Emergence - Part 2B of ?

The unique challenge of language during paradigm shifts.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Paradigm
• shift
• Emergence
• emergent
• property
• consciousness
• mind
• brain

[Cyrathil]

I am not entirely sure what you mean at the end, but the brain is an objectively existing physical object. The neurons exist, the brain they make up exists. If you're not talking about the physical brain, but the emotions it conjures, why use say the brain at all? If I'm way off, I apologize, it's late and I'm working on finishing some tests for class, so I'm probably missing a lot.

[ksol000]

In Buddhism, all things are regarded to be "dependent arisings". Each thing is caused by the rest of the Universe - which includes consciousness. So these ideas are as old has the hills. :-)

[sssswwwsssss]

Hi SA, I was wondering how you'd get from this originary subjective realm to the positing of an external world. Do you have an argument which entitles you to such a claim? because, as you're no doubt aware, it's on this kind of argument that the possible refutation of idealism would rely.

[demrings]

Having seen some more of your videos, I realize you've in fact emphasized this point quite often. However, I think it would be good if you include a short and clear disclaimer statement to all your videos on this topic.

[laffer35]

I understand the blender is part of you in so far as your interpretation of what makes up the blender is subjective. However, what causes you to have this sense experience, the thing or whatever you want to call it that you interpret as a blender, is something that exists independent of you. So in that way, it's not part of you.

That's how I understand it so far anyway.

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

A lot of what I hear from you sounds a bit like what Amit Goswami has been talking about with "monistic idealism".

Can you present me anything aside from brains in vats and caves with allegories that would denote the existence what your talking about?

[Censeo]

Egocentric = I am not moving, when not walking, so the sun rises. Where I move is where it is important for me to move, in relation with places on earth, not planetary positions, and so the earth do not rotate, because the planets don't count. They aren't part of the model (don't exist in this paradigm)

[Censeo]

I've probably said this before, but we do use different paradigm models and seem not to discard them at all times. We do not only say the sun rises, but it actually does rise in the model we use at the time. It is not geocentric, but an egocentric model. What it looks like is what is happening, rather than accounting for cosmology. Also, we still view the world as flat when we drive to work, because the distant is short and using another model is unnecessary. Do you see my point?

[demrings]

I think you should emphasize more the fact that there is a reality independent of us, only that this is transcendent to us in such a way that even our best models of it portray it in a very false way: Reality *in itself* is not physical, physics is merely our virtual approximation.

It's important to reconcile 'physical subjectivism' with the scientific project (something like Kant perhaps?), or else many people will be alienated from what you're saying. Avoid the 'esoterical' stamp!