I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently.
you clearly do not understand, to say that plants are conscious is like saying that plants are good at thumb wrestling. Just as thumb wrestling is impossible without thumbs thought/emotion is impossible without a brain. Perhaps if you took less doodling classes at western and more consequential classes like behavioral neuroscience you might better understand the relationship between synaptic function and consciousness, you fiendish knave! And I say that in the least inflammatory way possible : )
To reduce all interiors to their exterior correlates: the crime of gross reductionism. Do we know emotion is impossible without a brain? I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the drunk scientist looking for his keys under the lamplight, because that's the only place he can see clearly. So it is with consciousness: a lack of effective analytical tools allows us to disregard most of creation and assume ourselves unique.
im going to disregard the questions that are epistomological in nature and those that question the validity of sciene, as the magnitude of discourse nessisary resolve those warrant a face to face discussion. I do have a question though
Have you been reading more ken wilber lately?? because these statements seem like something you might find in his book... Im not even quite sure what you mean to say in the first sentence.
"To reduce all interiors to their exterior correlates: the crime of gross reductionism." "a lack of effective analytical tools allows us to disregard most of creation and assume ourselves unique."
Nathan, your observational skills once again astound me. But let's be honest, you called it. I think if you actually tried Ken Wilber would blow you away, btw. Pretty please? To expand:
Consciousness is a very difficult area to research, mainly because our analytical tools are lacking. As it stands, we can barely study or understand human and animal consciousness, let alone anything without a spine. More specifically to nathan's first point, that saying plants have consciousness is like saying plants are good at thumb wrestling: obviously plants suck at thumb wrestling. I bet if you put a plant against a five-year-old a hundred thousand times the five-year-old would win every one. It's worth noting here, however, that you could construct a practical hierarchy of thumb wrestling abilities, and see development along up this hierarchy given training or some sort of stimulus. In a scheme like this, you might have a plant at the bottom (negligible abilities), the five-year-old in the middle, and, say a world champion thumb wrestler on top. So the plant has abilities that are negligible in comparison to the five-year-old; is that the same as saying that the plant shouldn't even be included in the hierarchy? Because the five-year-olds abilities are also negligible compared to the world champion's; should we remove him too? Where can you draw the line? What if we didn't have sophisticated enough equipment to measure a plant's thumb-wrestling abilities compared to those of a five-year-old? My direction should be obvious by now: as with thumb wrestling, consciousness.
An aside: I know you could pick apart the details of the analogy Nathan, and make a refined logical argument as to why it isn't exactly the same as consciousness, but bare with me here.
So for consciousness the argument is the same. Three new players in this example: a plant, Nathan, and Buddha. Reconstructing the argument from the thumb wrestling example, should we deny that Nathan has consciousness because it pales in comparison to that of Gotama Buddha?And should we deny the plant a spot as well? If we say that only so and so grouping of life possesses consciousness, and nothing else, we have to draw a very, very arbitrary line that is dictated by our ability to measure consciousness.
Gross reductionism occurs when you take an interior (personal, mental, etc.) state (say, consciousness, for instance) and reduce it to something measurable in the external world, like brian wave patterns. Not being able to measure or see something does not mean that it doesn't exist. Can you observe yourself? (another topic of discussion, actually, best saved for later) I think we could all agree that we have a Self (whatever definition you'd like to use), but most people would be very hard pressed to observe it. One of the issues with scientific materialism is that, being purely objective, it leaves out the observer; this is paradoxical, and not in the Zen sense. It is a self-defeating belief system.
I find when you sum up ken wilber I am intrigued. reading that first chapter of integral psychology though was an experience akin to dantes finger experience... sorry. I will respond more to this later as I am tired and still have studying to do but I feel compelled to point one obvious error ----> plant, budda, nathan
12 comments:
you would simply dissmiss it.
