Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational - privileged status: unchecked

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - socrates1

2
What is it like to be conscious of yourself? Can you be conscious of yourself? For example, as the one who is reading this post or as the one who is typing on the keyboard
Were you conscious of yourself reading the post before it was brought to your attention?
Time to move on.
3
What is it like to be conscious of yourself? Can you be conscious of yourself? For example, as the one who is reading this post or as the one who is typing on the keyboard
Were you conscious of yourself reading the post before it was brought to your attention?
4
What is it like to be conscious of yourself? Can you be conscious of yourself? For example, as the one who is reading this post or as the one who is typing on the keyboard
5
I will be leaving this soon.
6
Let's begin with
if you are thinking about something are you conscious of the thing you are thinking about?

Is there a difference between being conscious of an apple you are looking at, compared to thinking about an apple?
There's a difference between being conscious of a specific apple and thinking about a hypothetical apple, certainly.

Is there a difference between thinking about yourself compared to being conscious of yourself?
It depends on what you mean by "being conscious of." By the definition I gave earlier, no, "thinking about yourself" and "being conscious of yourself" would be the same thing, since I defined "being conscious of" as "thinking about." Of course that isn't the only possible meaning of "being conscious of." If we define it as simply perceiving, which is also a common way of defining it, then obviously there's a difference between thinking about something and simply perceiving it.

This is where it would really help if you would state what definitions you intend when you use these words.
What is it like to be conscious of yourself? Can you be conscious of yourself? For example, as the one who is reading this post or as the one who is typing on the keyboard.
7
Let's begin with
if you are thinking about something are you conscious of the thing you are thinking about?

Is there a difference between being conscious of an apple you are looking at, compared to thinking about an apple?

Is there a difference between thinking about yourself compared to being conscious of yourself?
8
Let's begin with
if you are thinking about something are you conscious of the thing you are thinking about?
9
BenTheBiased is thinking for himself. I had almost given up hope.
10
The only possibly relevant distinction I can think of between "know" and "be conscious of" would be the distinction between having a piece of knowledge and actively thinking about that knowledge. For example, I "know" that 2+2=4, but most of the time I'm not thinking about that fact, so one might say I'm often not "conscious" of it. I have no idea if that's the distinction Socrates intends or not, nor do I really have any idea what bearing it might have on any ideas about "intelligent evolution," but I can't really think of anything else it would be. If Socrates refuses to explain what he's talking about, then I guess, as he likes to say, so be it.
That was not so hard. But if you are thinking about something are you conscious of it?

I see that this is ambiguous. It could mean:
if you are thinking about something are you conscious of the thing you are thinking about
OR
if you are thinking about something, are you conscious of yourself as the one thinking about it.

Both meanings are interesting.
11
The only possibly relevant distinction I can think of between "know" and "be conscious of" would be the distinction between having a piece of knowledge and actively thinking about that knowledge. For example, I "know" that 2+2=4, but most of the time I'm not thinking about that fact, so one might say I'm often not "conscious" of it. I have no idea if that's the distinction Socrates intends or not, nor do I really have any idea what bearing it might have on any ideas about "intelligent evolution," but I can't really think of anything else it would be. If Socrates refuses to explain what he's talking about, then I guess, as he likes to say, so be it.
That was not so hard. But if you are thinking about something are you conscious of it?
12

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
From your posts, it seems that if I do not help you, you are completely unable to make any headway on your own. The thing about this particular topic is that it requires an active effort on your part. I thought that nesb was interested in making an active effort but he seems to have lost interest. 
13

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
14

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
15
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.
And plants as well. See the videos and the studies that they are presenting in those videos.
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it. 

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature

Humans have the additional gift of being able to become conscious of this "overruling intelligence" because we can become conscious of that intelligence in ourselves.
If we are not conscious of that intelligence in ourselves, how can we expect to be able to recognize it anywhere else?

Worth repeating.
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
16
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.
And plants as well. See the videos and the studies that they are presenting in those videos.
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it. 

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature

Humans have the additional gift of being able to become conscious of this "overruling intelligence" because we can become conscious of that intelligence in ourselves.
If we are not conscious of that intelligence in ourselves, how can we expect to be able to recognize it anywhere else?

Worth repeating.
17
So there is a difference between knowing and being conscious of.
So for example you could know that you have intelligence and purposefulness but not be conscious (aware) of it.
If anyone can work with this, please feel free to do so.
(If no one can work with it, that is fine also).
18
So there is a difference between knowing and being conscious of.
So for example you could know that you have intelligence and purposefulness but not be conscious (aware) of it.
19
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.
Why not begin with it meaning "aware" and sees where that leads.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious (aware) of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
Here is a question:
Is there a difference between knowing that you have intelligence and purposefulness on the one hand and being conscious (aware) of it on the other hand?
20
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.
Why not begin with it meaning "aware" and sees where that leads.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious (aware) of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
21
I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" here. Aware?
Do you have some idea of what "conscious" means?
22
I mean, I do think people are wired to find meaning in things. Without that, there would be no way to make even largely trivial and basic everyday choices, since trying to pure logic your way through e.g. deciding what bushel of bananas to buy, will just lead you down some crazy road of infinite regress.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
23
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.
Can you grasp your own intelligence? Become conscious of yourself as having the capacity of an intelligent, purposeful being?

I guess? I wouldn't use those words, but I know I'm an "intelligent" animal, in some sense of that term, at least. I have not "become conscious" of a higher power, though, and in fact, don't even think I've ever had whatever intuition some people have to make them think that. When I was Christian as a young child, it was because I thought literally everyone was, and so I had never really thought about it.
I do not mean a higher power. Just becoming conscious of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
24
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.
And plants as well. See the videos and the studies that they are presenting in those videos.
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it. 

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature

Humans have the additional gift of being able to become conscious of this "overruling intelligence" because we can become conscious of that intelligence in ourselves.
If we are not conscious of that intelligence in ourselves, how can we expect to be able to recognize it anywhere else?
25
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.
Can you grasp your own intelligence? Become conscious of yourself as having the capacity of an intelligent, purposeful being?