|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 17:34:02 GMT -5
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! 4 kids, two adults, we had a running story that the dryer ate socks. You could literally take clothes out, and not get a single matching pair of socks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 17:48:51 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 logicYes, exactly. The film TRON was way ahead of its time. When the main character Jeff Bridges played, Flynn, went into the computer, he met programs who were conscious. There were rumors among them about a more-real world outside the computer. Flynn found it difficult to tell them, yea, I'm from there. The Thirteenth Floor is also a good film about programming within programming within programming.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 23, 2023 17:48:54 GMT -5
Seen on a Real Estate business sign:
“You can’t change people, but you can change people” 😀
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2023 21:28:01 GMT -5
I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . I don't have to speculate. I am just stating the obvious, what is self-evident, as does Niz, because we don't go by appearance only, we see thru the appearance. You, on the other hand, go by appearance only, and therefore you have to make assumptions like the one that Reefs is probably an actual perceiver (which you can never know for sure). I call that mental confusion. And it's a textbook case of what we here call existential suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2023 22:02:21 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. This is an interesting conversation. As I understand these ... The rock that I perceive is a virtual rock created by my subconscious. So, in itself that rock is an "appearance", it doesn't objectively exist. The appearance I perceive isn't identical to any other perceiver's appearance of that rock. On the other hand, what my subconscious creates is based on its connections (potentially) to all the consciousnesses that exist (although some connections weight more than others, function of my personality's state of consciousness and focus). The rock in itself isn't a gestalt of consciousness. It doesn't have an identity. It is a grouping of "more elementary" gestalts and units of consciousness. Those are conscious, even self-conscious, but surely in a different way than a human is self-consciousness, as gestalt of consciousness. The rock doesn't have an appearance of itself. When Gopal says "from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know.", I guess that he means that that I is his conscious I, the perceiver of appearances created by his associated subconscious, interconnected at non-physical level, that may choose for whatever reason to create an appearance of "you", that may or may not have a corresponding "you" as a gestalt of consciousness associated with an identity. It could just be an appearance. Even Gopal himself doesn't objectively exist, as he perceives only an appearance of himself, created by his subconscious. But he knows that he is / has an identity. It's actually rather simple to understand Gopal's perspective if you understand how multiple player computer games work. In the game, you assume a character with a certain perspective and characteristics and skills and you interact with other characters in the game. And depending on the level of sophistication of the game, while in the game, you can't really tell if the other characters are actually playable (controlled by other humans who take part in the game) or non-playable characters (controlled by the computer). In the old days, games were rather primitive due to limited processing power and lack of realism, and depending on the game, it was easy to tell which was which, i.e. if you were playing against the computer or another human. But these days it's a different story. Also, consider how the world you enter in the game is created by the computer. The entire game world exists as a potential on your hard drive in the form of software code only. It takes a processor to render it into images that you then can perceive. But the computer doesn't render the entire world into images that you can see all the time, only the parts that are relevant to you, i.e. the part of that computer world where you are playing. And it is created in the moment, depending on where you are active, where you are going in that world. So the parts you focus upon are created in the moment and in a sense come into being in that moment and the parts that you don't focus upon anymore, won't be created anymore in that moment and in a sense cease to exist. This is directly related to Gopal's the Moon disappearing when you turn your head thesis and Enigma's people without brains, hearts and inner organs. It's similar to The Matrix movies, but in The Matrix movies you do have an actual world which is the basis of The Matrix world. Without that actual physical world, The Matrix world couldn't exist either, because - no matter how deceiving to the senses and convincing to the mind - the virtual world is only a reflection or simulation of the actual physical world, in the same way that the light of the Moon is only a reflection of the light that comes from the Sun. No Sun, no Moon. No physical world, no Matrix. One is self-sustaining and exists in itself. The other is not. Now, in order to move this analogy from the game context into the real life context, you have to bring consciousness and appearances into the mix. And I think Gopal has been very clear about this. And from a purely intellectual perspective, what Gopal is proposing is perfectly logical. However, logic is the realm of the intellect and the intellect can only know appearances, but not what gives rise to appearances, i.e. consciousness. Therefore, to the intellect consciousness is also just another appearance. And so this is where you see Gopal's theory becoming self-contradictory until it eventually collapses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 23:27:35 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) Because it appears that way. Reefs appears to be conscious but rock is not. So I believe Reefs is conscious while rock is not. But this is my belief, not knowing. When knowing comes into play, I can't ultimately know reefs and rock are conscious because both are appearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 23:29:05 GMT -5
