#3 and #4 address that potential.
It’s all dependent on motivation.
In didn’t think you were serious about this. Your list contradicts this, which is good.
2 Likes
I’m not aware of an agreement from society about how i should feel, or what the self is. There are people who are mistaken. Obviously there are others, since you found one on some random forum that you are with.
It’s worth pointing out that the voices in your head,
represents thoughts within your mind,
and not your “mind”.
(Our human brain definitely multitasks.)
Bingo
How to break our conceptual barriers.
Recognizing that our body is an evolved biological creature.
Your body is the cumulative product of hundreds of millions to billions of years worth of evolution.
Your mind is the product of all the experiences your body/brain has acquired over the course of your life, even to before you were an actual air breathing person.
As for philosophy, the key to better understanding is a stone cold sober appreciation for the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.
Please don’t knock me for repeating that simple formula. I’ve hear 2+2=4 all my life, no one complains about that, because it simply is what it is.
2 Likes
That’s an interesting point.
Maddy is scratching at the door, and I’ve a long walk ahead of us, good for musing as I follow her around, I’m hoping to steer her toward the river today, we’ll see what she decides.
inthedarkness, I’ll be chewing on it and the rest of your post and report back later. Try thinking about my last paragraphs in the previous post.
See if either of us manages to peer through the fog that separates us.
Tell that to a cute, but chubby girl or guy in school, or afterwards during the rest of their lives for that matter
Not to mention the deceptive advertising and propaganda campaigns
*{ **plus an *interesting historical tidbit.}
If the public’s climate science information flow had followed the standards of civil society, honest and honorable,
along the lines of following standards jurisprudence,
or the rules of scientific debate, which demands honestly representing one’s own position; honestly presenting position of others; and presenting the evidence honestly.
Instead it was a massive (over time) billions of dollars worth of strategic campaigns of disinformation and brainwashing, steeped in fraud and deception and it worked like a charm,
because it exalted the self-serving nature in humanity, and nothing could trump that, so it was self-serving greed that carried us into our new age of humanity as we try to smash through the limits of Earth’s ability to sustain us.
A time period that demanded serious attention and honest education and honest debate like never before and we partied right through it.
We bought the circus instead, reinforced by philosopher’s love of the dramatic, provocative, questioning everything, never resolving anything. - So we as a collective political economic organism rejected stone cold sober pragmatic assessment, for good’ol human gluttony to reign supreme and run rampant, in gross disregard for the physical realities. of real world data and knowledge about our life sustaining biosphere and our global climate engine.
By and by, we find ourselves in a world full of clueless people and leaders. What could go wrong? It’s exactly the kind of stuff that created today’s hopelessness & cluelessness that feeds into the despair we see displayed in the writing of folks like Dark.
If there was no disagreement, people wouldn’t ask congress to ban books and music, they wouldn’t blame musucians for rotting kid’s minds
I’m talking about lies being accepted and elevated as legitimate policy making tools.
About a matter of absolutely existential importance to our children.
And you’re trying to equate it with sitting around singing kum ba yah.
Now and then, you really disappoint.
.
.
,
DBAD
And some more words
Wrong.
I think you misunderstand the quoted text. The point is you don’t actually feel that way.
Again, just simply wrong there.
Not really no, 2+2=4 is that way because we agreed on it. Same with anything else in society, it has no real inherent meaning to it meaning there is no reason to feel anything towards anything.
No, this is the description of an axiomatic equation. A natural law. And you better obey it!
Well, you cannot really disobey it. You cannot make 5 from 2 + 2 = 4. That would be 1984.
You are right in that we agreed on the human symbolization and codification of a natural function. But Nature does not deal with “human numbers”, it deals with the interaction of natural “relational generic values”.
You’re getting tiresome dude. You have a couple of quotes from people who haven’t identified themselves. Their words don’t match up, even with the disciplines they seem to be based on. Check Buddhism. It doesn’t say we don’t have feelings except those that are taught by society.
Now you are questioning 2+2=4. Check out this excellent introduction to Kant. It’s an hour that could change your life. You have reasoning skills, but you are choosing a starting point that is based on nothing. The sources you cited say that SOMETIMES we base knowledge on what we’re told. The step into adult reasoning is to recognize when you’ve done that and use your skills to find your way out of the indoctrination of your childhood. You discovered indoctrination, and lept to the conclusion that all knowledge is indoctrination. That is unreasonable. Reasonable adults want you to use your reasoning skills to go beyond what the previous generation knew.
