Is human connection possible?

I guess more just a mistaken notion of knowledge. I thought we had a complete idea of it but language has it’s limits. But the more I read into it the less sure I am about how we know anything, especially reading into the subconscious and how some think it has the truth while others say conscious meaning making is a trap.

Some lecturer gave me this AI tool to “answer” my questions about Lacan and psychoanalysis but the more I ask the more it just sounds like religion to me: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/f0a0f052-f684-4dcc-ac8e-ba7b51b6c1f1?pli=1

I get that language is limited and we can’t perfectly communicate but that doesn’t mean the unconscious is the new god.

Even it’s answers don’t add up:

Formalism Over Meaning: The core principle is that logic begins when one substitutes a simple letter (a variable) for natural language elements. This move—which constitutes the “radical requirements for proof”—is designed to escape the “impossibility of logic to posit itself in a justifiable way” and rely instead on the structural rigor of the written system itself.”

I guess that’s what you get with AI.

Don’t know where that came from.

I’m not sure what the radical requirements of proof are, but the rest of that does add up. Not sure I could explain it, definitely not in a nutshell

It’s mostly talking about the unconscious a la psychoanalysis and how self knowledge is a myth because we cannot know the unconscious, and that was sparked by you saying that our knowledge isn’t certain but provisional. I’m just not really comfortable with that level of guessing.

I mean even our network of meaning only applies so long as we decide to hold it up and every word refers to another word, symbols on symbols and we might not get a “direct” view of reality, something unmediated.

That’s also what brought up my concern with other people you know, we cannot directly know them only infer from what they say and their body language or facial expressions, but there’s the risk that we are just projecting a fantasy on them.

I guess the doubt and uncertainty is getting to me, though it always did.

You’re doing what you have always done, ignore reality and the human condition. You say,

[quote=“inthedarkness, post:23, topic:11760”]

we might not get a “direct” view of reality,

[/quote]

as if that’s a question. I’m absolutely certain that I don’t have a direct view of reality and no one and nothing does. I don’t know how it could be possible.

I think this troubles you because you think it’s fixable or that you are missing something. But the only thing to do is embrace the joy of discovery of each new moment.

1 Like

Oh lordie. Lausten, do you remember the game of Chutes & Ladders? It’s like I’m back at Bell Avenue.

But this also an example of why an evolutionary biological appreciation of one’s own body and the fact that consciousness comes from our body/brain interacting with life is so important. It’s the first base prerequisite before the rest of human consciousness game (and notions of god) can start making any coherent sense.

Well the no direct view of reality makes me doubt if discovery is even possible, because language is imperfect, meaning can change, so…is there really anything we can hold on to or is it just sand castles. I know there’s no real fixing that because that’s the human condition, we can really only trust other people in what they mean and even then words don’t capture everything. On a cerebral level I get that, but I don’t want to accept it because it just feels like one step removed from utter nihilism.

I don’t think there’s any real biological appreciation of ones own body, consciousness coming from body and brain is equally meaningless. We think of such things because we are born into a social reality but the meaning and words we use to build it are still removed from the things they represent and like I said above meaning can change.

I was reminded of it as I was browsing and this came up: https://www.facebook.com/Classicsliteratures/posts/how-true-it-was-that-one-needed-to-be-seen-by-others-to-be-sure-of-ones-own-exis/122264865308071158/

“To love someone, Byatt suggests, is to study them without ever mastering them. To read someone’s words is to walk the edge of their inner world — close enough to feel their pulse, but never close enough to touch the soul itself.”

“And when the last page closes, what remains is a quiet understanding:

That we never truly own another heart — we only share a moment in its beating.

That love, like literature, survives not because we hold it, but because we listen.”

Reading the psychoanalysts (especially Lacan and Zizek) severely challenged my ideas of meaning when it comes to human life, I think it’d do the same for you

That’s because you see “discovery” as knowing everything but it doesn’t mean that. You equate “imperfect” with nothingness.

Yes, and everything changes. You are attached to moments in the past.

Exactly, “everything”. “Not everything” doesn’t mean “nothing”.

Nihilism is a philosophical view that life is meaningless. You have tried to argue for that for as long as you have been here and failed to respond to points made. This “connection” thing is one of the poorest arguments you have made so far.

