pyrrho314, let me try to say this with as much respect that is due. This video is an excellent rebuttal to TheModernMystic. I think right now in your life you are going through your Schopenhauer Phase. I highly recommend to you that you try reading, or just skimming, Schopenhauer's book called
shopenhauer is adorable though I havn't read him for years. Honestly, I forget any titles. I'd like to think I'm more post-post-shopenhauer... but he is within the tradition of pro-will philosophers to which I refer and claim some geneology philosophically speaking.
it's a sincere inquiry, what's the percent signify... is it good to raise or lower it, why? what's the average sorted by type of vlogger? you seem so sure... do tell
is this your comment, or mine, I mean, you gave it to me didn't you? by putting it in "the comments" but in "my video"? btw, that comment had more than 22 characters.
This whole description would work as well without interposing a subsystem called the 'Self,' or the 'I.' That is not to say that the 'Self' or the 'I' are not concepts of reflectivity on the continuity of conscious being. The question really is what role the 'Self' or the 'I' play in influencing the choices in the feedback loop which they find themselves in some part of. But, then, there are multitudes of feedback loops and no subsystem has an homunculus in any of them acting as train conductor.
I don't think we can describe the actual human condition without "I" and "self". It's built into the brain for one, but beyond that, some device must do the thinking.
You are a very challenging thinker, Pyrrho. I wish I had this thinking device, myself, so that I could answer your objection. It is an objection that I am on familiar and friendly terms with. What I like about the way you think is that it is just like a virtual electron darting in and out of existence. Seriously, though, I have made the same argument hundreds of times and there is nothing wrong with it. But I don't want to cop out. Give me a day and I will give you an answer.
Damasio, who I like, has described the 'Self' in three parts. On the other hand, Dennett describes consciousness (See Sweet Dreams chap. 6) as a 'be-in' (my word) of attention-grabbing mental subsystems (agencies). Think of an eye ('I') inside the cranium that is as blind as a bat inside of a cavern. The electromagnetic vibrations from the activity in the various feedback loops provide the eye-bat with an echo-location of all present in the be-in. There is no representation of 'I.' It just 'is.'
This might sound like an oversimplification of the problem. The problem is referred to as the 'hard question.' The hard question asks 'and then what happens?' In other words, the question is 'once the eye-bat collects all of the electro-magnetic vibrations and manages to integrate them into a meaningful whole, when does it open its eye and view it? Dennett's point is technical because he is insisting that it is already doing the 'seeing' of itself and there is no need to ask the hard question.
Personally, I have no problem with either approach. Damasio seems to be modeling a concept of the 'self' based on a brain-physiological description of 'Self' from the point of view of the reflective thinker. He avoids all of the Cartesian mistakes such as the 'Cartesian Theater' and 'Res Cogitans'; however, he provides a road map representation of the model of the 'Self.' This comes some distance from Socrates' 'know thyself,' but I think Damasio's view is not incompatible with Dennett's view.
Again..as with the collor prefferences. If i like red on the hat i don't like it in the eyes. If i like black on the shirt i don't like it on the face... everytime the value of a quality is arbitrary and it's meaning is independent of that which we may atribute to it.
would u prefer to take the pijama after u go to the bathroom, or first of going in bed?! this illusion of choice is that in either case u have to take the pijama... (sometimes just the colors differ)
Aha. I get it now!
pyrrho314, let me try to say this with as much respect that is due. This video is an excellent rebuttal to TheModernMystic. I think right now in your life you are going through your Schopenhauer Phase. I highly recommend to you that you try reading, or just skimming, Schopenhauer's book called
The World as Will and Representation.
---------------------------------
If you have already read it, all the better.
otonanoC 2 years ago
shopenhauer is adorable though I havn't read him for years. Honestly, I forget any titles. I'd like to think I'm more post-post-shopenhauer... but he is within the tradition of pro-will philosophers to which I refer and claim some geneology philosophically speaking.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Me, myself, & irene; go figure.
TJae1 2 years ago
noise
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Good luck w/ the comment level; Ur up to 1%, yee-haw :)
TJae1 2 years ago
I made a video to you.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
since you admit it doesn't mean anything, it might as well be n%
pyrrho314 2 years ago
come on pyrrho, it has meaning. Don't b - :)
TJae1 2 years ago
no, I don't think you think it does
pyrrho314 2 years ago
What are U hoping to accomplish w/ Ur philosophic pursuit, nobel, however, what's to become of it, do U think.
TJae1 2 years ago
trying to avoid the question I see.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
It's a sincere inquiry; no set-up. What's Ur goal.
TJae1 2 years ago
it's a sincere inquiry, what's the percent signify... is it good to raise or lower it, why? what's the average sorted by type of vlogger? you seem so sure... do tell
pyrrho314 2 years ago
comment/ subscriber % ratio; Ur philosophic quest or pursuit; what's to become of it or Ur purpose for it, do U think?
TJae1 2 years ago
my philosophic pursuit and quest, what's the meaning of the comment/sub % ratio?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Oh, the wonder of the reset ... I'm in luv.. Ur philosophic quest or pursuit; what's to become of it or what's Ur purpose for it, do U think?
