Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Can Evolutionary Theory Explain Human Consciousness?

It's as if he feels the meaning of numbers in a sensory, almost palpable sort of way.

The question is whether standard heuristics is going on outside his consciousness and the answers coming in a coded form through the 'fuzzy' window, or whether something entirely different is going on.

I have a bit of synaesthesia but nothing so useful.

Full-on synaesthesia is largely just a pain in the arse.
 
Yeah, innit, especially when you're trying to listen to some pleasant music and have to keep dodging the large yellow quavers flying out of the speakers. I hate that!

I think synaesthesia tells us that the phemomenal quality of perceptions is not so much to do with the sense organs, or with the physics of the perception (as David Chalmers seems to think) but more to do with the processing of the information. Perhaps bats and dolphins perceive a three dimensional "visual" space with their sonar.
 
Mmm. And sometimes orange or red.

Do your speakers chuck out different colours then? I'd have 'em looked at if I were you :D
 
I only see them when it's dark or my eyes are closed and then it's just a few deep reds - music is more tactile than anything for me - cannabis amplifies it massively. :cool:

Most of my synaesthesia isn't cross-modal in such a straightforward way, if I stub my toe or do anything that creates a sudden sharp pain, I can smell iron filings - if I think about doing something which I should have grown out of by my age I get a funny 'swooshing' feeling across my shoulders - just things like that. Days of the week also have colours but I think most synaesthetics do that. I'll also go round someone's house and think they've redecorated when in fact they're just playing a different kind of music to what they normally play.

No really massive fireworks, though.
 
I'm coming round to the idea that the premise of the dialectical crowd that consciousness is a mutually determined thing is wrong. Which is to say, consciousness is not the state of being conscious of a thing, it's just a thing. Likewise there is no distinction between rationality and appearance, because rationality is already appearance.

The distinction between things that are 'out there' and things that are 'in here' is one that has to be acquired - this is perhaps made possible because there are neural differences between the two experiences, like the way an imagined image neurally speaking is like a pale reflection of the processing of that actual image (learned/innate - who knows!). Hence Freud's 'Oceanic Experience' - a parody of the return to the undifferentiated real that is sought in drugs, meditation, flow, etc etc.

None of this is to say that Historical Materialism is junk, as Gorski and phildwyer point out it has seldom been more necessary, but it needs to expunge the Idealism if it is to climb down from the ivory tower where it's been hiding at least since the failures of '68.

The question of the thread title ultimately will only be solved a posteriori. Like the question of whether the moon is made of cheese, you can sit at home pontificating forever, but ultimately you have to go there, bring back some rocks and examine their cheesiness. Knowledge is limited in a number of ways though, so it could be that computational intelligence can be demonstrated to be inherently insufficient. But then knowledge of a limit is knowledge still.
 
But German makes my head hurt! I'd have to keep asking my other half for help and she gets ratty eventually. :(

It's telling that there is not a single translation as far as I can see. Talk about the philosophical divide!
 
With which bit of what I said is the Theunissen stuff concerned? Is there a radical difference from something like the recent Habermas?
 
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

:hmm:
 
A tangent:

Would a glow in the dark penis be an evolutionary advantage when it's fair to say that the kind of bloke who'd buy a glow in the dark condom as a joke probably shouldn't be passing their genes on anyway....

?
 
Being and Appearing? I read a bit of Kant in German the other day. I think I understood it, but then again, I'd feel safer with a translation.

Being and appearance. I might order it off amazon.de and see how I get on with it, but then again vita brevis and all that.
 
Being and appearance. I might order it off amazon.de and see how I get on with it, but then again vita brevis and all that.

Just reading Peter Singer's account of Hegel's works and he admits that a major stumbling block is the translation of 'geist' into English. Which does make me think that unless you are reading Hegel in the original you are only getting the translator's interpretation of his complex ideas. Das hatte ich fruher gewusst und denke ich immer so das dieser Ideen so compliziert sind das mann Deutsch als muttersprache behershcen konnen muss wenn mann klarkommen mit Hegel will. Oder?
 
"Spirit" innit. What's the problem?

No, it isn't just spirit. It also means 'mind' and sometimes 'intellect'. Therein lies the problem for an English speaker trying to understand Hegel. I speak German pretty well but I'd still have problems translating this word to an English speaker. Not to mention someone who'd read it in Serbo-Croatisch.:)
 
... Das hatte ich fruher gewusst und denke ich immer so das dieser Ideen so compliziert sind das mann Deutsch als muttersprache behershcen konnen muss wenn mann klarkommen mit Hegel will. Oder?

Dann, sie meinst, wenn mann andere sprache als muttersprache hatte, hat mann keine chance solche dinge klar zu verstehen. Keine moeglichkeit. Es wirt mir jahren lange dauern um deutch als muttersprache zu behherschen, und solche zeit habe ich nicht, wenn ich diese ideen verstehen will, gibt es keine andere moeglichkeit, ich muss einfach meine deutch-englishe ubersetzer einige bistien vertrauen.
 
