Intrinsic Value

[Enmos]

Before bothering with the rest, I want to understand your reasoning more clearly by asking this: How do you know?

Is this a definition you're offering?

I'd agree that objectively reality exists, but not necessarily that "it's how things really are", because the only means through which we can relate to the idea that it's there is through our perception. Thus we cannot know for certain that what we think of as objective reality is "how things really are". Bah I'm hopeless. Lol.

I concur. We can never know what objective reality is or what it is like. We can only know that it exists.
-The senses are imperfect.
-The brain interprets data from the senses so that it becomes useful and discards data it doesn't need or can't process.
-Person A cannot experience objective reality in exactly the same way as person B.
-The subjective reality of person A is not exactly the same as the subjective reality of person B.
-But the subjective reality of person A is similar to the subjective reality of person B.
-In this way one can sketch a picture of what objective reality must be like. But we can never know if it's accurate or not. We can also conclude from this that person A build his subjective reality on the same objective reality as person B did.
-Therefor objective reality exists and is 'how things really are' but is at the same time unknowable.

 

[Gustav]

... do you ever simply are, do you ever just exist, and nothing more?

Is there anything about this "you" that just is, just exists - or does it always do something (or has something done to it)?


Two:
Define "I" and define "exist".

yes
at the initial nanosecond of waking there is a direct perception of self....a thought....any thought. the conceptualization is subsequent to that initial and direct perception

"i" is a singular thought. one without elaboration. an undefined perception
"exist" is the conceptualization of that thought. the imposition of an identity and the localization of said identity somewhere

there is a process
the genesis of gustav outlined it
this outline contained the above

it was neither affirmed nor denied by others
comment please
i dislike enduring delusions

 

[Gustav]

the "waking" state is up for grabs
so is the "nanosecond"

clumsy but sufficient i think
refine if required

the "self" too cos that implies identity

 

[Gustav]

a fragment of a thought

 

[greenberg]

If no one can determine the intrinsic value of a 'thing', there is no one that the 'thing' has intrinsic value to. So the intrinsic value of the 'thing' is then non-existent.

If, then.

You are dealing with potentialities here, not with certainties.
The two shouldn't be confused.

 

[greenberg]

yes
at the initial nanosecond of waking there is a direct perception of self....a thought....any thought.

This can also be explained as identifying with consciousness (as in "I am conscious", "I am awake"), not necessarily of direct perception of self.
When there is a strong identification with consciousness, the perception of individual thoughts can seem sharp.

And also, while we can say "I am sitting", "I am reading", "I am not sitting", "I am not reading", we can only meaningfully say "I am conscious", but we cannot meaningfully say "I am not conscious". Consciousness seems to be a primary, so this is another reason why the identification with consciousness seems to be "who I really am", the "self".

But if consciousness is our true self, then why aren't we aware of it 24/7?
How can the self sleep? If it were a self, then it would have to be aware of itself 24/7, would it not?

the conceptualization is subsequent to that initial and direct perception

And this is crucial, I think - that the conceptualization is subsequent. If it is subsequent, then how can it be adequate? How can we know it is adequate?

I don't think we can know something is adequate, unless we know that something to be adequate right on the spot, non-subsequent.
Whatever is subsequent, is a narrative that might be true, that might be adequate, or not.

it was neither affirmed nor denied by others
comment please

I commented on it earlier -
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1643856&postcount=187

i dislike enduring delusions

How do you know you are delusional?
What are the mechanisms, criteria etc. that are employed in order to evaluate something to be a "delusion"?

 

[greenberg]

the "waking" state is up for grabs

Do you meditate?

I find that states similar to that of waking in the morning can be attained with concentration meditation.

 

[greenberg]

assuming of course that there is no objective personal element

I've made no such assumption; I'd rather that each pair of terms be used separately, and not in the same context.

Although there might be an "objective personal element". A version of the concept of "soul" might cover that.

 

[Gustav]

dr spock cannot explain away my narrative derived thru introspection. i find that bogus, foolhardy and extremely condescending.

my experience is written off as dynamics of child rearing. the formation of personality. check yourself green. my intellect is not biologically nor culturally determined. it is an exercise in free will.

you assert introspection is for solving mundane problems. i hold it to be an examination of the thought process, eliminating all extraneous influences, resulting in a perception of thought at its initial stages

if chocolate affects disposition, know that. take it into account and eliminate the bogus influence. that is not you.

introspection is an an exercise in intellect thru free will
cos i am not a fucking zombie

 

[Gustav]

meditation is the utilization of a rational and logical mode of thinking. it is hardly mystical

 

[greenberg]

my experience is written off as dynamics of child rearing. the formation of personality. check yourself green. my intellect is not biologically nor culturally determined. it is an exercise in free will.

