Austin Philosophy Discussion Group (APDG) Message Board Philosophy for Real Life Monday night group › Choices for Self Identity (part 1/2)

Choices for Self Identity (part 1/2)

Kim
user 7355689
Austin, TX
Post #: 679
The "watcher" function may be something akin to the "self-less" or "not-self" center of gravity of narratology which relies on memory (personal or universal) for evidence-based logical analysis that evaluates the likelihood of various claims on reality. http://faculty-staff....­
Leonard H.
LeonardHough
Austin, TX
Post #: 36
> 22 cubic feet of mostly water

A cubic foot is about 28 liters, and a liter of water weighs a kilo. 22 cubic feet is thus a pretty huge human being, weighing over half a ton. I find it hard to get over this error and pay attention to anything else on the thread.
Good catch, Larry! Had Gene been courageous enough to show up at the meeting last night, I would have pointed out to him that he must weigh 1370 pounds! He carries his weight well, wouldn't you say!!
Gene R.
user 10589442
Austin, TX
Post #: 228
Well, Leonard, why so critical? Perhaps I have a somewhat inflated self-image. I’m not the only one… I blame the zeitgeist
Jeffrey S.
JeffreyStukuls
Austin, TX
Post #: 7
@Leonard's 2 part reply:
These are great points and questions! I will come back to this with answers to each...or better yet...

Is there a way to post a document? The question as to where this all comes from can be answered with a rough draft of a book that was written by my friend, Ravi. It's a pdf file and can likely be read before we meet again (it's about 130 pages, very large type, and a lot of images).

I think that will do better answering the questions, as well as raising many more! In fact, the one issue with the book is that it describes the understanding as if it is already understood, rather than creating a path to the understanding.
Phillip W.
user 13055613
Austin, TX
Post #: 6
Very well written Jeffrey. And a good attempt at a difficult subject in a few hundred words.
I think this a book length subject, but its serves well for talking points.
I have one major problem. You have the networked-identity following the watcher
as a special case and arriving from language.
I would argue with the order.
1st network
2nd language evolves
3rd language evolves into complex metaphor
as the human becomes more aware of the thoughts of others
4th the watcher / self / consciousness evolves from complex language,
i.e metaphor, symbolism, an increasing ability to go from
general to specific and specific to general.

Disclosure: I am a reductive materialist who "believes" that every thing about
life, from microbes to civilizations, is all about feedback loops.
This seems to play well with your "intrasystemic self", but I will
read more carefully.

BTW, in the discussion Monday night, I admired your resistance to being put in a box.
Phillip W.
user 13055613
Austin, TX
Post #: 7
Well, a 22 ft^3 refrigerator probably holds 100-200 lbs
of minerals, proteins, fats and mostly water.
Some fridges are more dense, some are rather empty.
Some are rich and some deprived.
All contain far more empty space than substance.
You can't get anything out of them unless you first put
something in.
But if you leave something in too long it will grow undesirable
things or become sour, so rapid turnover of contents
is advisable.
Its even advisable to occasionaly empty them completely
and cut the power for a while with the doors open,
but not for too long.
Bill M.
bmeacham
Austin, TX
Post #: 138
Is there a way to post a document?
Yes. Click on More (at the top of the page), then Files. The Files page appears. Click on Add A File and you will be able to upload your PDF document. Be sure to add a comment here telling us where it is. You can include a direct link if you right-click the link to the document (after you have uploaded it. of course) and select "copy shortcut" or "copy link" or some such.

I look forward to reading your friend Ravi's paper.

Gene R.
user 10589442
Austin, TX
Post #: 229
This is a conclusion of a paragraph (in Jeffrey’s paper) that states “the seamless unity of the universe” and connectedness of its every part to all other parts: “Therefore, the functions inherent in each local vantage point must really be the whole system experiencing itself from within itself.”

This “therefore” keeps bugging me. I do not see it as a conclusion that follows with logical necessity. It must be something else – inference to the best explanation? But then why it is better than alternative explanations? And what are they? And what kinds of experiences are possible for “the entire system?” Are they similar to experiences of sentient beings? Or is it something else entirely? What is it like to be the Universe? Or is this a metaphor? Should then the conclusion be re-written in this manner: “Therefore, the functions inherent in each local vantage point can possibly be thought of metaphorically as if the whole system experiencing itself from within itself?”
James I D.
user 72846152
Austin, TX
Post #: 40
This is a conclusion of a paragraph (in Jeffrey’s paper) that states “the seamless unity of the universe” and connectedness of its every part to all other parts: “Therefore, the functions inherent in each local vantage point must really be the whole system experiencing itself from within itself.”

I am no expert on Leibniz, but Jeffrey's ideas read like a direct adaptation of Leibniz'z monadology, at least at the most elementary level. Here is a first order description of a monad: "Every monad is like a mirror, which reflects in itself the entire universe. A universal situation can be seen represented in a monad." Since everything in Leibniz's universe consists of monads, he would conclude like Jeffrey that "..each local vantage point can possibly be thought of metaphorically as if the whole system experiencing itself from within itself?"
Leonard H.
LeonardHough
Austin, TX
Post #: 37
@Leonard's 2 part reply:
The question as to where this all comes from can be answered with a rough draft of a book that was written by my friend, Ravi. It's a pdf file and can likely be read before we meet again (it's about 130 pages, very large type, and a lot of images).

I think that will do better answering the questions, as well as raising many more! In fact, the one issue with the book is that it describes the understanding as if it is already understood, rather than creating a path to the understanding.
The question I have is--what is this NEED that so many, many people seem to have to lay out evidence that we are all one-with-the-universe? The idea seems unnecessary, outdated, anthropocentric, jingoistic, and certainly unprovable. Yes, the universe is (by definition) ONE. And we are part of it. But unless Gene's solipsism is actually true, then it's pretty clear that if the human race were to disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, the universe would not bat an eye or shed a cosmic tear. I suspect that our existence in the universe is important--but only to us.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy