Could we say it is a door that opens into awareness..or were you saying some cannot smell=some=cannot sense as others
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:57 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > It is great to read these issues from you Neil! All too often, your > (appropriate) skepticism reduces most to an absurd and quickly > rejected state. Here, with just the few sketches by you of areas of > western philosophy, I have been given a taste of and arrows to new > (for me) areas of study even though the term is not new. It merely is > not a part of my vocabulary yet. Upon a quick perusal of things > qualia, almost immediately I shut down knowing from the first few > words that it is an area where no one seems to know anything no matter > how complex, simple or even simplex the presentation! I will say this… > most texts by the classic Buddhist philosophers start at knowledge > points that are leaps and bounds above what little I have read in this > western arena so far. > > Your binary (black/white) thought experiment reminds me of one of the > spiritually based tribes hidden deep in the forests of South America. > Ignoring the obvious sexism, they place their baby boys in a cave > where they are tended for in almost total darkness for the first hand > full of years of their lives. Then, in a ritual of coming of age, they > are led outside blindfolded and at the proper point the blindfold is > removed. It is reported this is a transformative and pivotal point of > their lives. I have no doubt at all of this. What a marvelous > awakening ….seeing sunlight for the first time ever, trees, mountains, > the sky etc. In a way, this seems a preferable ritual for humanity in > general to me. > > One of the issues found within explanations of things qualia include a > non agreement of definitions of terms used. (Something all too often > seen on the web.) For me, long ago such things were simplexly (?) > clarified for me by using the Buddhist term ‘appearances’. This simple > linguistic tool easily applies to everything one thinks about (words/ > concepts) as well as all that is ‘known’ through the senses. Starting > out with a tenet of this order is helpful for me on many fronts. > First, one doesn’t have to debate about the ‘right’ meaning of a term > nor even what different things actually are. They ALL are of the same > nature…subjective/relative. They all rely upon something for their > ‘existence’. This of course begs the question of what else is there > and as you know I present the absolute, that with no components, that > which relies upon nothing else for its existence. Of course, this > latter is difficult for strict materialists to swallow. Yet, in my > experience and apparently that of most qualophiles, such ineffable and > metaphysical realities are not doubted even though they may not be > clearly defined or even well understood. And, of course as is the case > for any dialectic, the qualophobes simply reject such phenomena. This > act, like most current day neo-con views perplexes me greatly. > > Again, with the cosmology of mind-only, even though there may appear > to be the different sets of relative and the absolute, seen through a > large objective ‘eye’, all such appearances of differences quickly > become reunified. > > Enough waxing and Ivory Soap Boxing. > > Thanks again…my synapses thank you too! > > > On Nov 24, 9:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I found much to agree with in your last long post Orn. Introspection > > is a key element in science, not least in deciding what we should be > > treating as 'real'. Einstein pondering on light is a classic. I > > think there is a place for the 'electrodes' and the biochemistry of > > the senses, but you are still right in terms of deep philosophy. This > > from Stanford gives enough to show some of the points: > > > > 'Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers > > over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to > > see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I > > am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective > > character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, > > some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term > > ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively > > accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this standard, > > broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are > > qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have > > qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and > > how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the > > head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely > > because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of > > consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem. > > > > The entry that follows is divided into eight sections. The first > > distinguishes various uses of the term ‘qualia’. The second addresses > > the question of which mental states have qualia. The third section > > brings out some of the main arguments for the view that qualia are > > irreducible and non-physical. The remaining sections focus on > > functionalism and qualia, the explanatory gap, qualia and > > introspection, representational theories of