Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GlobalPlayer

Regulars
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

GlobalPlayer's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Thank you guys for helping me jump start my mind...
  2. Ok guys, Just to get things straight: I am convinced that Objectivism is true and there's no need to convince me or look at me as someone who wants to argue against it. I am trying to understand (logical) details that due to my tight schedule I can't solve on my own at lenghts right now. It's about completely logically understanding what right now is still half-feeling and half-understanding. Thank you for your support! I think you want to tell me that reason is the only valid standard for carefully examinig the world. In other words it is the only orientation in epistemology. And I think you are also trying to tell me that although there's only objective certainty possible (within the context of my present knowledge), this isn't the issue at stake here. The "absolute" in "reason is one's only absolute" is not about absolute certainty, but about absolute standard of evaluation. If reason "says" it is one way it would be false to believe differently. If that is in fact how you see it it brings me to the next issue of why Objectivism regards reality as one's ultimate standard of evaluation? GlP
  3. Ok guys, do you mean that the "absolute" in "reason should be one's only absolute" is to be regarded as contextual as is all other knowledge? Absolute as designating the certainty within the context of my present knowledge?
  4. Hey guys! I am wondering how one can regard reason as one's only epistemological absolute if one can only have objective knowledge of the world. If one doesn't know absolutely everything there's to know, it still doesn't disturb one to know something, but how can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge (if e.g. one doesn't know if there are aliens on Planet XYZ). My guess is that the word absolute is used in two different contexts and meanings 1. In the sense of using it as one's only epistemological absolute, as the only absolute means to knowledge 2. In the sense of regarding knowledge as absolutely certain Can you please help me understand the difference and validity of the idea? Thanks, GlP
  5. david, your statement hit me the most. Because what you said is what I used to think of intuition, but it has been replaced by SoL...If you could tell me where you draw the line between intuition and SoL id be glad to listen. If I now had to say where I think your line is it would be the following: Intuition is a process on a subconscious level which is the result of being familiar with the situation one is in and doesn't need to consciously think about it anymore to know what one is going to do. One has lived through it a 1000 times and knows intuitively the next step in the chain of events. Example: One intuitively knows how to drive a car after 20 years of car driving experience. One doesn't need to look at the stick to change gears anymore. Your intuition can fail you, when for example switching to a car with automatic gearshift or vice versa. SoL still happens on a subconscious level but in contrast to intuition it integrates value-judgments and emotions from all aspects of life while intuition integrates factual experience and its integrations are epistemological rather than aesthetically. This means that one can even have an intuition about having a SoL. If one has experienced the functioning of one's emotion-integrating-mechanism (SoL) many times one doesn't need to think about it anymore to know that it is there and how it works. In other words: SoL gives you a hint bout what is important (to you) while intuition gives you a clue about what could be true. Bullshit?
  6. What I am trying to figure out is, if humans actually have intuition or if the idea of Sense of Life which Rand introduced is much more to the point. I find for myself, that since I have discovered the concept "Sense of Life" my life has been improving alot, because I am now able to understand my feelings even better than before. In the beginning I was kinda disconnected from my emotions but SoL fixes exactly that issue. What bugs me though is the concept "intuition". Rand writes in the Romantic Manifesto page 32: "This leads many people to regard a sense of life as the province of some sort of special intuition, as a matter perceivable only by some special, non-rational insight. " She makes clear the point, that SoL isn't an irreducible primary, and needs to be analyzed by a rational method to be understood instead of accepting it as a never analyzable intuition. Since I read this for the first time I have been wondering what I now need the concept "intuition" for. It is like its whole meaning disappeared because I can now understand where that feeling comes from and that it has a cause that can be rationally analyzed. To me the term "intuition" has become an empty concept. There doesn't exist any referent in the world that matches its definition. Instead I use the term "Sense of Life" and I'm a doing perfectly fine. To assure I am not evading anything in my argumentation I would ask you for a brief statement whether you agree with me or have other opinions on this. GP
  7. I think it's an interesting context and I would really be thankful for other opinions. I understand my memory to be part of my mind and I would also say that consciousness is part of my mind. I got the impression that Rand unifies concepts like thinking, feeling, memory etc. as "concepts of consciousness" and there is no need to unify them as "concepts of mind". I don't know if there IS a difference but I would like to debate this...What do you think?
  8. Can you subsitute "mind" and "consciousness"? Are both concepts synonymous?
  9. Well, I there's a lot of information on brain studies and related stuff online. I watched some trustworthy television documentaries. Since I don't live in the US I can't really name any important ones. The method is called a PET scan maybe this site will support my point Positron Emission Tomography further information also at Wikipedia about "Positron Emission Tomography". The way humans learn varies from each individual to another. Areas that are active in one person's brain during a learning process mustn't be in another one's. This is because different individuals value things differently. This phenomenon too is caused by a special area of the brain called the limbic system which is responsible for emotions and feelings. But in one person's brain it's always just some area of the brain. Some other person might also prefer to learn in a different way than another. One might like to study books (visual) another likes to listen to a teacher (auditory). The corresponding brain activity will differ accordingly. I completely agree and regarding the last point of yours: You might be right in assuming that I mainly concentrate on understanding humans because it is what strikes me most personally and most directly. The importance to understand a monkey's consciousness might be more suitable to an animal psychologist. That doesn't mean I restrict myself exlusively to it. I don't quite see the necessity to understand another being's consciousness in order to understand my own or to understand the concept consciousness. Maybe you could convince me of the opposite? I know that what is called consciousness is probably there in other animals too in a more narrow more restricted sense.
