Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Kedaman
So "That house is 30 metres high" is an analytic statement? How so? You cannot judge it's truth value from the meaning of it's terms alone. You must empirically observe which house I refer to and how high it you measure it to be to form judgement on the truth of that statement.Quote:
All Synthetic statements are inherently Analytic and thus logically verifiable. This is also derived from subjectivity. All phrases without meaning are not statements.
Sounds like you're getting a little annoyed?Quote:
Look, i've critisized Karl Popper too, we have agreed that reality isn't sufficient explanation for everything, so stop dragging him in now. I'm defining the universe now and you listen to me, I have the answers to all the questions and as the fact that your "self-awareness" isn't an answer to a question, I wonder why you want to have it with you.
I only mentioned Popper again to make a point. And I've agreed that consiousness is outside of a physical reality but that does not mean that there is not objective reality. And as I've already stated, "Self-Awareness" is not something that I have any choice about.
Without giving this question as much thought as it probably deserves, the following definition springs to mind: "A problem is a question without an answer."Quote:
Ok let me hear your definition of a problem.
My perception is my tool of observation but self-awareness entails perception of my own perception. I am aware of the fact that I am aware. So are you.Quote:
No i'm not. Consciousness is awareness. Awareness is the ability to observe. Thats what we are, observers. You argue that we also are "knowers" and even thought it has no practical meaning, or any meaning at all you argue that "you just know it" what difference does it make if you know it or not?
It's practical advantages are plain to see. It gives us the ability to think about one's self in the third person. To postulate about what is not, but what might be. To hypothesise and speculate. Self-awareness gives us the possibility of predicting when a particular course of action might be a mistake or lead us into an undesireable situation.
You seem to be getting a little infuriated with me and I appologise; I'm not being deliberately stupid. I just can't quite grasp the point and the benefit of what you're proposing.
Wally
As I have said, I don't think we consciously decide which information to keep/discard. The incomming observations organise themselves according to what has gone before. Hence, a self-organising system. There is no central "I", no central controller.Quote:
Err ... that we are interpreters of observations and either use the end result or discard it.
This trial and error system has shaped our thinking, beliefs and society to a level we know today.
But in the end it's a (albeit very complicated) matter of feeding different data to our instruction set (both instincts and brain).[/
That we have a sensation of "I", that we observe and have conscious input into our own behaviour, is the mystery. I think it is a function of our brains. A belief that is true because we believe it.
Kedaman
It's funny you say that because this is a realist interpretation of our world. At least I've heard this theory advocated by David Deustch, a self-proclaimed realist (also heavilly influenced by Popper).Quote:
The brain is a computer, a turing machine, but so is everything else.
Our purpose is survival. Is and always has been. We are running self-preservation 'programmes'Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Wally
Do you have the instruction set available somewhere? What programs are we running? What is our purpose?
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Could you elaborate this a bit more?
If you haven't had your instincts to act on, your brain to act as an OS would you still be thinking ?
On the other hand, you don't need to think for your body to function.
Wally
If you described thinking in this way, wouldn't thoughts be merely triggered responses to observations made? Isn't there more to thoughts than that.Quote:
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.
Sometimes, we just stop thinking about our observations and start digging up old thoughts and memories.
memories are observations too Simon :)
Wally
You sound like you're comming from the perspective of an Empiricist. Are all our knowledge and ideas gained soley from experience?Quote:
memories are observations too Simon
I'm just dabbling in new old ways simon. I'm trying to find an explanation for 'reality'. As I said this is only a 'work thesis' to explore other avenues.
Simon
A statement that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction, is a contigency, in this case something like "height(house)=10 metres" depending what house you apply it on it could be true or false, but you can't prove it false or true because of observations, that cannot be taken for arbitrary axioms. Proof has to be done trough deduction to arbitrary axioms. The question arises, "Who says something is a valid axiom?", and the instrumentalist holds the answer: You. You decide what you want to do. You needs define what is relevant information, logic just offers solution to your problems by giving you the relevant information.Quote:
So "That house is 30 metres high" is an analytic statement? How so? You cannot judge it's truth value from the meaning of it's terms alone. You must empirically observe which house I refer to and how high it you measure it to be to form judgement on the truth of that statement.
