Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :)
Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one "heretic" here already...alan? :) Thanks for the insights. On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per > se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially > since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect > neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're > all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing > is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to > false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better > times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as > explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing > science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and > measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed > ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture > with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like > hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others > in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative > action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at > some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton > versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard > enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more > than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with > a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are. > > On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) > > > You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to > > get out more :) > > > Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i > > suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a > > misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality; > > in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and > > "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the > > "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite > > asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not > > one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be > > demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts > > closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which > > certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. > > > You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very > > optimistic, archytas :) > > > On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it > > > fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by > > > others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with > > > more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make > > > me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as > > > hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as > > > good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of > > > course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work. > > > I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much > > > time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in > > > any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old > > > team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have > > > been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes > > > it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side > > > appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal > > > abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that > > > interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved > > > that does. > > > That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we > > > generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we > > > come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology > > > (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve > > > some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know > > > you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured > > > realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell > > > whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is > > > not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history > > > of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but > > > I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither > > > matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the > > > obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into > > > the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case > > > because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a > > > rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds > > > and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not > > > under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each > > > other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'. > > > > Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through > > > asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the > > > holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of > > > "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same > > > way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly > > > becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are > > > thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to > > > argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be > > > demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks > > > work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy > > > there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but > > > rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from > > > pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that > > > doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant > > > speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely > > > stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow > > > governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just > > > come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could > > > put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all. > > > For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who > > > reports the 'secrets' under the bandages. > > > > On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > > > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > > > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > > > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > > > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > > > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > > > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > > > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > > > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > > > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > > > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > > > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > > > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > > > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > > > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > > > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > > > > > > "more" comes from? > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > > > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the > > > > > > > ‘more’ > > > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do > > > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can > > > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but > > > > > > > > i'm on > > > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" > > > > > > > > comes > > > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of > > > > > > > > Faith). > > > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox. > > > > > > > > > > I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question. > > > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along > > > > > > > > > with your > > > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of > > > > > > > > > mind’, what, > > > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question? > > > > > > > > > > On > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