qualia, and finally the > > issue of qualia and simple minds. > > > > 1. Other Uses of the Term ‘Qualia’ > > 2. Which Mental States Possess Qualia? > > 3. Are Qualia Irreducible, Non-Physical Entities? > > 4. Functionalism and Qualia > > 5. Qualia and the Explanatory Gap > > 6. Qualia and Introspection > > 7. Representational Theories of Qualia > > 8. Which Creatures Undergo States with Qualia?' > > > > Typical experiments include someone theorising about the world whilst > > in a black and white room watching black and white television and then > > being let out into the world of colour (thought experiment). This is > > held to give physicalism a very hard time. There is a new discussion > > of this at Stanford this month. > > > > I tend towards simpler notions. Popper's 'World 3' is something we > > lament about, even if we don't mention it directly. This is a world > > of human fabrication, made rather than given. It differs from the > > common sense world (World 2) in that it thrives and prospers on > > unsettling new facts rather than looking for evidence that will > > confirm partialities. We often lament that media hype, politics and > > the rest attempt to direct us to accept them as World 3. Much > > research is frankly no better than this. I do tend towards the notion > > that we should be doing something to increase access to World 3. This > > is partly a matter of fully open minds, something I can't contemplate > > without introspection and multidimensional language. > > > > On 25 Nov, 03:09, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is really good...lucky yall... > > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:33 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Beethoven's 9th is a wonderful example Francis. Sue and I 'saw' > (much > > > > more than heard) a wonderful amateur performance in Portugal last > > > > year. I too am off up the wooden hill, but I'll venture one of my > old > > > > chestnuts. I have long wanted the Robin Hood myth to be true in the > > > > sense of wanting to know its hold on some of us. In one example, > only > > > > Will Scarlet, the most rough and ready in this characterisation, is > > > > not swooned by King Richard (played by a possibly pissed Brian > > > > Blessed) and wouldn't trust any of the upper class Normans as long as > > > > he could draw breath. In another, the Sheriff of Nottingham is the > > > > real hero, trying to change things through collaboration and > education > > > > (Robin being more of a charismatic prat getting us all killed in > > > > hopeless and doomed revolution). In the first, Will saves the > others, > > > > in the second charisma fails. Orn displays some characteristics of > > > > this myth, though is not pretending to be a millennial charismatic. > I > > > > am still impressed by the Monkey and Water Margins series, with > > > > statements like 'to oppose an oppressor is to support him'. The > > > > current BBC series 'Spooks' seems to me an example of the opposite > and > > > > written by establishment gooks purveying the neo-con line. There is > a > > > > question as to how we make simplexity not about gullible > > > > reinforcement, but wiser interpretation. I want to find ways to > > > > shorten argumentation, yet know this is too often done through terror > > > > and suppression. > > > > > > On 22 Nov, 22:51, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 22 Nov., 06:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote:> I > > > > share your idealism Neil… even when it came to Occham….until I > > > > > > noticed that when applied to itself, the razor disappears. > > > > > > > This dialogue between Neil and Orn has set all kinds of ideas > sparking > > > > > in my mind - I need more time to let many of them work and come to > > > > > some sort of fruit. Some brief comments: > > > > > > > Master William's sharp instrument is a very useful tool. But we > should > > > > > remain aware of its nature - as a tool - and, as every good > handworker > > > > > knows, not every tool is appropriate for every occasion. There's a > > > > > word Neil has used here a couple of times, "simplexity", which I > like. > > > > > There is often wonderful complexity in simple things, and > simplicity > > > > > too in the complex. There is, I hope, some kind of truth to be > > > > > obtained through reason (and it is here that Occam's razor works > > > > > best). But there are also truths which express themselves in art, > > > > > music, literature, poetry. Ginsberg's "Howl" and Joyce's "Ulysses" > > > > > come to mind, as do Monet's "Water Lilies," Beethoven's 9th > Symphony > > > > > and Pink Floyd's "Saucerful of Secrets." Just examples. Life, both > > > > > individual and common, is as much an artwork to be experienced as > it > > > > > is a problem (or problems) to be solved. As Molly has put it > (although > > > > > the words here are mine) we need to sustain the paradoxes put > forward > > > > > by not rejecting one in favour of the other. Holding on to the > > > > > apparent opposites, while letting everything go. > > > > > > > Not very clear, I know, but I can't put it better than this at the > > > > > moment. As Pepys put it, and so to bed! > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- 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.
