There used to be a laboratory joke that the stuff you were swilling down the sink was what you were really looking for. There are a lot of moments in science that I'm inclined to think 'bugger, that explains a lot' of - viewpoints that are somehow 'better'. Sometimes, such moments have left me wondering how I had managed to be so inadequate before. When it comes to consciousness, it's pretty clear our definitions wander and it must, presumably, be as hard to work out a satisfactory notion of 'false consciousness'. Slip's comments are entirely pertinent. I wouldn't challenge the others either, though I'm sure we could get into further elaboration.
My experience of public debate as we witness it in newspapers and current affairs is always that it is too limited to obvious interests that need challenge that never seems to come. Expert professors are wheeled on and tell us we might find happiness in being happy! Others that the war in Afghanistan is to keep our streets safe - some bland assumption is made that 'we' are somehow happy to exchange blowing the crap out of Iraq (etc.) to maintain our security. Bwankers come on and tell us we 'will starve to death' without their wheeler-dealing. Entertainment TV is full of jingles that make me sick. 'The Wire' is more accurate than political punditry. I'm sure many will recognise this tale and could add to it. I'd just take one more step - the grim spectacle of business teaching by people who have done no more than attended university and read some bits of textbook-level dross and don't know why it is mostly wrong. I don't believe the above is false consciousness, but rather that it is designed to tune us into something I would give the label to, something not necessarily an essence. It's a bit like seeing crowds persuaded by demagogues - only this is more obsequious - a sort of banal totalisation. Without pursuing this, I'd jump back top ideas that the Nazis' evil was banal and bureaucratic. I can cry out that their 'doings' were false - but how do we find a way for sufficient fact and information, reasoned through, to be present in 'public consciousness' to feel that what we get is not false and manipulated - remembering that there are some who can never be satisfied on this. It's the feeling that arguments that can be clearly made are routinely excluded in favour of the false balance of air time for a few viewpoints (usually hymns we have heard over and over) that can all be exploded by critical reasoning that sickens me enough to believe something as broad as consciousness is false. Part of this may be the creation of 'govern-mentality' in which we accept only privileged 'representatives' get the full facts, and thus all we can do is accept or challenge their integrity rather than make our own decisions. Currently, throwing debate 'open' to emails and so on, merely seems to throw up goons. I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness - presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation. I have wondered whether this latter stuff could be a viable commercial model given many of us reject newspapers and television. On 8 Sep, 12:59, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 Sep, 12:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am not sure there is "false" consciousness, but that we deem is so, > > and this may be relative. The Dennett video struck me because I > > thought it illustrated nicely the idea of viewpoint. I could feel > > myself change, or had a change in feeling once I "saw" what he was > > leading me to see. At first, I could not see it, then I could. And > > once I could, my viewpoint changed. This doesn't mean that my > > previous viewpoint was false and my new viewpoint true. It only means > > that my viewpoint has changed. Unless it means something to me to > > give it this value. And then I do. > > > It struck me that we go through life like this, missing the complete > > picture (which to Pat, might be God's Will, or, the big picture of > > possibility) and only seeing, feeling, thinking, believing what our > > current viewpoint allows. > > Yup, I'll confirm that. Although there ARE techniques for glimpsing > ahead. Edward De Bono's 'Water Logic' being one. The concept is to > follow the flow of actions. I.e., one action will lead to another, > which leads to another and so on. If we take the time to see where > our actions will lead us, we catch a wider view of the future. > However, this doesn't (and can't) take into consideration unknown, > outside influences, which end up dictating A LOT of what happens. > > >It is a change in view that allows us to > > see more, and not more coming into being, Nothing changes but our > > viewpoint, in the Dennett example, it only included a visual > > perception, but in life may include conceptual, perceptual, emotional, > > rational and many more changes. But consciousness is consciousness, > > there is only brahman. > > > Someone in another group suggested there is pure consciousness > > (knowing of everything and everywhen or cosmic consciousness) or > > consciousness in context - consciousness that is filtered through our > > experience (which is shaped by your viewpoint) I suppose, the > > integration of these might be the non dual perspective. > > Sounds reasonable. Thre trick there is tapping into the big > picture. For example, right now, there are children in Darfur that > are starving or worse. Most people think this has no direct effect on > them. They may well be right, but the indirect effects could be > enormous. For example, malaria isn't the mosquito's fault, after all, > IT'S been infected by a parasite and is only acting (unknowingly) as a > vector. Most effects are a combination of indirect effects and > knowing all the causes is a task beyond the capabilities of all the > supercomputers we will EVER have. > > >http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Here is > > another interesting Dennett video, where he leads us through his > > thinking on the concept of memes. How does our environment or our > > experience effect our consciousness. The answer is, of course, that > > it influences us in many subtle and profound ways - until it doesn't. > > And it doesn't when we gain the understanding that it doesn't need to, > > that our viewpoint need not depend on the content of our experience, > > in fact, it is the other way around, our experience is the > > manifestation of our consciousness through viewpoint. When we can > > operate from this realization, our viewpoint and experience become one > > creative dynamic, with awakened imagination providing all the > > necessary energy. > > The proof of that can be found walking