Way back, you said these things bring meaning to life.
Human relationships, helping others, being in the now, stuff like that.
Then the conversation moved on. Can you say more about that?
[quote=“lausten, post:233, topic:10083”]
Now you are questioning 2+2=4.
No, you are misreading my posts. Perhaps the fault is mine, for lack of clarity.
I am saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is a human symbolic representation of a mathematically deterministic function that would produce the same “result” of (a + a = 2a)
Check out this excellent introduction to Kant. It’s an hour that could change your life. You have reasoning skills, but you are choosing a starting point that is based on nothing. The sources you cited say that SOMETIMES we base knowledge on what we’re told.
Thanks for that excellent link. It did not change my life but confirmed my perspective in several areas. I’ll use Kant as a reference in future microtubule and mathematics threads.
You might add me to the Kantian school of philosophy.
Note that he spoke of the human brain as a self-referential processor. I have used very similar terms in my various posts. I like it a lot, because to me it rings true.
The step into adult reasoning is to recognize when you’ve done that and use your skills to find your way out of the indoctrination of your childhood. You discovered indoctrination, and lept to the conclusion that all knowledge is indoctrination. That is unreasonable. Reasonable adults want you to use your reasoning skills to go beyond what the previous generation knew.
Like Kant?.. 
p.s. I have had very little formal indoctrination. My father had an impressive library of science fiction, right up Kant’s alley about the ability to predict. It is from that background I choose my areas of interest.
lol…,I first read about solar-powered cars in a sci-fi novel in 1945
Kant: A Complete Guide to Reason
Sep 16, 2022
00:00 – Immanuel Kant
02:53 – Kant & The Enlightenment
08:00 – Empiricism & The Chaos of the World
15:05 – The Critique of Pure Reason
21:16 – Time & Space (transcendental aesthetic)
27:47 – Ordering the World (the metaphysical deduction)
39:50 – The Transcendental (deduction)
53:57 – Metaphysics of Morals
59:47 – The Categorical Imperative
3:30 to lay out a cosmic idea of philosophy
3:50 Set out to study the human laws that governed our thinking
4:00 Three most important questions we can ask ourselves.
… What can I know.
… What should I do.
… What may I hope.
A thousand page critique of reason.
6:40 … “we need a compass that guides our thoughts, something that guides our sense of right and wrong.
7:15 “Key to Kant is that he’s asking how we create concepts? How we make our ideas of the world. What’s happening when we are doing this? When thinking about this we approach the peak of pure reason, because conceptualizing is what we do in every moment. It’s the foundation of thought itself. In finding what’s pure you can know what’s reliable, what to focus on to sharpen how we think.”
9:25 How do we know? How do we get a comprehensible picture out of all that chaos we perceive around us.
How do we our perceptions of all the stuff around us.
10:35 “It’s all content without a form.” {that’s a silly thought to roll around for a while, seems to me like it needs a metaphysical reality to make sense. I don’t buy it.}
10:45 First problem Organization. How we organize all of this…
10:55 How is objective knowledge possible?
12:00 No certain proof sun will rise tomorrow.
13:45 “We just know it from within.” {shrug and we moves on - this is the internal biological workings of our body become important to consider.}
.
“We constitute a cosmos within the chaos”
First critique - what does reason mean for Kant - the process of thinking.
16:00 “If we get everything from outside, then the very act of thinking makes little sense.”
Do we get the rules of thinking from outside of ourselves too?
A priori = independent of experience, before all thinking is done, the conditions for thought itself
19:40 Empiricists who say all knowledge comes from experience
and the Rationalists who say reason is the way to secure knowledge.
Kant carves a way that requires both.
Time & Space - the first part of our empirical tool kit
21:20 What is pure and necessary and fundamental and universal and a priori, to receiving any of that data from the environment? {There’s a flaw - suggesting our thinking is separate from environment}
“What’s the first part of our pre-empirical tool kit? Time and Space”
21:50 “Kant always asking: What must be the case for this to be true?”
“Space and time are the universal form of all intuitions”
“Space and time are the preconditions for all experience.”
22:13 “To even have sensations in the first place, we must have some kind of intuitive framework to receive them. (This idea is the first stone laid in Kants transcendental method.)”
22:50 “We must have pure intuition, a framework in space and time.
