EducatorBig6648 t1_j67oow0 wrote
Reply to comment by jank_ram in Cosmic nihilism, existential joy | Human consciousness, and our need for meaning in a meaningless world, is the source of both tragic pessimism and the intense joy we take in life. by IAI_Admin
As Sartre points to, there's the self (the doubter), that's one.
Concepts exist since that is what the self 'communicates' to itself and patterns exist since in the end that is all the mind and the senses consist of.
The truth exists since even if the self is held in illusion, there would still be the reality that the self exists experiencing the illusion so the truth itself (reality vs fiction) cannot be doubted.
Consequences exist since patterns exist.
Meaning exists since consequences exist.
Been wracking my brain but for the life of me I can't recall what the seventh one is, it's been so long.
jank_ram t1_j67pga4 wrote
On what basis are we saying that the self consists of patterns? How do we know anything, let alone that the mind and senses consist of patterns?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j67uw4e wrote
What other attributes does the self have? That's rhetorical since any answer you give would just prove you haven't pondered the nature of "patterns".
What is the one thing your eyes do? They react when certain patterns 'hit' them (the visual part of the spectrum) and they don't when other patterns 'hit' them (the rest of the spectrum).
The mind gets these reactions and, since these reactions have patterns, the mind runs them in its own pattern and this results in a pattern that it can run in another part of itself in its own pattern. This is Sherlock Holmes walking into a room, opening his eyes, his brain gets impulses and forms a "picture" which his conscious and subconscious can play with and be the basis of where he will move his eyes around the room.
That Sherlock Holmes may in fact be a naked man in Jello in a a robot-womb fed an illusion by Agent Smith so there is no room is just outside circumstance.
jank_ram t1_j69b5bi wrote
A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly. But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a5q71 wrote
>A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly.
Much more accurate than what? And what do you mean by "relations"? You're being very vague.
​
>But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.
Now you're confusing yourself. What I am myself is one thing and that is simply that I do exist.
My mind, on the other hand, is, just as you point out, questionable as to not being illusion. You are correct that I had not yet addressed that but you are incorrect that what I've just described is made irrelevant. I described patterns reaching the eyes and the patterns reaching my brain and the brain working with patterns and the person consciously and subconsciously engaging with those patterns and make the decision to move the eyes to the left or to the right.
Now... The eyes, the brain, the conscious and the subconscious, even the "free will" decision to move the eyes left or right can all be illusion. That can all be AI magic designed to trick you into thinking you're a free person and not a machine "puppet" (this is exactly what Gary Oldman was doing in the awful reboot RoboCop movie). What I cannot stress enough is this: What cannot be illusions is you (what the AI magic is tricking) and THE PATTERNS (what it was tricking you WITH).
jank_ram t1_j6avq9m wrote
Yes I agree that the self is outside all of that, and that if we can be sure of anything, is that it exists, at least one knows he himself exists. Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept, but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all, in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists. How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there. Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c2gin wrote
>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,
No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.
>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,
Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.
>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.
I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.
>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.
I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?
>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental
Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.
Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.
You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?
jank_ram t1_j6c5yib wrote
Okay I might have wildly misunderstood what you mean by patterns, I think of it as mathematical pattern, as In any thing that can be represented mathematically would be a pattern, have I got that wrong?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6cb9bq wrote
Yes, you go that wrong. I gave you an example above: Your eyes respond to certain patterns (the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum) but not to other patterns (the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum).
That is itself a pattern; Your eyes do not "randomly" respond to different parts of the spectrum or to electromagnetic fields, they function consistently hence you can see which is a reliable means for you to examine your surroundings for patterns within the patterns your brain instantly interprets for you.
Can that be represented mathematically? Possibly, maybe, probably, but in terms of this conversation, I wouldn't care if it can't.