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . I don't have to speculate. I am just stating the obvious, what is self-evident, as does Niz, because we don't go by appearance only, we see thru the appearance. You, on the other hand, go by appearance only, and therefore you have to make assumptions like the one that Reefs is probably an actual perceiver (which you can never know for sure). I call that mental confusion. And it's a textbook case of what we here call existential suffering. Nobody can see through appearance. Appearance is appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2023 23:52:55 GMT -5
I don't have to speculate. I am just stating the obvious, what is self-evident, as does Niz, because we don't go by appearance only, we see thru the appearance. You, on the other hand, go by appearance only, and therefore you have to make assumptions like the one that Reefs is probably an actual perceiver (which you can never know for sure). I call that mental confusion. And it's a textbook case of what we here call existential suffering. Nobody can see through appearance. Appearance is appearance. Thank you for confirming my point.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 24, 2023 6:12:21 GMT -5
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! Kudos to Jenn, ... that beats my policy of holding onto holey socks so long that they become a sort of foot-snood'!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 24, 2023 6:22:36 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) Because it appears that way. Reefs appears to be conscious but rock is not. So I believe Reefs is conscious while rock is not. But this is my belief, not knowing. When knowing comes into play, I can't ultimately know reefs and rock are conscious because both are appearing. Okay, so you're basically saying that the 'rock is not conscious' position is an assumption based on the way the appearance strongly seems, but that you cannot know for sure. For some reason that is different than it had always come across to me, which always seemed somewhat more unequivocal, so thank you for clarifying. That position is at least consistent with your 'cannot know other (person) as real perceiver position'. But then you can't unequivocally say "rock is not conscious because it is appearance', a statement which implies something else … something about the nature of appearance itself, and would therefore have to be applied equally to reefs.
To everyone, fwiw I say the niz quote that reefs posted (which began this conversation again), isn't based merely on how it strongly seems, but rather on insight into the nature of reality/creation itself. The nature of how Intelligence conditions appearance at every level I mean, and what that means even in terms of what is commonly perceived as inert matter. Although, for the sake of balance, I have to concede that 'rock is conscious' is an awkward turn of phrase at best, which is ripe for misinterpretation, misappropriation and contention. To be clear rocks don't have thoughts, feelings and they don't go to the theatre. Even to say rocks are merely aware of their surroundings and act accordingly is problematic but is closer to what's being implied. Closer to the Truth. No doubt some will relate to that and others won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2023 7:08:52 GMT -5
Because it appears that way. Reefs appears to be conscious but rock is not. So I believe Reefs is conscious while rock is not. But this is my belief, not knowing. When knowing comes into play, I can't ultimately know reefs and rock are conscious because both are appearing. Okay, so you're basically saying that the 'rock is not conscious' position is an assumption based on the way the appearance strongly seems, but that you cannot know for sure. For some reason that is different than it had always come across to me, which always seemed somewhat more unequivocal, so thank you for clarifying. That position is at least consistent with your 'cannot know other (person) as real perceiver position'. But then you can't unequivocally say "rock is not conscious because it is appearance', a statement which implies something else … something about the nature of appearance itself, and would therefore have to be applied equally to reefs.
To everyone, fwiw I say the niz quote that reefs posted (which began this conversation again), isn't based merely on how it strongly seems, but rather on insight into the nature of reality/creation itself. The nature of how Intelligence conditions appearance at every level I mean, and what that means even in terms of what is commonly perceived as inert matter. Although, for the sake of balance, I have to concede that 'rock is conscious' is an awkward turn of phrase at best, which is ripe for misinterpretation, misappropriation and contention. To be clear rocks don't have thoughts, feelings and they don't go to the theatre. Even to say rocks are merely aware of their surroundings and act accordingly is problematic but is closer to what's being implied. Closer to the Truth. No doubt some will relate to that and others won't. I did not say Rock is not conscious unequivocally. Since It appears to be not having conscious I assumed it is not conscious in the same I assume Reefs is conscious because he appears that way .