Sorry, I thuoght we were progressing somewhere and then you mention Popper, so I couldn't help it. I see now what you are saying though, and by that how do you define a metaphysical problem?Quote:
Sounds like you're getting a little annoyed?
I only mentioned Popper again to make a point. And I've agreed that consiousness is outside of a physical reality but that does not mean that there is not objective reality. And as I've already stated, "Self-Awareness" is not something that I have any choice about.
To me. If there is a statement X, that have no practical implications, then it doesn't make any difference if X was true or false, because I by definition don't give a **** about it.
What is a solution to a problem?Quote:
Without giving this question as much thought as it probably deserves, the following definition springs to mind: "A problem is a question without an answer."
If there's a clear defintion for P1(X)="I'm aware of X" then what is P2= "I'm aware" ? I assumed that you meant everything that you are aware of. So that you have basically "I'm aware that i'm aware of everything that i'm aware of." This is illogical to me, because that would be something you weren't aware of, Russel's paradox.Quote:
My perception is my tool of observation but self-awareness entails perception of my own perception. I am aware of the fact that I am aware. So are you.
Ah finally something :) Ok, you argue that you can think of yourself as a third person. I think this is the mere illusion of you seeing a "self", sort of looking into a mirror seeing someone else, in fact you can't know if what you are looking at is a mirror reflecting yourself, or just a motion picture. Lets define consciousness once again. Where does the line go between what is you and what is just your observations? Your body? Your memory? Your thoughts? They could all be thought of as part of your observations, the reason we have a notion consciousness at all because you observe. The thinking process, is just an observation, and the third person perspective on "yourself" is just a third person perspective on the thinking process you are in fact observing. To postulate illogical statements, hypothesise and speculate isn't your doings either, its just an observation you have of a thinking process. You're essentially watching a movie, you're an observer.Quote:
It's practical advantages are plain to see. It gives us the ability to think about one's self in the third person. To postulate about what is not, but what might be. To hypothesise and speculate. Self-awareness gives us the possibility of predicting when a particular course of action might be a mistake or lead us into an undesireable situation.
Point is whether you think you are not, makes no difference, I'm not selfaware, read the above explanation, its better because its logically consistent.
Well maybe we agree on something then, but my brain is definitely just part of my observations, and all my observations are just that, the results of a turing machine.Quote:
It's funny you say that because this is a realist interpretation of our world. At least I've heard this theory advocated by David Deustch, a self-proclaimed realist (also heavilly influenced by Popper).
btw look, Wally and I are agreeing again :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
memories are observations too Simon :)
Wally
so everything we do is just to preserve ourselves? Could we possibly be doing something else as well?Quote:
Our purpose is survival. Is and always has been. We are running self-preservation 'programmes'
if your memory is part of your observations, what about the operative system itself, is it static and unchangable?Quote:
Well, thinking (as it is) could be described as putting observations through our OS and evaluate the results.
If you haven't had your instincts to act on, your brain to act as an OS would you still be thinking ?
On the other hand, you don't need to think for your body to function.
Keda:
Then why are you discussing whether there is an objective reality? Does it have any practical implications?Quote:
To me. If there is a statement X, that have no practical implications, then it doesn't make any difference if X was true or false, because I by definition don't give a **** about it.
it doesn't, but explain that to simon.Quote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
Keda:
Then why are you discussing whether there is an objective reality? Does it have any practical implications?
Kedaman
The bit that I have emboldened is the bit that I am having problems with. Gramatically, it does not make sense. Could you rephrase it please?Quote:
A statement that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction, is a contigency, in this case something like "height(house)=10 metres" depending what house you apply it on it could be true or false, but you can't prove it false or true because of observations, that cannot be taken for arbitrary axioms.
Is your only problem with the notion of an "objective reality" the fact that we cannot prove (or disprove) any statements we make about it beyond all doubt? Because we cannot be absolutely sure about it, we should reject it altogether?Quote:
Proof has to be done trough deduction to arbitrary axioms. The question arises, "Who says something is a valid axiom?", and the instrumentalist holds the answer: You. You decide what you want to do. You needs define what is relevant information, logic just offers solution to your problems by giving you the relevant information.
An answer to a question. Something which makes the question redundant. Or that renders it irrelevant.Quote:
What is a solution to a problem?