A key thing to note above is that your eyes reacting "randomly" would mean confusion. There's a "relation" to keep in mind: confusion and patterns. Bringing in mathematical representation is redundant
​
Clarification: I put "randomly" in quotes because as far as I can tell (while not being an expert on quantum physics etc.) objectively there is no such thing.
jank_ram t1_j67plt7 wrote
Now I actually hold the point that consciousness is fundamental at least over material and pattern, and at least until proven or assumed otherwise.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j67v5pr wrote
I don't follow. I didn't mention anything material. And you say consciousness is "fundamental over pattern", how would that work? To me that's like saying... I don't know... "Molecules are fundamental over atoms" or "Heat is fundamental over energy" or something.
jank_ram t1_j699xyy wrote
That's I subject I am very interested in and have been for a long time, and so far I've come to the conclusion that consciousness is a logical fallacy, it simply shouldn't exist, yet if I can know anything for sure it's that I am conscious (no way to truly know if anyone else is in this example though) and the that automatically leads me to believe that consciousness is fundamental over logic, and patterns presupposes logic, is that not what patterns are?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a2p1h wrote
Well, everything becomes about patterns in the end and you're not wrong that logic becomes about patterns quicker than most things as its academic in natute, but also, logic goes into arguments and testing and things so it's not this "Patterns exist so the ancient wise ones applying logic mapped out a rigid picture for us that's either 100% the truth or 100% false!" as you imply.
You say you are conscious but without patterns how do you figure a consciousness would have any... existence to it (for lack of better terms)?
I'm also curious what you meant by saying consciousness "shouldn't" exist since "should" is what doesn't exist, it's a myth.
jank_ram t1_j6b2qbu wrote
there is no such thing as existing, however In consciousness there is existence, so consciousness doesn't exist, but rather, existence is that which is being known with consciousness
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c4qof wrote
Are you trolling me?
jank_ram t1_j6c4xoy wrote
No?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c51g9 wrote
Then what was that nonsense?
jank_ram t1_j6c6uyx wrote
How is it nonsense? It's a hypothesis, one which I find very convincing, I would actually really appreciate it if you can tell me how it doesn't hold, If I could know that, I would be enlightened compared to now!
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c959x wrote
Do you exist, yes or no?
jank_ram t1_j6e03ac wrote
Depends on what you mean by me. does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable. Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)? I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes. In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not, you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning, which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gj5lx wrote
>Depends on what you mean by me.
No. The fact that you'd be trying to quantify it like that proves it is yes. If you did not exist it would be simply be "No, in no way, shape or form do I exist."
>does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable.
The answer is yes, you do exist. You're conscious (to be perceiving) as part of you existing, not the other way around (hence me calling it nonsense).
>Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)?
I did not ask about those things and that you think I might proves you haven't understood what I've been trying to explain.
EDIT: To clarify, I have consistently held that the self is "the doubter". Suggesting that I am talking about memory, about things like molecular activity and gravity or about the physical body is arguing in bad faith.
>I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes.
"Necessity" is a myth. It is a fictional relation, like you saying another person is your "property" i.e. that you "own" them. It has no reality,
>In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not,
There is no such thing as an unmeaningful world. It cannot come into existence.
>you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning,
No, that goes against what I've been saying: I know meaning exists becaue it's one of the seven things that (to simplify) without I would not exist in the slightest.
>which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns
So you are trolling me. You either have no interest in understanding my conclusions or you do understand and pretend otherwise. Note I say understand my conclusions, not agree with them or accept them as infallible or take it on faith that I'm smarter than you since I'm sure a troll would start acting as if I was.
EDIT: To clarify, that I call something nonsense does not mean I am saying you are to agree without discussion.
jank_ram t1_j6gtb3j wrote
No, no trust me I am trying to understand. I have been thinking about this discussion for a lot of today actually.
You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?
Also implying "necessarily" is a myth? As In we established there is actual ground reality? Isn't this what this is about? What ISN'T a myth? Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon? That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gysi0 wrote
>You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?
Are you conscious i.e. perceiving? Yes. If you did not exist you would not be doing anything e.g. perceiving i.e. being conscious. If you were a non-conscious thing, e.g. a rock, you would still exist. You cannot be a conscious rock that doesn't exist or a conscious person that doesn't exist because consciousness spawns from existence and not the other way around.
>Also implying "necessarily" is a myth?
