Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 11:50:32 GMT -5
'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right. andrew, you might be the only one here on ST's forum with the patience to read my (longer) reply above. But if you go through it, it explains Gopal's position. We can only know our own experience, that's what Gopal is saying. And corollary to that, we cannot know that-which-is-feeding our consciousness, that, could be merely an appearance (gone into in the longer post). It could be a false data feed, it could be imaginary. There is a WALL which separates us from everything else. We ARE the wall. Plato saw all this clearly, thus his allegory of the cave. Gopal is half-way out of the cave. He knows he's only seeing shadows on the wall, but he hasn't climbed out to see the actual Sun and the actual world, yet. But what Gopal sees is HUGE. If you believe there is an actual sun out there, then you have never seen it, you are simply assume it. All you are seeing is, there is a sun in your appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 11:53:39 GMT -5
... Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels) .... If he knows the outer world doesn't exist, that doesn't leave any room for not-knowing in the case of reefs. Reefs would have to be merely appearance by default, and therefore not conscious. I mean, what's the alternative .... potentially two innies interacting, with no outies? It becomes nonsensical. He says he knows the consciousness of the rock, or rather the absence thereof. Which is not a courtesy he extends to reefs. Thats the point, that discrepancy.
No, not necessarily. Assume we five are entered into the virtual reality. We are put our face mask on. My corresponding figment takes my move and yours takes your move, so there is a possibility that he can be real too.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 13:03:12 GMT -5
... Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels) .... If he knows the outer world doesn't exist, that doesn't leave any room for not-knowing in the case of reefs. Reefs would have to be merely appearance by default, and therefore not conscious. I mean, what's the alternative .... potentially two innies interacting, with no outies? It becomes nonsensical. He says he knows the consciousness of the rock, or rather the absence thereof. Which is not a courtesy he extends to reefs. Thats the point, that discrepancy.
You didn't read my long post. No problem (that you didn't read it).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 13:04:03 GMT -5
andrew, you might be the only one here on ST's forum with the patience to read my (longer) reply above. But if you go through it, it explains Gopal's position. We can only know our own experience, that's what Gopal is saying. And corollary to that, we cannot know that-which-is-feeding our consciousness, that, could be merely an appearance (gone into in the longer post). It could be a false data feed, it could be imaginary. There is a WALL which separates us from everything else. We ARE the wall. Plato saw all this clearly, thus his allegory of the cave. Gopal is half-way out of the cave. He knows he's only seeing shadows on the wall, but he hasn't climbed out to see the actual Sun and the actual world, yet. But what Gopal sees is HUGE. If you believe there is an actual sun out there, then you have never seen it, you are simply assume it. All you are seeing is, there is a sun in your appearance. Yes, I understand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 13:05:34 GMT -5
Let me try (not to speak for Gopal). This is probably more of an analogy (that's important, for Gopal, see it?). Take your body (or your own consciousness). ~You~ kind of exist inside the black box of your brain-mind-body. It's dark in your brain, no light. The world touches your senses, lets take the eyes, but it works the same for all 5. Photons hit your eyes, some hits the rods, some hit the cones, rods gives you black and white, one gives you color, red, green and blue (only those colors). Then, this information travels down the nerves to the brain. The light stops at the eyes, it then becomes coded traveling the nerves. When it gets to the brain the info is passed around to about 6 or 7 vision centers, different areas of the brain. These different areas interpret different parts of the info, different patterns. One area deciphers vertical and horizontal. Then, the info is compared to already-existing data in the brain. Say the brain has already experienced an elephant. The brain is basically a prediction machine. So the brain takes the sensory data, it's processing the info. At some point it says, yea, that's an elephant your seeing, and combines its existing elephant-patterns with the incoming data, and you see an elephant. All this happens in a fraction of a second. I've studied perception extensively, this is essentially how it works. There are sensory neurons from the outside world to the brain. There are motor neurons going out to the muscles telling them what to do. But there are no nerves going back to the outside world. So, everything you are seeing, right now, it occurring inside your own brain. You are not seeing the outside world, you are seeing your brains representation of the outside world. Now, I saw all of that at age 18, I traced it all out just like that, on my own, I later read it and confirmed in from books on perception. (Philosophy 101 got me going there, Hume, Locke, but especially Bishop Berkeley). Bertrand Russell gives a good account of this in one of his books. Later, I had a class, Descartes to Kant. We spent about 3 weeks on Descartes, we spent one day on Kant, and it was a lunch-party-seminar at the professors apartment. Kant is really hard, but he knew all this also. Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels). Gopal is absolutely refutable, believe me, I've tried. All this is why I say the world is a hall of mirrors. Our own ~psychology~ is even more devious. Our own psychology performs the same operation in relation to experiencing other people, and understanding other people. We see other people and events according to how-we-are, we don't see objectively. So we are always *projecting*, ourselves, out on-to other people and events. So what we see is merely a reflection of who-we-are. Thus, the world is a hall of mirrors, it reflects back to us, what-we-are-inside. That's why everybody has their own opinion, or even their own data, we *~twist~* everything that enters our consciousness (enters the brain, then, the result enters-forms our consciousness). This VERY difficult to see, it is exceptionally difficult to be objective. Because everything validates our own view of the world, because all we see is our own view. It's exceptionally difficult to get outside of our own view. You'll read all this, according to your own view, and immediately call it bs. See how that works? It's almost foolproof. Almost, but there is a way out. So, it's almost nonsense to say what ~operates~ in-us, is the Whole. Yes, it's the Whole, but it all passes through our own body and our own psychology. This is crystal clear to me, how human consciousness operates, how it operates in-relation to what's-out-there. You still haven't seen the fact that consciousness creates the reality. Change your belief, you will witness the world changes too. Consciousness is simply changing it's appearances. that's all. I said as analogy, I pointed out especially to you I said that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 13:37:56 GMT -5
I don't understand what from your perspective the difference is between the appearance 'rock' and the appearance 'reefs'? Both are appearances to you, right.