I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently.
you clearly do not understand, to say that plants are conscious is like saying that plants are good at thumb wrestling. Just as thumb wrestling is impossible without thumbs thought/emotion is impossible without a brain. Perhaps if you took less doodling classes at western and more consequential classes like behavioral neuroscience you might better understand the relationship between synaptic function and consciousness, you fiendish knave! And I say that in the least inflammatory way possible : )
To reduce all interiors to their exterior correlates: the crime of gross reductionism. Do we know emotion is impossible without a brain? I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the drunk scientist looking for his keys under the lamplight, because that's the only place he can see clearly. So it is with consciousness: a lack of effective analytical tools allows us to disregard most of creation and assume ourselves unique.
im going to disregard the questions that are epistomological in nature and those that question the validity of sciene, as the magnitude of discourse nessisary resolve those warrant a face to face discussion. I do have a question though
Have you been reading more ken wilber lately?? because these statements seem like something you might find in his book... Im not even quite sure what you mean to say in the first sentence.
"To reduce all interiors to their exterior correlates: the crime of gross reductionism."
"a lack of effective analytical tools allows us to disregard most of creation and assume ourselves unique."
Also, we must play online chess sometime soon!
yes, please expand matt--possibly on a new post??
oh and do you have any reading suggestions in terms of epsistomology
Nathan, your observational skills once again astound me. But let's be honest, you called it. I think if you actually tried Ken Wilber would blow you away, btw. Pretty please? To expand:
Consciousness is a very difficult area to research, mainly because our analytical tools are lacking. As it stands, we can barely study or understand human and animal consciousness, let alone anything without a spine. More specifically to nathan's first point, that saying plants have consciousness is like saying plants are good at thumb wrestling: obviously plants suck at thumb wrestling. I bet if you put a plant against a five-year-old a hundred thousand times the five-year-old would win every one. It's worth noting here, however, that you could construct a practical hierarchy of thumb wrestling abilities, and see development along up this hierarchy given training or some sort of stimulus. In a scheme like this, you might have a plant at the bottom (negligible abilities), the five-year-old in the middle, and, say a world champion thumb wrestler on top. So the plant has abilities that are negligible in comparison to the five-year-old; is that the same as saying that the plant shouldn't even be included in the hierarchy? Because the five-year-olds abilities are also negligible compared to the world champion's; should we remove him too? Where can you draw the line? What if we didn't have sophisticated enough equipment to measure a plant's thumb-wrestling abilities compared to those of a five-year-old? My direction should be obvious by now: as with thumb wrestling, consciousness.
An aside: I know you could pick apart the details of the analogy Nathan, and make a refined logical argument as to why it isn't exactly the same as consciousness, but bare with me here.
So for consciousness the argument is the same. Three new players in this example: a plant, Nathan, and Buddha. Reconstructing the argument from the thumb wrestling example, should we deny that Nathan has consciousness because it pales in comparison to that of Gotama Buddha?And should we deny the plant a spot as well? If we say that only so and so grouping of life possesses consciousness, and nothing else, we have to draw a very, very arbitrary line that is dictated by our ability to measure consciousness.
Gross reductionism occurs when you take an interior (personal, mental, etc.) state (say, consciousness, for instance) and reduce it to something measurable in the external world, like brian wave patterns. Not being able to measure or see something does not mean that it doesn't exist. Can you observe yourself? (another topic of discussion, actually, best saved for later) I think we could all agree that we have a Self (whatever definition you'd like to use), but most people would be very hard pressed to observe it. One of the issues with scientific materialism is that, being purely objective, it leaves out the observer; this is paradoxical, and not in the Zen sense. It is a self-defeating belief system.
Fuck. I just wrote out like half a page of response and tried to post it but it was too big and it all got deleted. I'll repost soon i guess...
Nevermind. There it is.
I find when you sum up ken wilber I am intrigued. reading that first chapter of integral psychology though was an experience akin to dantes finger experience... sorry. I will respond more to this later as I am tired and still have studying to do but I feel compelled to point one obvious error ----> plant, budda, nathan
My mistake. My hierarchy should have been more accurate.
Post a Comment