When you refer to Russel's paradox, you refer to the "set of all sets" that could not exist because it would have to contain itself?Quote:
If there's a clear defintion for P1(X)="I'm aware of X" then what is P2= "I'm aware" ? I assumed that you meant everything that you are aware of. So that you have basically "I'm aware that i'm aware of everything that i'm aware of." This is illogical to me, because that would be something you weren't aware of, Russel's paradox.
You reject that we can be self-aware (which would entail being aware of everything we are aware of, plus being aware of that, and that...and so on. It is infinitely recurrsive and you reject it because it is illogical but perhaps, just perhaps, that is what being self-aware is all about. Perhaps we are fundamentally illogical creatures cabable of bridging illogical gaps with intuitive leaps?
But perhaps the self is a self defined thing? We are what we see ourselves as. There is a self because we define it with out own beliefs. It becomes true because we believe it to be so.Quote:
Ah finally something Ok, you argue that you can think of yourself as a third person. I think this is the mere illusion of you seeing a "self", sort of looking into a mirror seeing someone else, in fact you can't know if what you are looking at is a mirror reflecting yourself, or just a motion picture.
Because you insist that we must be logical beings, I claim that it is you who are confining yourself to see things in a particular manner.Quote:
Point is whether you think you are not, makes no difference, I'm not selfaware, read the above explanation, its better because its logically consistent.
Simon
Right... I'm just going to wait here til you come to your senses, you're rejecting my theory by holding your contradiction as an axiom, how can I debate with someone that advocates incosistency?
Kedaman
It is not a contradiction. And I'm certainly not holding it as an axiom. I'm not claiming that it is the case, merely postulating that it might be so.Quote:
Right... I'm just going to wait here til you come to your senses, you're rejecting my theory by holding your contradiction as an axiom, how can I debate with someone that advocates incosistency?
Your "logic" leads you to a conclusion that is self-evidently false. Perhaps you should stop to consider whether your logic has failed you? If you weren't so convinced of your own belief, you might open yourself to that possibility.
This is going nowhere...
Its as exciting as a verbal, Intellectual and Philosophical version of a Boxing Match!
BTW, Fiver on Simonm!
;)
Switch the channel Marge ! :)
its a paradox, you said it yourself that youre "illogical", its not a question of selfevidence, its a question of consistency. How come something incosistent is possible?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
It is not a contradiction. And I'm certainly not holding it as an axiom. I'm not claiming that it is the case, merely postulating that it might be so.
Your "logic" leads you to a conclusion that is self-evidently false. Perhaps you should stop to consider whether your logic has failed you? If you weren't so convinced of your own belief, you might open yourself to that possibility.
...when the boxers are behind a curtain and you only see silhouettes.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Its as exciting as a verbal, Intellectual and Philosophical version of a Boxing Match!
;)
Kedaman
I did not claim that my reasoning is illogical, only that you cannot understand consciousness with logic. That the mechanisms in the brain that entail self-awareness are not logical in nature.Quote:
its a paradox, you said it yourself that youre "illogical", its not a question of selfevidence, its a question of consistency. How come something incosistent is possible?
Afterall, logic is something we have constructed, defined ourselves. Now we are trying to impose that logic on ourselves whether or not it is justified. All I am saying (and others like Roger Penrose) is that perhaps consciousness is not a turing machine...it is not computable and therefore illogical.
To be honest, I don't really know. Unlike you, I don't already know the answer. I am open to pursuasion either way and am, as yet, unconvinced by what you are trying to pursuade me of.
For someone who claims not to have any beliefs, you seem to make some claims (about the nature of reality and consiousness) with religous fervor.
Simon
Anything that has no practical implication is not understandable, whether its true or not doesn't affect anything. These concepts should be rejected first when applying Occam's razor because they are not answers to any questions.
If self-awareness has any practical implications then its understandable, because logical implications can be used as arbitrary axioms, these are also answers to questions.
The illogical in your reasoning is, that you use a statement that has no practical implications as an argument to reject my theory.
But something that has no practical implications is not related to any issue, neither in my theory or any other.