  10. 1. Do you think that any "software" of the brain is consciousness and the different actions like thinking, feeling, reminiscing etc. are actions of that consciousness (That's the way Rand explained it but I'm not sure if I agree with it) or is thinking an action of reason, remembering an action of memory and consciousness is exclusively the faculty which perceives? If I understand you correctly you don't seem to be sure ("...could be an aspect...") What do you mean by "I don't think that the concept of consciousness entails memory" If that is not how you regard it, how DO you regard it then? Well there must be an essential difference between software and hardware that I am not yet able to grasp. The way I regard consciousness is as a function/ a faculty of the brain just as I regard reason as a faculty of the brain or memory...made possible through the neurons and whatever bio-physical nature of the brain. I wouldn't think in any way that "understanding the physical nature of the mind in humans would actually impede your understanding of "knowledge"." I think there are certain structures within the brain which are responsible for storage of information and that those are called memory. Brain scans show that certain areas of the brain are active whenever we use our native language while others are active whenever we talk in a foreign language...I would then say that different languages are stored in different areas of our memory...What is wrong with that picture? I think I miss a fundamental fact of conceptual consciousness because I am always arguing from a physical point of view and try to find a physical phenomenon as referent to concepts that actually belong to consciousness.
  11. That's just too bad, but time will certainly spawn further understanding... I absolutely agree on that point, but at the same time it's the issue I understand the least. Objectivity, knowledge, certainty, memory - (almost) all philosophical concerns depend on the way the mind works. If we didn't have volition, we wouldn't need ethics because we didn't have the possibility to choose...and so on. See, I am having troubles identifying what concepts (of consciousness) actually refer to. I give you an example: "Is remembering a process enabled through memory or through consciousness?" or "Is my knowledge stored in my memory or in my consciousness?" It really messes up the whole value of philosophy, science, well knowledge and research in general if one isn't able to differentiate those fundamental aspects of reasoning and introspecting. Not to mention the psychological effects it causes like frustration and confusion. I really think Objectivism would gain a lot from a further advanced theory on the way the human "soul" (in its secular meaning) works and to work on explaining as you said "what is 'consciousness'?"
  12. Well, my question might not be clear enough. Maybe somebody can recommend a good book or internet page on the way the mind works. I am looking for an explanation of the different faculties of the mind, their relation to one another and ways to explore them. I recently bought "consciousness explained" by Daniel Dennett. Do YOU have read anything written by him or about the topic that helped YOU??? I would be very thankful for recommendations and advises.:-)
  13. I am just wondering if it is logically possible that a law of physics which is gained by using special equipment is true for example in the area of sub-molecular study and has veto power on metaphysics which is gained by direct sense-perception wíthout tools...
  14. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN *** Can somebody please explain to me why it is an invalid argumentation of physicists to say that some sub-molecular laws of physics violate against the law of identity? I am wondering if physicists who work with special equipment to experiment in such areas of study as atomic physics don't have the right or maybe even not the possibility to find a law that contradicts the law of identity. What if that new law were only to be valid in atomic systems where different forces than those in our directly (without special equipment) perceivable environment are important? If we're only granted objective certainty how can we say it's impossible? Objectivists always claim that philosophy is possible without extra equipment, isn't it possible that in areas of study where special equipment is needed different laws apply which have no reciprocation to the rest? GP
  15. Dave wrote: I often sense a disturbing uncertainty within my knowledge which stems not from the missing clarity about the hierarchy of knowledge but directly from the way I understand my mind. Rand writes in ITOE in the beginning of chapter 4 on concepts of consciousness: Awareness isn't a passive state but an active process and every process can be divided into an action of consciousness and a content of consciousness. She says that thinking, reminiscing, evaluating, feeling, perceiving, imagining and so on are all processes of consciousness. Whereas in VOS she writes reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses...the process is thinking (although she writes in VOS that thinking is the act of focusing one's consciousness). Isn't that contradictory? How does the faculty of reason relate to the faculty of consciousness and to memory? I am not a professional in the area of mind sciences as you can tell and it really cost much time to try to figure those things out. I don't see how thinking can arise through the faculty of consciousness, or how memories can. What is with memory??? I tried many times to understand this on my own but weren't too succesful since in my eyes sources tell different stories. Looking at a psycholoy textbook it had some other statement about consciuosness again. GP.
×
×
  • Create New...