TJae1 2 years ago
what the purpose of tracking comment/sub % ratio?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
observation & comment
TJae1 2 years ago
yeah, it's my comment; sure do.
TJae1 2 years ago
is this your comment, or mine, I mean, you gave it to me didn't you? by putting it in "the comments" but in "my video"? btw, that comment had more than 22 characters.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
U have Me ~ which comment:
TJae1 2 years ago
I don't have you
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I'm not gay, pyrrho... hope Ur not.
TJae1 2 years ago
how presumptuous... why would you hope that? is there something wrong with being gay?!
or do you mean you hope I'm not happy?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Yes.... Ur not gay, R ya?
TJae1 2 years ago
why do you want me not to be happy? are U a meen sorte?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
R U gay? pyrrho ~ there's actually gay ppl in the world ~ so, it's not a put-on.
TJae1 2 years ago
whats the meaning of the comment/subscriber % acrding 2 U?
I'm happy.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
What's Ur goal for philosophy & we'll call it even.
TJae1 2 years ago
please provide the meaning of commnuts/snubscibers % and I'll call it even.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I didn't want to play-play, if that's what U want. My comment(s) aren't enigmatic. Pyrrho, R U completely aimless w/ Ur hobby?
TJae1 2 years ago
btw I don't think homophobes should be able to get married... they ruin the institution of marriage. Du U greea?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
heteros should;
Ur married w/ a daugther, rite?
TJae1 2 years ago
Yeahes... completely, I'm not that lib.
TJae1 2 years ago
yur oBJEcitivyst?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
spell checkrs are great.
TJae1 2 years ago
What's Ur goal, for Ur philosophic pursuit?
TJae1 2 years ago
my gole is to find out what it means %
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Ur philosophic pursuit; We'll discuss comment queries later.
TJae1 2 years ago
MM rulzs; 3rd comment-teer; 1052 subsciptions; 6 comment(s); go figure :)
TJae1 2 years ago
apophenic hysteria! call a paramedic!
pyrrho314 2 years ago
life raft would help; how's the surf?
TJae1 2 years ago
K... mr exclamation mrk.
TJae1 2 years ago
how about a philo-pyrrho-chologist
TJae1 2 years ago
This whole description would work as well without interposing a subsystem called the 'Self,' or the 'I.' That is not to say that the 'Self' or the 'I' are not concepts of reflectivity on the continuity of conscious being. The question really is what role the 'Self' or the 'I' play in influencing the choices in the feedback loop which they find themselves in some part of. But, then, there are multitudes of feedback loops and no subsystem has an homunculus in any of them acting as train conductor.
paradirob 2 years ago
I don't think we can describe the actual human condition without "I" and "self". It's built into the brain for one, but beyond that, some device must do the thinking.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
You are a very challenging thinker, Pyrrho. I wish I had this thinking device, myself, so that I could answer your objection. It is an objection that I am on familiar and friendly terms with. What I like about the way you think is that it is just like a virtual electron darting in and out of existence. Seriously, though, I have made the same argument hundreds of times and there is nothing wrong with it. But I don't want to cop out. Give me a day and I will give you an answer.
paradirob 2 years ago
Damasio, who I like, has described the 'Self' in three parts. On the other hand, Dennett describes consciousness (See Sweet Dreams chap. 6) as a 'be-in' (my word) of attention-grabbing mental subsystems (agencies). Think of an eye ('I') inside the cranium that is as blind as a bat inside of a cavern. The electromagnetic vibrations from the activity in the various feedback loops provide the eye-bat with an echo-location of all present in the be-in. There is no representation of 'I.' It just 'is.'
paradirob 2 years ago
This might sound like an oversimplification of the problem. The problem is referred to as the 'hard question.' The hard question asks 'and then what happens?' In other words, the question is 'once the eye-bat collects all of the electro-magnetic vibrations and manages to integrate them into a meaningful whole, when does it open its eye and view it? Dennett's point is technical because he is insisting that it is already doing the 'seeing' of itself and there is no need to ask the hard question.
paradirob 2 years ago
Personally, I have no problem with either approach. Damasio seems to be modeling a concept of the 'self' based on a brain-physiological description of 'Self' from the point of view of the reflective thinker. He avoids all of the Cartesian mistakes such as the 'Cartesian Theater' and 'Res Cogitans'; however, he provides a road map representation of the model of the 'Self.' This comes some distance from Socrates' 'know thyself,' but I think Damasio's view is not incompatible with Dennett's view.
paradirob 2 years ago
yea it seems so!
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
Again..as with the collor prefferences. If i like red on the hat i don't like it in the eyes. If i like black on the shirt i don't like it on the face... everytime the value of a quality is arbitrary and it's meaning is independent of that which we may atribute to it.
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
from one corner where is "choice" is restriction; from the other where is permission are still restricted choices. As "it is so or it isn't ".
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
would u prefer to take the pijama after u go to the bathroom, or first of going in bed?! this illusion of choice is that in either case u have to take the pijama... (sometimes just the colors differ)
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago
when doing one's true will the "because" falls. But it can be assisted also by reason when conventional domains are involved.
NemoOmnia336 2 years ago