You say that logic is something we have constructed, I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
We can agree on that, because consciousness has no practical implications, its a mere set, a set is not a statement. However a set can be used in a statement, and this is is explained in my theory, while not explained in reality theory.Quote:
All I am saying (and others like Roger Penrose) is that perhaps consciousness is not a turing machine
Kedaman
I agree with this to an extent. But perhaps some problems are not practical in nature? Maybe the answer to these sort of problems have no practical implication?Quote:
Anything that has no practical implication is not understandable, whether its true or not doesn't affect anything. These concepts should be rejected first when applying Occam's razor because they are not answers to any questions.
Perhaps, but doesn't this line of reasoning rest on the presumption that everything is a turing machine? Maybe some things have practical implications that are not computable?Quote:
If self-awareness has any practical implications then its understandable, because logical implications can be used as arbitrary axioms, these are also answers to questions.
I do not reject your theory, I just don't yet understand it or it's alledged benefits.Quote:
The illogical in your reasoning is, that you use a statement that has no practical implications as an argument to reject my theory.
But something that has no practical implications is not related to any issue, neither in my theory or any other.
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. I don't think we can observe logic attall. It is a tool we use to bring order to our observations.Quote:
You say that logic is something we have constructed, I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
Please remind me how your theory explains consciousness.Quote:
We can agree on that, because consciousness has no practical implications, its a mere set, a set is not a statement. However a set can be used in a statement, and this is is explained in my theory, while not explained in reality theory.
Simon
A problem to me always has practical implications. Something that has no practical implications, can't cause any trouble. It can't cause anything at all. It has no meaning whatsoever.Quote:
I agree with this to an extent. But perhaps some problems are not practical in nature? Maybe the answer to these sort of problems have no practical implication?
Well presumably if you have something that is not a turing machine, then there is definitely no way to measure it, and thus whether it existed or not it wouldn't change a thing.Quote:
Perhaps, but doesn't this line of reasoning rest on the presumption that everything is a turing machine?
Isn't consistency a benefit?Quote:
I do not reject your theory, I just don't yet understand it or it's alledged benefits.
Logic is observable as much as cats and gravity, they're all concepts. Simple way you can observe a non-contradiction is whenever you do an observation, you ask if not also the opposite happens, and voila, you have observed non-contradiction.Quote:
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. I don't think we can observe logic attall. It is a tool we use to bring order to our observations.
Consciousness is an observer, and cannot be observed. However the information defining what you are being aware of is part of your subconscious, simply because its not being observed. This information does not exist in a reality, but it does exist in my theory.Quote:
Please remind me how your theory explains consciousness.
Kedaman
I'm not sure of your logic here. I mean, the behaviour of a quantum parical is not computable by a Turing machine and yet we can make observations.Quote:
Well presumably if you have something that is not a turing machine, then there is definitely no way to measure it, and thus whether it existed or not it wouldn't change a thing.
We do not observe gravity. We might observe an object falling to the floor but that is not an observation of an invisible force causing the object to move. Nor is it an observation of space/time curvature. Gravity is a generalised theory that we use to explain and predict the motion of objects. It is a rule or law that we have constructed in order to simplify the nature of our observations. The same goes for logic.Quote:
Logic is observable as much as cats and gravity, they're all concepts. Simple way you can observe a non-contradiction is whenever you do an observation, you ask if not also the opposite happens, and voila, you have observed non-contradiction.
Is it not possible that there is a reality and that we have a subconscious? They're not mutually exclusive are they?Quote:
Consciousness is an observer, and cannot be observed. However the information defining what you are being aware of is part of your subconscious, simply because its not being observed. This information does not exist in a reality, but it does exist in my theory.
Simon
The behavour of a quantum particle is not defined, only the probability of the result, which is surprisingly a turing machine. I don't think information can appear from nothing as much as you don't think energy can appear from nothing, but this is because it would break information flow, not because of a belief. I'm motivated to think everything is consistent.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I'm not sure of your logic here. I mean, the behaviour of a quantum parical is not computable by a Turing machine and yet we can make observations.