Then you must be a god, a heavenly creature.

you assert introspection is for solving mundane problems.

That's not exactly what I said. I said For the most part, for me, introspection is about finding ways to solve my problems. Whatever metaphysical theories I entertain or develop in the process, is only circumstantial.

 

[Gustav]

Then you must be a god, a heavenly creature..[/I]

or conversely, you a zombie

That's not exactly what I said. I said For the most part, for me, introspection is about finding ways to solve my problems. Whatever metaphysical theories I entertain or develop in the process, is only circumstantial.

pardon
my point still holds

 

[Gustav]

Then you must be a god, a heavenly creature.[/I]

what do you know of me, green?
do a bio based on my posts

 

[greenberg]

or conversely, you a zombie

Yessssscrutinyissssaterriblething!

Oh, my precioussss!
We've lost it! It abandoned us!

 

[greenberg]

what do you know of me, green?

Anyone asserting something like "my intellect is not biologically nor culturally determined. it is an exercise in free will" would pass for a god or a heavenly creature. In fact, this probably means most people.

Thisss ssself, the preciousss!
Almost everyone claims to have it, many people desperately want it, nobody can really prove it.

do a bio based on my posts

I was just thinking the other day how little you disclose of yourself, actually.
And whatever specifics you do name, seem to hang in the air, one wonders whether you really meant it, or how it is to fit with the way you present yourself here.

A biography of you - I wouldn't attempt that, I don't know enough info for that.

 

[Gustav]

Anyone asserting something like "my intellect is not biologically nor culturally determined. it is an exercise in free will" would pass for a god or a heavenly creature. In fact, this probably means most people.

that is simply not the case. most people say everything is relative. their determinants are externally imposed. sub fucking humans

Thisss ssself, the preciousss!
Almost everyone claims to have it, many people desperately want it, nobody can really prove it.

read up on godel. there is nothing mystical about this limitation

A biography of you - I wouldn't attempt that, I don't know enough info for that.

do you then get the fucking point?
you bravely do a number on me via dr spock and now confess ignorance. what foolhardy arrogance.

 

[Gustav]

This can also be explained as identifying with consciousness (as in "I am conscious", "I am awake"), not necessarily of direct perception of self.
When there is a strong identification with consciousness, the perception of individual thoughts can seem sharp.

what the fuck do you mean by strong identification? semantical bullshit! i offered up some terms i utilized in order to show that i find it inadequate to describe the experience.

self is a conceptualization. it is a developed thought. "i am conscious" is self referential thus redundant. as is "i am awake". useless semantical bullshit. one is too far gone into the thought process

But if consciousness is our true self, then why aren't we aware of it 24/7?
How can the self sleep? If it were a self, then it would have to be aware of itself 24/7, would it not?

i repeat, the "waking" state is up for grabs. it is for mere convenience i adopt it. that and the fact that i do not know any better

24/7? so there is no fucking "self" now? is that what you are implying? who the fuck is posting as "green"?

dragging in dream states complicates. i could still say the same shit but that would require us to drag in an issue not fully understood. it really is fucking irrelevant. a thought remains a thought. awake or dreaming. why do you fucking drag up this shit?
furthermore, fuck the mind/body duality and dynamics. the body itself is a mind altering substance. take it into account when attempting to formulate any theories of the mind. then dismiss!

And this is crucial, I think - that the conceptualization is subsequent. If it is subsequent, then how can it be adequate? How can we know it is adequate?

I don't think we can know something is adequate, unless we know that something to be adequate right on the spot, non-subsequent.
Whatever is subsequent, is a narrative that might be true, that might be adequate, or not.

incoherent semantical bullshit. do you mean the initial perception is inadequate? my assertion is on very shaky ground. i mean, any perception requires a perceiver. does that not imply we must have a concept of this thing that perceives?

ja, gustav meets godel

How do you know you are delusional?
What are the mechanisms, criteria etc. that are employed in order to evaluate something to be a "delusion"?

you fucks decide. i have no reference points in my subjective experience. logic means nothing if axioms are bogus. thru our shared reality (sci fucking forums) other subjective experiences weigh in and find a goddamn common ground. a stinking fucking objective take on fucking shit!@^(*^

 

[Gustav]

pardon the vitriolic rhetoric
its a chemical thing

 

[Gustav]

is granty still around?

 

[greenberg]

is granty still around?

No, he said he'd leave.