So how can you be sure the rock is not conscious (because it is appearance) but can't know whether the appearance reefs is conscious or not. It doesn't track. So can you explain the apparent distinction you are making between rock and reefs in order to reach your conclusions? Ultimately rock and reefs don't differ for me because both are appearing to me. But reefs is appears to be conscious but rock is not. But reefs appears to be conscious doesn't make more better than rock. Ultimately One can't know. So when you say reefs appears to be conscious, really you just are indicating that it seems as though he is, (but that you can't know for sure). I get that much. But it still doesn't answer the question as to why there can be certainty in the case of the rock but not in the case of reefs if both are merely appearance to you. Can you understand that discrepancy? In the paradigm, if it's merely the case that it seems reefs is conscious but can't know for sure, then it must also be that case that it merely seems rock is not conscious but can't know for sure, right? If not, what's the difference that allows for certainty in one instance but not in the other. That's what I don't get. Otherwise, whilst you are saying they are the same, (i.e. both merely appearance to you), you are somehow treating them differently, with no explanation, or for no other apparent reason than 'how it seems' in both cases. Which shouldn't be unequivocal in one instance and not in the other. (I didn't mean to suggest reefs is better than a rock, hehe)
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 13:39:41 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence.So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no? So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain. No, no you are correct with your reasoning. yes, rock and reefs doesn't differ in any way. Both are appearances. Again, if both are merely appearances [to you] and your definition of appearance is as previously detailed …. why the difference in being able to unequivocally know the status of the rock but not the reefs. Can you see my confusion with this stance.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 13:42:24 GMT -5
If he knows the outer world doesn't exist, that doesn't leave any room for not-knowing in the case of reefs. Reefs would have to be merely appearance by default, and therefore not conscious. I mean, what's the alternative .... potentially two innies interacting, with no outies? It becomes nonsensical. He says he knows the consciousness of the rock, or rather the absence thereof. Which is not a courtesy he extends to reefs. Thats the point, that discrepancy.
No, not necessarily. Assume we five are entered into the virtual reality. We are put our face mask on. My corresponding figment takes my move and yours takes your move, so there is a possibility that he can be real too. So, would the VR be all inner and no outer? I assume it must be if there unequivocally is no outer world. Then you are left with [potential] interaction of inner-worlds only? It is confusing to try to picture such a scenario. Not logical.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 13:51:51 GMT -5
If he knows the outer world doesn't exist, that doesn't leave any room for not-knowing in the case of reefs. Reefs would have to be merely appearance by default, and therefore not conscious. I mean, what's the alternative .... potentially two innies interacting, with no outies? It becomes nonsensical. He says he knows the consciousness of the rock, or rather the absence thereof. Which is not a courtesy he extends to reefs. Thats the point, that discrepancy.