I suppose you could say that for the cat as well, the cat is generalised as several instances would fall into the category, you mentioned floor, how can you observe a floor when you just observe the photons reflected from a surface? Isn't there a theory behind it describing the behavour of photons? If all your senses transmit information to your brain by electric impulses, wouldn't you have to define a theory regarding the behavour of your nerve and neurotic systems first? I have to ask you if there is anything that you could possibly call observation, if it wasn't theoretical? To be more specific, if something wasn't theoretical could you be able to understand it?Quote:
We do not observe gravity. We might observe an object falling to the floor but that is not an observation of an invisible force causing the object to move. Nor is it an observation of space/time curvature. Gravity is a generalised theory that we use to explain and predict the motion of objects. It is a rule or law that we have constructed in order to simplify the nature of our observations. The same goes for logic.
not based on our observations. You could argue to be a solipsist though.Quote:
Is it not possible that there is a reality and that we have a subconscious? They're not mutually exclusive are they?
you've lost me now ...
Wally
want me to explain something?
btw, I asked you a while ago, if we were operative systems, our program would be static, correct?
Kedaman
OK, the probability of the results may be computable but there's no getting away from the fact that the results themselves are not computable.Quote:
The behavour of a quantum particle is not defined, only the probability of the result, which is surprisingly a turing machine. I don't think information can appear from nothing as much as you don't think energy can appear from nothing, but this is because it would break information flow, not because of a belief. I'm motivated to think everything is consistent.
Well, I can make observations without having a theory at how I can make observations.Quote:
I suppose you could say that for the cat as well, the cat is generalised as several instances would fall into the category, you mentioned floor, how can you observe a floor when you just observe the photons reflected from a surface? Isn't there a theory behind it describing the behavour of photons? If all your senses transmit information to your brain by electric impulses, wouldn't you have to define a theory regarding the behavour of your nerve and neurotic systems first? I have to ask you if there is anything that you could possibly call observation, if it wasn't theoretical? To be more specific, if something wasn't theoretical could you be able to understand it?
You're point about the cat being a generalised concept is valid but there is still a difference between the concept of cat and the concept of gravity. I can observe an object which I catogorise as a "cat" but I cannot observe an object which is categorised as "gravity". In other words, I can observe a singular instance of a cat but not gravity.
So, yes, all concepts are unobservable but some concepts are more abstract than others. The concept of "cat" is a definition by which I can identify particular objects. The concept of "gravity" is a definition of rules by which I can use to explain observed behaviour.
Simon
There's no, there's no getting away, you said it yourself that QM is just a theory, it doesn't answer all questions, just some.Quote:
OK, the probability of the results may be computable but there's no getting away from the fact that the results themselves are not computable.
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)Quote:
Well, I can make observations without having a theory at how I can make observations.
Well maybe the analogy wasn't correct. But you do observe that objects accelerate correct? This you could call gravitational acceleration, because it fits into the category describing gravity, the same way an animal fits the category of a cat, My question was, as you can use this analogy and trace everything backwards, you will strip out all information that was observed and be left emptyhanded, what do you actually observe?Quote:
You're point about the cat being a generalised concept is valid but there is still a difference between the concept of cat and the concept of gravity. I can observe an object which I catogorise as a "cat" but I cannot observe an object which is categorised as "gravity". In other words, I can observe a singular instance of a cat but not gravity.
This reminds me of inheritance in java, if you backtrack to the superclass of them all you end up with Object, but this has no data nor functions whatsoever (this is also what i mean with no practical implications), what is the point in saying you observe an object rather than saying you observe a cat?
Is 'expandable' 'static' in your opinion ?Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Wally
want me to explain something?
btw, I asked you a while ago, if we were operative systems, our program would be static, correct?
Kedaman
Whether or not I can explain how I make observations is neither here nor there with regards to the fact that I do.Quote:
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)
A baby makes observations but cannot explain anything. It doesn't mean that it doesn't.
It may be an interesting question, to consider the nature of observations themselves, but it doesn't change the fact that I make observations. I am conscious and yet cannot explain consciousness.
I sincerely believe that you are trapping yourself to think within the confines of formal logic. WE ARE NOT MACHINES. You are not constrained in that way.
Simon
The question was what, not how. If you don't know what you're doing then how do you know you're doing it?Quote:
Whether or not I can explain how I make observations is neither here nor there with regards to the fact that I do.
I didn't say we're machines, I'm only saying that your observations are, conforming to logic, otherways you wouldn't be able to observe it in the first place.Quote:
I sincerely believe that you are trapping yourself to think within the confines of formal logic. WE ARE NOT MACHINES. You are not constrained in that way.