Then suddenly you are trying to justify EVs, as though they are going to solve our problems, when the way we’ve gone about is only creating bigger problems. Where’s your math and logic and evidence that EV will save the world. You show facts that may or may not be true, and ignore all the down sides. So please don’t put yourself on some high horse here.

Besides changing the subject you aren’t even honest about the EV debate, since you ignored the down sides, that I point out are a big issue. Maybe you like ticking time bombs, so that’s you, not me.

There certainly is!

Okay schmarty-pants, please do take a moment to describe my worldview as you conceive of it:

What is this doing in this thread?

To add some expertise to this, a favorite YouTube philosophy expert of mine, “Unsolicited Advice”, put this up recently. The first few minutes are an extremely dry description of how he determined the 10 most googled philosophical questions, but, use the shortcuts and jump to 10:51, where he answers the one about “how do we know?” This thread, and most of @inthedarkness threads are about this. Spoiler alert, he doesn’t answer it, he leaves up to the commenters, and I haven’t read those yet.

I might never, because his main counter to science is Plantinga and Swindler saying we can’t prove anything using a system of logic that developed from natural selection, which isn’t rational. I’ve been through that, and don’t find it compelling. But, I’ll grant that scientifically, you can’t prove them wrong, and philosophically, it leaves us in a trap, an island where reason doesn’t give you a way off.

Here’s my notes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wqrWhnqWh4&t=964s

The 9th most googled question (according to his not-so-scientific data collection) Use the 10:51 bookmark. Besides the abstract question, there is the pragmatic, “what is a reliable belief formation mechanism?” He broadly contrasts that with a comment on how successful the scientific methods are. Nowadays, we spend most of our time looking at science and asking why it works. Then he returns to the classically philosophical, where does knowledge come from?

People living today were born into a world that mostly accepts that our knowledge comes from our senses, then we make conclusions, that is, things “bottom out” at observation. But how do we know that? We don’t. It’s unanswered question. For example, we observe regularities and it appears logical that we can make conclusions, but that doesn’t answer how we derived those regularities. We need the logic already operating to get that started.

14:12 “pairing that with naturalism”.. Premise: We have certain cognitive architecture baked in and premise: it got there through an a-rational causal process, natural selection. Plantinga argues that it’s questionable that we can trust our laws of logic to tell us about the actual world. And/but, is it a problem? So, we can only draw inferences between observations and project our cognitive architecture out on the world, but we can’t step outside of that, so, “it doesn’t matter”. The counter is, that leaves us trapped in the skeptical scenario where we can’t know what is outside of our minds, that should be worrying. He leaves it unsolved.

It was the whiplash from vaguely discussing “is human connection possible” - understanding the self - to suddenly having EVs and saving the world thrust in my face.

Reminded of Mel Brookes. What can I say, - on the edge of chaos weird connections get made.

Thanks for asking.

I like how that sounds.
Especially the part about ideas bottoming out when processing our observations. Reducing ideas to the most basic fundamentals we can observe, and so on.

17:24 ish

".. kind of object oriented framing the question becomes a lot more tractable. So rather than asking what is the meaning of life which can sound like it’s dipping its toe into metaphysics it sounds like we might conclude that there is no meaning and that then we would fall into despair.
I prefer to ask questions like what motivates us like just on a on a kind of empirical and factual level. What motivates us? …

And I like to reduce those types of question to our biological origins, and our biological drives, and that our animal bodies are doing basically the same thing all other living creatures do and have done since time immemorial. @
Once that is clearly established in one’s mind, the rest of it sort of falls into place.

Body + Brain + interaction (interior & exterior) = thoughts/awareness/consciousness.

And from there we can construct notions that better fit the reality of things, than all the logic-ing-out imaginative genius minds are capable of.


@ Well at least till the past century+, when our discoveries of all these Godly powers has driven us crazy, or at least blinded us to our own horrendous gluttony and self-destructive tendencies

I commented on question #9. That ends at 15:56

Definitely vague. I can’t find the connection in that “other topic” thread

Oh heck! :flushed_face:
Okay, my bad. That was leakage from the private messages dialogue, that seems to keep plugging along. Lots of EV, and by what right am I so cynical, where’s my stand on saving the world, and so on.
Stuff that I have not brought over here because it’s irrelevant and redundant.