down the street. Give a > tight-lipped smile to someone and they will, most likely, return in > kind; give an open smile and they will, most likely, return in kind. > And one can smile even when in pain that the 'other' couldn't possibly > know about. > > > > > On Sep 8, 2:10 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps it's not false consciousness at all but simply irrational > > > reasoning, discretion gone wild or living an indoctrinated lie. > > > > On Sep 7, 10:56 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I suppose most of our experience of the why continuum has been > > > > disappointment - largely because it's been about manufacturing consent > > > > along Orn's lines - the human sciences have certainly played their > > > > part in this. There has been some focus on what gets 'hard-wired' in > > > > the brain, leading to the notion that religion is and that this > > > > togetherness is an evolutionary advantage. I tend to like notions of > > > > extra-human consciousness because I would prefer something better to > > > > tune into. I much prefer a world in which, told at the door of a New > > > > York restaurant in the 1960s that there was no admittance to women > > > > wearing trousers, Gillian Anscombe (a catholic philosopher with a > > > > clutch of kids) promptly removed hers, to a world of worthies who > > > > prosecute women for wearing them. > > > > 'Hard-wiring' is clearly something for biology to be looking at, but > > > > how has it come to Dawkin's black box to be ignored as irrational - > > > > itself an irrational, unexplored base for 'rational science'? > > > > Introspection has led me to know there is lots of hard-wiring in me I > > > > would rather do without, except in time-constrained moments of fight- > > > > flight and maybe some forms of enjoyment. I am still hard-wired > > > > against being attracted to black women (no doubt a great relief to > > > > them) and inclined to be attracted to white and Asian women and not > > > > men of any shade. I seem, these days, to have become hard-wired > > > > against advertising, cosmetics and commodity-fetishism - which are > > > > linked to disgust in me (such a link is proposed as a learning > > > > mechanism for hard-wiring). There is much 'false-consciousness' I > > > > would like to sweep away in order to have better environmental effects > > > > on what I can be (though we don't want a bunch of PC Nazis in charge > > > > of this). We could have a more virtuous circle of 'consciousness'. I > > > > was brought up in a false consciousness of hating Germans and Japanese > > > > and considerable other racism. I suspect it's Muslims these days. If > > > > we end up not being able to define consciousness I guess we get this > > > > about right - there are possibilities and probabilities. So how can I > > > > be so sure about false consciousness? > > > > > On 7 Sep, 15:51, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 7 Sep, 15:12, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Tubulins are targets for anticancer drugs like Taxol and the "Vinca > > > > > > alkaloid" drugs such as vinblastine and vincristine. The anti-gout > > > > > > agent colchicine binds to tubulin and inhibits microtubule > > > > > > formation, > > > > > > arresting neutrophil motility and decreasing inflammation. The anti- > > > > > > fungal drug Griseofulvin targets mictotubule formation and has > > > > > > applications in cancer treatment. Visions of myself and Pat in > > > > > > bathchairs at the convalescent home for mad techno-speculants > > > > > > needing > > > > > > to finalise string theory to cure our gout! I should think I would > > > > > > concede my Kaliber Yawn theory that string theories are an illusion > > > > > > created by a lack of alcohol in such circumstances. > > > > > > LOL!! Could well be. The last time I had a pint of ale, I was > > > > > sick as a dog. I just can't seem to tolerate alcohol anymore. I > > > > > suppose God is preparing me for a long dry spell. ;-) > > > > > > > Arguments on life and consciousness seem to imply 'why' questions to > > > > > > me - perhaps necessitate them. Memory sort of links to a world of > > > > > > logical necessity (a view from Leibniz). I don't think this big - > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > more concerned we get on with better decision-making that is a > > > > > > contribution to an open society - without this we are cast into some > > > > > > kind of 'killing competition' even if we just leave it to evolution > > > > > > to > > > > > > wipe us out. > > > > > > As I said, the fact that we exist in a continuum implies that the > > > > > system is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be answered. > > > > > I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while we're > > > > > incarnate. > > > > > > > On 7 Sep, 11:01, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4 Sep, 22:02, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of > > > > > > > > > the bio- > > > > > > > > > electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a > > > > > > > > > burning candle > > > > > > > > > produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.” - Simon > > > > > > > > > > …saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and > > > > > > > > > electro-chemical > > > > > > > > > energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like > > > > > > > > > saying that > > > > > > > > > consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that > > > > > > > > > Dennett > > > > > > > > > suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’! > > > > > > > > > Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > way that it functions? > > > > > > > > > Do you think that consciousness arises from something > > > > > > > > disconnected > > > > > > > > from the brain? How would that work? > > > > > > > > The nervous system contains a substance, tubulin, which > > > > > > > creates a > > > > > > > quantum-scale interface to consciousness, which is actually > > > > > > > contained > > > > > > > in the Calabi-Yau space. The brain forms the interface between > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > consciousness-space and our space-time through our bodies. This, > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > course, is given a string-theory paradigm, which is not proven > > > > > > > experimentally but is the only theory on paper that fills in (or > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > the capability of filling in) all the blank areas in quantum > > > > > > > mechanics > > > > > > > and the Standard theory.- Hide > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