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 24, 2023 7:42:18 GMT -5
Okay, so you're basically saying that the 'rock is not conscious' position is an assumption based on the way the appearance strongly seems, but that you cannot know for sure. For some reason that is different than it had always come across to me, which always seemed somewhat more unequivocal, so thank you for clarifying. That position is at least consistent with your 'cannot know other (person) as real perceiver position'. But then you can't unequivocally say "rock is not conscious because it is appearance', a statement which implies something else … something about the nature of appearance itself, and would therefore have to be applied equally to reefs.
To everyone, fwiw I say the niz quote that reefs posted (which began this conversation again), isn't based merely on how it strongly seems, but rather on insight into the nature of reality/creation itself. The nature of how Intelligence conditions appearance at every level I mean, and what that means even in terms of what is commonly perceived as inert matter. Although, for the sake of balance, I have to concede that 'rock is conscious' is an awkward turn of phrase at best, which is ripe for misinterpretation, misappropriation and contention. To be clear rocks don't have thoughts, feelings and they don't go to the theatre. Even to say rocks are merely aware of their surroundings and act accordingly is problematic but is closer to what's being implied. Closer to the Truth. No doubt some will relate to that and others won't. I did not say Rock is not conscious unequivocally. Since It appears to be not having conscious I assumed it is not conscious in the same I assume Reefs is conscious because he appears that way . Okay, my mistake. I thought you had been saying before that rock is not conscious because it is appearance only.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2023 11:58:20 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. yes, the problem arises when we see the shadows, and then believe the 'shadows' are the world. It's why I was keen to point out yesterday that the word 'appearance' is just a metaphor, or an indicator.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2023 12:03:11 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) Because it appears that way. Reefs appears to be conscious but rock is not. So I believe Reefs is conscious while rock is not. But this is my belief, not knowing. When knowing comes into play, I can't ultimately know reefs and rock are conscious because both are appearing. But what seems to be the case can be very deceptive. For example, from my point of view right now, the earth seems flat, but that doesn't mean it is. Do you take the view that we should form our beliefs based on what 'seems' to be the case?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2023 12:09:13 GMT -5
Okay, so you're basically saying that the 'rock is not conscious' position is an assumption based on the way the appearance strongly seems, but that you cannot know for sure. For some reason that is different than it had always come across to me, which always seemed somewhat more unequivocal, so thank you for clarifying. That position is at least consistent with your 'cannot know other (person) as real perceiver position'. But then you can't unequivocally say "rock is not conscious because it is appearance', a statement which implies something else … something about the nature of appearance itself, and would therefore have to be applied equally to reefs.
To everyone, fwiw I say the niz quote that reefs posted (which began this conversation again), isn't based merely on how it strongly seems, but rather on insight into the nature of reality/creation itself. The nature of how Intelligence conditions appearance at every level I mean, and what that means even in terms of what is commonly perceived as inert matter. Although, for the sake of balance, I have to concede that 'rock is conscious' is an awkward turn of phrase at best, which is ripe for misinterpretation, misappropriation and contention. To be clear rocks don't have thoughts, feelings and they don't go to the theatre. Even to say rocks are merely aware of their surroundings and act accordingly is problematic but is closer to what's being implied. Closer to the Truth. No doubt some will relate to that and others won't. I did not say Rock is not conscious unequivocally. Since It appears to be not having conscious I assumed it is not conscious in the same I assume Reefs is conscious because he appears that way . So any appearance COULD be a 'viewpoint of consciousness' (to use your words)? Are there any limitations to that? For example, can a thought be a viewpoint? Can a triangle be a viewpoint? Can a word on the screen in front of you be a viewpoint?
|
|