Dann, sie meinst, wenn mann andere sprache als muttersprache hatte, hat mann keine chance solche dinge klar zu verstehen. Keine moeglichkeit. Es wirt mir jahren lange dauern um deutch als muttersprache zu behherschen, und solche zeit habe ich nicht, wenn ich diese ideen verstehen will, gibt es keine andere moeglichkeit, ich muss einfach meine deutch-englishe ubersetzer einige bistien vertrauen.
W

Du kannst mir duen wenn du willst. Neh, warum solltest du dein ubersetzer vertrauen wenn du schon die moglichkeit hast die worter selbst zu verstehen. Dein ubersetzer wird auch die selbe Problemen haben.
Es ist immer interessant auf Deutsch zu schreiben. Und auch zu denken. Es macht immer Spass. Schreib weiter.:)
 
Joj, al' kakateeeee.... :D :D :D

But seriously, the Q is: after studying it properly would one still have the prevailing "everyday notion" [well, more of an "Anschauung"] of "spirit" or not?

I think both languages have these "extra special meanings" and then those to do with sitting around the table and holding hands... depending on the kind of "spirituality" one is hell-bent on...:p

The more "unnatural" meaning comes from Recht, as prof. Knox pointed out in his translator's notes of "Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts".

Every translation is an interpretation, of course, as we all know. But the different "traditions", "schools of thought" is what differentiates us, really... in my opinion - which is never humble, as I was made aware today...:D
 
"Logos," now that really is a conundrum.

Oh, yeah... Translated/interpreted as "word" when the Bible was translated - but... hmmmm...

The Ancient Greeks had many meanings for it:

1) Cosmos [and its order/nature]

2) [Inner] Reason [of the thing/subject itself]

3) Word

...and many different meanings, from an order/formation of ships in a harbour onwards...
 
Du kannst mir duen wenn du willst. Neh, warum solltest du dein ubersetzer vertrauen wenn du schon die moglichkeit hast die worter selbst zu verstehen. Dein ubersetzer wird auch die selbe Problemen haben.
Es ist immer interessant auf Deutsch zu schreiben. Und auch zu denken. Es macht immer Spass. Schreib weiter.:)

Dass ich die worter selbst verstehen kann ist moeglich aber schwer, ich habe seit zehn jahre wenig moeglichkeit meine deutsch gute ubung zu geben. Dass meine ubersetzer die ahlichen problemen als ich hatten is auch war, aber wenn die die deutsche scrift besser als ich verstehen kann, kann die auch eine bessere arbeit damit machen, glaub ich.

Intressant auf deutsch zu schrieben und zu denken ja, finde ich auch, aber zeit zehn jahren habe ich kaum deutschlichen gedanken mehre hatten.

Ich hatte immer gewolt einige neue kentnisse in eine andere sprache als meine muttersprache zu lernen. Ich glaube es konnte die kopf richtig vergrossern. Aber leider in meine sechs monate lange arbeit in Deutschland habe ich nuer dinge dass ich vorher in englische gekannt gelearnt. Aber vielleicht in zukunft gibt es noch eine moeglichkeit fuer mich, hoffe ich wenigstens, vielleicht es kann Hegel sein :)
 
Oh, yeah... Translated/interpreted as "word" when the Bible was translated - but... hmmmm...

The Ancient Greeks had many meanings for it:

1) Cosmos [and its order/nature]

2) [Inner] Reason [of the thing/subject itself]

3) Word

...and many different meanings, from an order/formation of ships in a harbour onwards...

In John 1.1 its used for the "Son" of God.
 
HA! How had this been left to rot!?!

To answer the OP:.....








...............no.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
not entirely and nor SHOULD it have to ;)*







*and if you don't understand this then you should think VERY hard about WTF you think you are all talking about
 
I'm coming round to the idea that the premise of the dialectical crowd that consciousness is a mutually determined thing is wrong. Which is to say, consciousness is not the state of being conscious of a thing, it's just a thing. Likewise there is no distinction between rationality and appearance, because rationality is already appearance.

The distinction between things that are 'out there' and things that are 'in here' is one that has to be acquired - this is perhaps made possible because there are neural differences between the two experiences, like the way an imagined image neurally speaking is like a pale reflection of the processing of that actual image (learned/innate - who knows!). Hence Freud's 'Oceanic Experience' - a parody of the return to the undifferentiated real that is sought in drugs, meditation, flow, etc etc.

None of this is to say that Historical Materialism is junk, as Gorski and phildwyer point out it has seldom been more necessary, but it needs to expunge the Idealism if it is to climb down from the ivory tower where it's been hiding at least since the failures of '68.

The question of the thread title ultimately will only be solved a posteriori. Like the question of whether the moon is made of cheese, you can sit at home pontificating forever, but ultimately you have to go there, bring back some rocks and examine their cheesiness. Knowledge is limited in a number of ways though, so it could be that computational intelligence can be demonstrated to be inherently insufficient. But then knowledge of a limit is knowledge still.

Nearly
 
Back
Top Bottom