when you look into a
        mirror and recognize yourself. It is the third person self,
        like in "I have two legs". Then the math shows that a non
        nameable deeper self is attached with it, and obeys a
        different logic (the soul).

        Satisfying oneself, in nature, is mainly drinking when
        thirsty, eating when hungry, mating, peeing, etc.
        But with its big neocortex, the man has made things more
        complex. By incompleteness (or akin) he is never fully
        satisfied, want more, get addicted, refer to authorities, and
        then to forget how happiness is easy.



    Convincing, but I am less sure. Particularly because 1p
    perspective has apparently many selves (the list I mentioned:
    "bag of flesh, consumer, career, family, citizen etc.")

    "bag" of flesh is more 3p than 1p. The 1p is really the unique
    <here and now> current feeling/subjective experience. Consumer,
    family, career, citizen, ... are 3p attributes, it seems to me.


During and after sports: "I" feel like a single bag of flesh needing replenishment of fluids, minerals etc.

During good improvisation, dance, or lovemaking: "I" feels closer to "woman, man" playing the universe, vanishing in climaxes and orgasm, similar to Salvia or Ecodelic vanishing/minimizing of 1p.

Hi!

Could the effect of Salvia be that it suppresses most the internal oral narrative part of the brain's self-modeling function but not all of the proprioceptive parts? This would cause a sense of "loss of self"...


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon




During precious family moment: "I" feels secondary to doing what's best for all. Similarly, working with great people, or surfing the net, 'I" feels like a tiny node in sort of Vernadsky "Noosphere", although perhaps broader than limiting to human thought operations, than de Chardin and Vernadsky suggest, including plants or other kinds of entity.

During passport control: "I" feels like isolated machine/organism with bizarre designation document, as Heidegger put it in /Being in Time/, "thrown into a world against our will" (we finally don't know, of course... but 1p feels this), in an ocean of alien machines/organisms.

Even though these are 3p attributes as described here. The qualia of these situations, operations of consciousness are quite different to going to bathroom. Empathy, taken as "I understand person x, because I am or feel to be person x on some level. "I" knows what that is like."

At moment of deep insight, astronaut Mitchell of Apollo 14 has brief moment to relax:

/Then looking beyond the earth itself to the magnificense of the larger scene, there was a startling recognition that the nature of the universe was not as I had been taught. My understanding of the separate distinctness and relative independence of movement of those cosmic bodies was shattered... ubiquitous harmony.

/Here Mitchell apparently forgets "egoic" 1p. In moments of experience of this kind of insight, realizing how wrong 1p was, it is perturbed and apparently reconstituted after the insight has been digested somehow.

There are countless other situations in which 1p feels 1p of other organism/machine, like seeing somebody hurt, or like being more "we" with close relations, or like 3p observing herself/himself in a mirror as you say, or complete dissolution of 1p as described above.

This might look fuzzy, in that its hard to imagine genuinely leaving 1p interface. But more Salvia, sex, space travels, and finally death might convince that boundaries are less clear; in any case these distinctions are not merely pure semantics of subjective perspective; they govern our actions quite concretely 1p morphing into some 3p notion of "respectable citizen" during a job interview. Incommunicable 1p truth is shareable when reasoning is shut down. Not just in trance modes of ecstasy, but looking into somebody's eyes in the deathbed, and crying even though 1p will not die and this death will not impact 1p biological functions or survival.

This all to offer possibility that 1p to 3p distinctions are more like breathing membrane and less like totally fixed boundary.



    and the distinction between "self" and "other" is subject to
    transformation.

    How could that be? Is not  "I am my (1p)- self" tautological? Our
    memory, character, personality, name, ...can change, but not the
    "1-I". Indeed that participate to the idea that there is only one
    1-I in the entire reality. One or two perhaps.



That's the heart of problem I'm getting at. One or two or three or...


    Sometimes boundaries are insurmountable and sometimes they
    vanish. Time influences this perhaps.

    But according to you, building on incompleteness, if we
    forget/ignore Gödel and comp enough, happiness is easier :) This
    is not good marketing.

    I did not say that, on the contrary. Gödel can help to grasp the
    roots of our perpetual non satisfaction. If the human were using
    the neo-cortext for Gödel, that would be OK. I was alluding of the
    the use of the neo-cortex in the projection that we do on
    projection that other could do, which can give too much importance
    of the "little ego", when people are no more pleased by buying a
    car and driving if the car does not impress enough the neighbors,
    or when a child feels the need to attract all the time the
    parent's attention to feel to exist, etc. It is a complex
    phenomenon, and it might be abnormally complex for the urban humans.

    Bruno


Yes, of course. That's beautiful... I was merely joking badly ;)

m


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to