You didn't read my long post. No problem (that you didn't read it). I read it and sensed that it engendered a number of 'brain in vat' type queries early on but without detailing the requisite framework for such a scenario. So I picked out some parts that were most salient to my issues with Gopal's stance.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2023 14:16:53 GMT -5
Ultimately rock and reefs don't differ for me because both are appearing to me. But reefs is appears to be conscious but rock is not. But reefs appears to be conscious doesn't make more better than rock. Ultimately One can't know. So when you say reefs appears to be conscious, really you just are indicating that it seems as though he is, (but that you can't know for sure). I get that much. But it still doesn't answer the question as to why there can be certainty in the case of the rock but not in the case of reefs if both are merely appearance to you. Can you understand that discrepancy? In the paradigm, if it's merely the case that it seems reefs is conscious but can't know for sure, then it must also be that case that it merely seems rock is not conscious but can't know for sure, right? If not, what's the difference that allows for certainty in one instance but not in the other. That's what I don't get. Otherwise, whilst you are saying they are the same, (i.e. both merely appearance to you), you are somehow treating them differently, with no explanation, or for no other apparent reason than 'how it seems' in both cases. Which shouldn't be unequivocal in one instance and not in the other. (I didn't mean to suggest reefs is better than a rock, hehe) yes, jumping in here (will read your long post later dusty)....logically, if it simply cannot be known if Reefs is conscious, then it can't be known if a sock is conscious. And I can't see a way to determine a probability. Why would it be 70% probable that Reefs is conscious but only 20% probability that a sock is conscious? Yes, it does SEEM as if Reefs is conscious, but why would that 'seeming' change the probability? I don't see why it would. I think it would have to all be equally unknown. I'd even say that Gopal cannot know if Gopal is conscious, by this same logic
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2023 14:23:53 GMT -5
No, no you are correct with your reasoning. yes, rock and reefs doesn't differ in any way. Both are appearances. Again, if both are merely appearances [to you] and your definition of appearance is as previously detailed …. why the difference in being able to unequivocally know the status of the rock but not the reefs. Can you see my confusion with this stance. yes, what is the basis for determining the probability....Is Reefs more likely to be conscious than a rabbit? Where does a tree fit in the probability scale? What about a rock? Or sock?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 14:32:08 GMT -5
So when you say reefs appears to be conscious, really you just are indicating that it seems as though he is, (but that you can't know for sure). I get that much. But it still doesn't answer the question as to why there can be certainty in the case of the rock but not in the case of reefs if both are merely appearance to you. Can you understand that discrepancy? In the paradigm, if it's merely the case that it seems reefs is conscious but can't know for sure, then it must also be that case that it merely seems rock is not conscious but can't know for sure, right? If not, what's the difference that allows for certainty in one instance but not in the other. That's what I don't get. Otherwise, whilst you are saying they are the same, (i.e. both merely appearance to you), you are somehow treating them differently, with no explanation, or for no other apparent reason than 'how it seems' in both cases. Which shouldn't be unequivocal in one instance and not in the other. (I didn't mean to suggest reefs is better than a rock, hehe) yes, jumping in here (will read your long post later dusty)....logically, if it simply cannot be known if Reefs is conscious, then it can't be known if a sock is conscious. And I can't see a way to determine a probability. Why would it be 70% probable that Reefs is conscious but only 20% probability that a sock is conscious? Yes, it does SEEM as if Reefs is conscious, but why would that 'seeming' change the probability? I don't see why it would. I think it would have to all be equally unknown. I'd even say that Gopal cannot know if Gopal is conscious, by this same logic My mum used to infer that the probability of socks coming to life increases the longer you wear them without washing. In my student days it got to the point where I could practically whistle and they would come running! Only j/k … (I was never a student).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 23, 2023 15:33:49 GMT -5
So when Gopal loses consciousness, is there still a Gopal? That's a very good question. Maybe Gopal can answer. Gopal is the physical expression of a multi-dimensional personality, associated with his entity's current incarnation. When Gopal sleeps, or loses consciousness in another physical way, that means that his personality is focusing elsewhere. His personality never loses consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2023 16:31:04 GMT -5
yes, jumping in here (will read your long post later dusty)....logically, if it simply cannot be known if Reefs is conscious, then it can't be known if a sock is conscious. And I can't see a way to determine a probability. Why would it be 70% probable that Reefs is conscious but only 20% probability that a sock is conscious? Yes, it does SEEM as if Reefs is conscious, but why would that 'seeming' change the probability? I don't see why it would. I think it would have to all be equally unknown. I'd even say that Gopal cannot know if Gopal is conscious, by this same logic My mum used to infer that the probability of socks coming to life increases the longer you wear them without washing. In my student days it got to the point where I could practically whistle and they would come running! Only j/k … (I was never a student). lol there's a running joke in our house that my socks have a mind of their own, because no matter how many socks I buy, they dwindle rapidly over a period of months. The truth is simpler, if Jenn spies a holey sock when it's her turn doing the laundry, it goes in the rubbish. I have registered official complaint, but sadly, the complaints department is biased, and has little tolerance for my whinging!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 17:31:36 GMT -5
You didn't read my long post. No problem (that you didn't read it). I read it and sensed that it engendered a number of 'brain in vat' type queries early on but without detailing the requisite framework for such a scenario. So I picked out some parts that were most salient to my issues with Gopal's stance. Yes, OK.
|
|