{That’s what your evolving body has been figuring out for hundreds of millions of years}
23:30 … {is spoken within the now, displaying no appreciation for the fact that our physical body is the product of countless generations learning to deal with “Time and Space” and the facts of physics upon this planet. It’s not something every new baby needs to acquire, its body has already acquired extensive learning that philosophers can’t imagine.}
{Building intellectual mountains out of physical trivia.}
24:31 {The before and after is assumed by every fiber of our biological body, that’s who.}
25:30 {The talk about pure intuition, a priori knowledge and all that happens within a framing that treats each person a some individual being popped into the world, that is not the case. The framing can only lead astray.}
{He doesn’t acknowledges that our physical body has been learning to deal with this Earth’s environment for hundreds of millions of years.
That makes an incredible difference to how we perceive the knowledge we possess - or better, what kind of relationship we have with the knowledge we gather and possess.}
25:50 “We must have an innate grasp of what is in side of us and what is outside, what is here and what is there. Or everything would be everywhere at once. And an innate sense of succession.”
{All Kant’s questions, challenges, mysteries would get refined and enriched with an explicit recognition for how our human consciousness faculties are an outgrowth, the cumulative product of the past hundreds of millions and even billions of years. This realization answers so many of the philosophical riddles Kant, this narrator, and so many others continue struggling with.
It’s a shame, an unnecessary impoverishment in this day and age, one worth complaining about.}
Ordering the World
28:10 “Space and time are pure forms of intuition through which we are connected to the objects of empirical experience, with this is still something passive, the common landscape of the universe”
Kant insists we bring something to the table. {Sure. The biological body’s we were born into.}
30:45 “What must be the case, for this, to be like this?”
34:08 - SLIDE -
35:30 Concepts
35:50 “Now the question becomes, what are the rules that govern this process?”
“All thinking is judging by applying the categories, like space and time the category are the conditions for having any understandable experiences at all.” {Can you explain what that’s about?}
{Philosophically understanding our cognition is as easy as appreciating that our human cognition developed out of animal cognition, and that cognition has been nature’s number one research and development project since the beginning. One that’s been constantly pruning the under performers, refining systems, and trying new tricks. The striving for life that infuses all biology, that will be an enduring mystery, and that’s cool. Why not.}
{Sure, we’re very special, but not that special, compare your insides with other mammals, as soon as you exclude size variation, the similarities are amazing.}
{All creatures on Earth needed bodies that could communicate with themselves. Body knowing what body is doing. Our brain is special, but that doesn’t make it any less a product of the same needs and accommodations that all living organisms learned to master, or they didn’t survive. }
{We underestimate the internal knowledge Evolution wove into our bodies.}
{An evolutionary bottom up biology respecting philosopher would be striving to incorporate that awareness and finally let go of the mankind is “God’s gift to the Earth” assumption - and all that Abrahamic thinking undercurrent.}
The whole thing rests on <–self-referential–> processes, using a natural mathematical deductive logic which may rest on flawed premises.
The premises are acquired during the formative years . Hence the persistence of religions of all different kinds . The same is/was true with the original observation and explanation of medical conditions and cures resting on uninformed practices.
[quote]4000bc - 3000bc / primitive times :
believed that illness and disease were caused by supernatural spirits and demons.
Tribal witch doctors treated illness with ceremonies to drive out evil spirits.
Herbs and plants used as medicines, and some are still used today.
Trepanation or trephining (boring a hole in the skull) was used to treat insanity and epilepsy.
https://quizlet.com/148965610/history-and-trends-of-health-care-flash-cards/
But just as natural selection of organisms resulted in greater complexity and ability, the successful medical procedures and medicines that were effective survived regular practice and slowly gained in refinement to what we have today.
Today 70% of all medicine is derived from plants and discovered by tribal and the invention of the printing press (a device that "records history’ allowed for knowledge to spread at an exponential rate.
The printing press allowed “knowledge of all kinds” to spread exponentially.
Tribal Medicine men were the earliest pharmacists in the use and effectiveness of many natural medicines and passed their knowledge on to apprentices who then became the first scientific investigators (scientists) .
Human history today is readily accessible via the internet and today knowledge from memory, the feedback process of knowledge can be experienced in an unlimited variety by just correctly asking the question.
I was addressing inthedarkness
Immanuel Kant [a] (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804)
Aaaahhh… 
… 