Kedaman
It is axiomatic? What more do you want me to say about it? I cannot define observation in terms of anything else, nor would it be meaningful if I did.Quote:
The question was what, not how. If you don't know what you're doing then how do you know you're doing it?
Well, as I have said, I don't think we observe logic. Logic is a way of thinking about things, not a thing that you observe.Quote:
I didn't say we're machines, I'm only saying that your observations are, conforming to logic, otherways you wouldn't be able to observe it in the first place.
Previously you said:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Simon
you know what you just said didn't make sense, explain to me what "make observations" means. (Now I feel like i'm Gödel asking UTM The big question.)
.... what is the point in saying you observe an object rather than saying you observe a cat?
Therefore, you recognize in yourself the capability and occurance of making observations, and yet it seems like you question Simonm's capability of himself makeing observations, at least its implied by your request to have Siminm explain to you what he means when he says "make observations"Quote:
I argue that logic is something you observe, you observe consistencies, you observe equivalences etc... all these are arbitrary axioms, without these you wouldn't be able to percieve information the way you do.
This seems to be inconsistant.
If you recognize Simonm's existence to be as valid as your own, and if you recognize the validity of your capability to make observations, to be consistent, shouldn't you also recognize the validity of Simonm's own capability of making observations?
-Just wondering
-Lou
:)
Simon
No, true statements are either axiomatic or proved theorems, I didn't ask if we observe or not, I asked what observation is. Clearly you can't use that word without a proper definition.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
It is axiomatic? What more do you want me to say about it? I cannot define observation in terms of anything else, nor would it be meaningful if I did.
Thoughts are observations, in fact there's no way to distinguish thoughts from anything else(the solipsists solid argument), so we'll just call them all observations.Quote:
Well, as I have said, I don't think we observe logic. Logic is a way of thinking about things, not a thing that you observe. [/B]
NotLKH
Perhaps You as a third party observer could define what an observation is for us?Quote:
Therefore, you recognize in yourself the capability and occurance of making observations, and yet it seems like you question Simonm's capability of himself makeing observations, at least its implied by your request to have Siminm explain to you what he means when he says "make observations"
This seems to be inconsistant.
To me observation is the perception of information. To Simon it is still unclear, but he still insists that he is getting them. My attempt was to make it clear to him that we wont get anywhere without clear definitions.
Kedaman
Notice I inserted the word "analytical" into the above sentence to make it valid. However, not all statements are analytical in nature.Quote:
No, true analytical statements are either axiomatic or proved theorems...
That you substitute one undefined word for another does not leave us with a "clear definition".Quote:
I didn't ask if we observe or not, I asked what observation is. Clearly you can't use that word without a proper definition.
No, To me, an observation is data sensed from a source external to our own perception.Quote:
Thoughts are observations, in fact there's no way to distinguish thoughts from anything else(the solipsists solid argument), so we'll just call them all observations.
The extent to which our perception is influenced by external data (if attall) has always been a long standing philosophical problem.
That our perception is indeed an internally created picture of (our) reality, I would not argue with. That our thoughts are snapshots of our internal world, I would not argue with either.
However, some thoughts are more lucid than others. Some come upon us at will and others are thrust upon us whether we like it or not. It is those most lucid thoughts, those that demand our attention that I attibute to being of reality.
Simon
A definition assigns meaning to a word, this is done by declaring its practical implications.Quote:
That you substitute one undefined word for another does not leave us with a "clear definition".
If a statement wasn't analytical, you can't derive meaning from it, and thus the statement is meaningless, you don't call these statements, you call them phrases. Phrases that have meaning are called statements though.Quote:
Notice I inserted the word "analytical" into the above sentence to make it valid. However, not all statements are analytical in nature.
What do you mean by external to our own perception? I'm not sure where we are in disagreement now, Thoughts are percepted, otherways we wouldn't be aware of them, correct?Quote:
No, To me, an observation is data sensed from a source external to our own perception.
What is this internal versus external business? How do you distinguish internal from external reality?Quote:
That our perception is indeed an internally created picture of (our) reality, I would not argue with. That our thoughts are snapshots of our internal world, I would not argue with either.
Your will is an observation, I think if there's anything you'd probably confuse for self-awareness then it must be will, however it could be argued that you just sense that will, and think of it as your own, when in fact its just something you observe.Quote:
Some come upon us at will and others are thrust upon us whether we like it or not.