Thanks for catching me on that.

Back to the main thrust of this discussion and my passionate defense of an evolutionary biological deep-understanding of our origins, being the crucial first base requirement before the rest of our human mysteries can begin to be constructively tackled.

Coming back from a walk with Maddy, and a tour of the newly landscaped ditch, phase one - the excavator’s work. It’ll be interesting to see phase two. I do have new supply of wood to harvest, for future years since it mostly green, still might as well stock up, while I can do it.

Back to the idea echoing in my head as I was coming up the hill to our cabin. That is biological evolution understanding, coupled with appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide (thing I talk about), it feels so important to me, because it does very cleanly resolve the conflict, the conundrum, between our idealized thoughts and the physical reality we can’t escape, and that so often makes a mockery of our thoughts.

It’s not my thing, it’s something that’s been discovered by certain peoples through the ages - but that modern philosophy/theology doesn’t have any room for.

Not that different from the contempt that scientists felt towards women, their baby, and the clues they offer to realizing the sophistication of the new born bundle of miracles. (that at least has improved in recent decades)

Which I’ve come to understand as the little creature’s biological evolutionary self, the one with hundreds of millions of years of learning and development under its belt.
The body knows there’s something inside bursting to get out. From day one, we can observe infants have awareness and intention, even if it only extends to those luscious boobies and sweet talk. Sounds and scents, taste and touch. Every walking moment building on the lessons of the previous days, while the sleeping body processes and grows. In days it starts becoming aware of hands and feet, then recognizing, then learning to manipulate, then coordinate its limbs. The learning and engaging never stops.

Appreciating the evolutionary heart at the core of that infant changes the experience to a whole new level. I have not read this somewhere, it is lessons from my own life. From being there for long periods of those early weeks and months, to periodic visits as they become young people and kids.

The evolutionary core loses dominance, with every new walking hours as the developing little creature learns and grows into its developing body, (those sacred first 100 days are like nothing else for experience consciousness come into being) then increasingly the body’s own cognitive processes develop, we can watch as awareness and Ego starts developing in older babies, then going big in toddlers, and beyond.

The “Apple” of evolution is a creature’s recognition of their sense of self. We see it echoed in every healthy human, and other animals too, within the confines of their particular biology.

But it still remains the core of our being and the evolved biological machine, that coupled with the physical world makes us who we are.

Why would that not be the case if meaning changes and communication relies on us assuming we mean the same thing?

If everything changes that would mean there is nothing to hold on to.

Given the Lacanian thinkers I’ve read and cited it sounds like one of the stronger arguments. Language is limited and meaning changes so can we ever really say anything “about” something else given that? More than that it’s all “made up” in that we created the distinctions and meanings and they only carry weight in the web we have woven, but they aren’t “real” in a sense.

Jade Flower Palace

Tu Fu, translated by Kenneth Rexroth

The stream swirls. The wind moans in

The pines. Gray rats scurry over

Broken tiles. What prince, long ago,

Built this palace, standing in

5 Ruins beside the cliffs? There are

Green ghost fires in the black rooms.

The shattered pavements are all

Washed away. Ten thousand organ

Pipes whistle and roar. The storm

10 Scatters the red autumn leaves.

His dancing girls are yellow dust.

Their painted cheeks have crumbled

Away. His gold chariots

And courtiers are gone. Only

15 A stone horse is left of his

Glory. I sit on the grass and

Start a poem, but the pathos of

It overcomes me. The future

Slips imperceptibly away.

20 Who can say what the years will bring?

“For if dreams die / Life is a broken-winged bird / That cannot fly”. Langston Hughes

I like how Chief Joseph put it long ago: “It does not require many words to speak the truth.”

The link about the movie “Babe”: ends with

who may be whatever he likes, as long as he knows he isn’t.

That’s not nihilism. He understands that he was born for a purpose that was imposed by others AND that he can alter that destiny. He also knows he doesn’t have ultimate power to know everything or create anything he desires. He knows he will die but he doesn’t live as something dying. That would assign meaning to death just like the farmer assigned him to mean bacon.

1 Like