I did not imply, I stated. "Necessity" is a myth we made up. It is a fictional relation. If you chain me up and tie me to the Titanic on the ocean floor, I can want air in order to breathe air and I can want air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse. I cannot "need" air in order to breathe air and I cannot "need" air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than a drowned corpse can "need" air in order to breathe air, "need" air in order to avoid becoming a living person or "need" air in order to become a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation or "need" air in order to avoid becoming a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation.
"Necessity" affects nothing except via the imagination, it never exists outside our imagination. It's just ego that the universe revolves around us so when we're chained to the Titanic we can do more than just want to survive, we can SOMEHOW "need" to survive. Reality is we never "need". We are all like a 120 year old man on his death bed riddled with cancer and we are all like an outwardly healthy-looking child diagnosed with terminal cancer.
>What ISN'T a myth?
At least seven things that I know of, six of them I can recall. I would remember the seventh but I have memory issues.
>Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon?
Everything. You yourself gave four examples; coherence, your memory, the consistent world around me and your body itself. If you're trying to ask how doubting works, I've already covered that: That's us looking at patterns and consequences and meaning. That's consciousness perceiving. That's you going "What does this mean? What does this entail? What are the consequences here? What does studying the patterns reveal?"
>That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.
No, (in that regard at least) not a different definition. But, as I go into above, there is more to it than simply stating "meaning is the base for doubting". Also, you're contradicting your earlier thinking about "an unmeaningful world" since you've essentially just agreed to part of what I've been trying to explain: Doubting cannot be doubted hence meaning cannot be doubted.
jank_ram t1_j67pu0z wrote
Also consequences emerging from patterns, is a big leap and seems to be predicated on rather shallow observation based analysis. I might be wrong but that's how I understand this
EducatorBig6648 t1_j67wcod wrote
I didn't say consequences emerge from patterns, I'm more saying that we know consequences exist since we know patterns exist. Kind of like saying you know life exists if you know humans exist but it's not that humans brought forth life, humans could be just a recent addition to many lifeforms you are unaware of.
Consequences exist (just to give one aspect of it) because you, as the self ("the doubter"), can look at patterns and not just follow them as they are (trace them with your finger), you can apply your mind and see the consequences (e.g. this pattern exists in this thing consequentially a similar pattern may exist in this similar thing I only glimpsed at but have yet to examine as closesly as this thing). The fact that you can do this proves that consequences exist like a "layer" of "potential" over patterns (that are not potential in nature but actual).
In this sense consequences are the basis of the mind we usually mean by "our imagination". Because potential is not a pattern.
jank_ram t1_j69cywo wrote
I think you are just building on a basis that's heavily supported by the top. In the trying to understand something out of nothing you have to somehow prove from no basis, now, you use the word "know" as if we have established that it even exists, but does it? How can we know that we know? Were in all of this is the concrete ground? Because you can't just assume the "knowing" and the build up to the self which is what "knows"
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6a84dw wrote
Yes, I can. I know I exist. I can't HAVE existence without patterns so patterns exist. That is a consequence (one thing existing thanks to another thing's existence) so consequences exist.
That we can apply our mind and see consequences proves that this is so. Even if our MIND is ILLUSION it wouldn't change that fact because our self can use it to go "Hm, this is pattern A. This is pattern B. A consequence of that could be that my mind is an illusion but I do not want to leap to conclusions. I will investigate further."
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c4jwr wrote
@jankram >I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness.
But that argument I have already discounted elsewhere; Even a single consciousness existing proves that at least six other things exist as well. The five I remember are patterns, consequences, meaning and the truth (i.e. what is reality and what is non-reality/illusion/fiction/deception) and concepts.
None of these five exist only to the single consciousness.
>In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies.
I do not see what you mean by this. Let's say you are real and I am just an illusion and pretty much everything around you (matter etc.) is an illusion. What is death? With none of the five things I mention above, how would death have any existence? Death would be a change of state, how can you have that when you have no patterns and meaning and the truth and consequences as these are all involved in another state even being a potential? And without the existence of concepts what were you conscious of before death? If your existence involved having no concept of anything, how were you a consciousness?
>I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who?
That is a very strange notion of what a pattern is, focusing on a "middle dot" like that. Kindly elaborate on that for me.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments