Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Life Intent
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Zerkon
May 25, 2012, 11:23:16 AM5/25/12
to
Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
of which to be aware.
Given the context of a total physicality, is it possible for
consciousness to exist without intent? Or better, is it possible that if
intent exists consciousness must also?
Would a definition of intent hold if reduced to "self-life interested
action"? Protozoa, as an example, displaying intent by the acts of
consumption, excretion and replication?
Given the logic here leads to the conclusion all life is conscious,
might 'having a conscious' be qualified in variances as 'having a
circulatory system' or 'having a nervous system'? IOW, would it not
stand to reason that the conscious nature(s) of all life forms are as
diverse as what can be observed?
Doug Freyburger
May 25, 2012, 2:43:07 PM5/25/12
to
Zerkon wrote:
>
> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
> of which to be aware.
Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
>
> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
> of which to be aware.
don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
but it is clear they are no alive any longer. Even with plants that can
recover from tiny shoots it's clear when a branch is dead or alive. The
conscious or alive part is not dependent on the physical body in any
clear or obvious way.
Does this mean spirits "exist" in some sense without bodies in some
sense like a corpse exists without its spirit? Many have believed that
or considered it obvious. Given the concept of self organizing systems
it's not an automatic.
So I don't think we can say that your statement is correct, nor can we
state that it is incorrect.
> Given the context of a total physicality, is it possible for
> consciousness to exist without intent? Or better, is it possible that if
> intent exists consciousness must also?
> Would a definition of intent hold if reduced to "self-life interested
> action"? Protozoa, as an example, displaying intent by the acts of
> consumption, excretion and replication?
> Given the logic here leads to the conclusion all life is conscious,
> might 'having a conscious' be qualified in variances as 'having a
> circulatory system' or 'having a nervous system'? IOW, would it not
> stand to reason that the conscious nature(s) of all life forms are as
> diverse as what can be observed?
Can a single cellular organism have what we would consider intent? I
take intent as having decided on a goal.
Dare
May 25, 2012, 3:11:58 PM5/25/12
to
"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message news:MPG.2a296ceef...@news.eternal-september.org...
Does intent imply that there was a choice?
Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
Does a computer (program) have intent...so, consciousness?
Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
Does a computer (program) have intent...so, consciousness?
Giga
May 25, 2012, 3:27:45 PM5/25/12
to
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jpojrq$sre$1...@dont-email.me...
> Zerkon wrote:
>>
>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>> of which to be aware.
>
> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
The way I remember his excellent argument is somewhat different (Rene big
>>
>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>> of which to be aware.
>
> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
fave of mine). He claimed to have an idea in his mind of God. A being that
was in a way infinite, transcendent etc. How could he have this idea,
Descartes asks. Surely not from this finite world, then from where? Only, as
he claimed, from such a Being placing it in his soul, like a trademark
(Trade mark?). I find that this argument seems on the surface to be quite
trivial but I have found it more and more convincing as it has grown on me.
>
> What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
Doug Freyburger
May 25, 2012, 5:02:28 PM5/25/12
to
Giga wrote:
they must exist. They only exist as fiction. My take away is that if I
follow his reasoning the capitalized Gog that he meant is a fiction the
same as Q. Nice on TV. In other words I disagree with Descartes ;^)
>> What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
>> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
>> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
>
> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
To my knowledge yes that is a myth. Wishful thinking that does not pan
out when careully measured. The possibility remains open that a soul
will eventually be detected by other means. I think someday it will be
detected. Rather I hope.
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Zerkon wrote:
>
>>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>>> of which to be aware.
>
>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
>> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
>> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>
> The way I remember his excellent argument is somewhat different (Rene big
> fave of mine). He claimed to have an idea in his mind of God. A being that
> was in a way infinite, transcendent etc. How could he have this idea,
> Descartes asks. Surely not from this finite world, then from where? Only, as
> he claimed, from such a Being placing it in his soul, like a trademark
> (Trade mark?). I find that this argument seems on the surface to be quite
> trivial but I have found it more and more convincing as it has grown on me.
The Organians and Q from Star Trek are useful fictions. By his argument
>> Zerkon wrote:
>
>>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>>> of which to be aware.
>
>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
>> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
>> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>
> The way I remember his excellent argument is somewhat different (Rene big
> fave of mine). He claimed to have an idea in his mind of God. A being that
> was in a way infinite, transcendent etc. How could he have this idea,
> Descartes asks. Surely not from this finite world, then from where? Only, as
> he claimed, from such a Being placing it in his soul, like a trademark
> (Trade mark?). I find that this argument seems on the surface to be quite
> trivial but I have found it more and more convincing as it has grown on me.
they must exist. They only exist as fiction. My take away is that if I
follow his reasoning the capitalized Gog that he meant is a fiction the
same as Q. Nice on TV. In other words I disagree with Descartes ;^)
>> What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
>> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
>> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
>
> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
out when careully measured. The possibility remains open that a soul
will eventually be detected by other means. I think someday it will be
detected. Rather I hope.
tooly
May 25, 2012, 8:34:02 PM5/25/12
to
and it still grows toward the light [sense of gravity in some way?].
I have what I call 'devil weed' in my yard; it grows only under
fences, behind obstacles, anywhere it is hard to get to. I've watched
this weed for years, and I'm convinced there is something with
'intent' going on. Is it conscious? It's a plant silly. I've seen
dogs come 'out of the womb' fully cognizant of it's breeding
'function'...such as working dogs, herding dogs, fighting dogs, fowl
chasing dogs, digging dogs. NO one has to train them [or very little
anyway], and they automatically simply do what they were bred for.
Intent conveyed through genetics?
But then, what is consciousness anyway?
Fred M. McNeill
May 26, 2012, 12:53:18 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:34:02 -0700 (PDT), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Just some questions. Plant a seed any which way, beneath the ground,
>and it still grows toward the light [sense of gravity in some way?].
>I have what I call 'devil weed' in my yard; it grows only under
>fences, behind obstacles, anywhere it is hard to get to. I've watched
>this weed for years, and I'm convinced there is something with
>'intent' going on. Is it conscious? It's a plant silly. I've seen
>dogs come 'out of the womb' fully cognizant of it's breeding
>'function'...such as working dogs, herding dogs, fighting dogs, fowl
>chasing dogs, digging dogs. NO one has to train them [or very little
>anyway], and they automatically simply do what they were bred for.
>Intent conveyed through genetics?
>
>But then, what is consciousness anyway?
It is a 'self' quale, a brain virtual reality (taken as objectively 'real').
>
>Just some questions. Plant a seed any which way, beneath the ground,
>and it still grows toward the light [sense of gravity in some way?].
>I have what I call 'devil weed' in my yard; it grows only under
>fences, behind obstacles, anywhere it is hard to get to. I've watched
>this weed for years, and I'm convinced there is something with
>'intent' going on. Is it conscious? It's a plant silly. I've seen
>dogs come 'out of the womb' fully cognizant of it's breeding
>'function'...such as working dogs, herding dogs, fighting dogs, fowl
>chasing dogs, digging dogs. NO one has to train them [or very little
>anyway], and they automatically simply do what they were bred for.
>Intent conveyed through genetics?
>
>But then, what is consciousness anyway?
Qualia, such as this, are representations of some process and
probably practiced so much that they have become promoted
by evolution.
Giga
May 26, 2012, 4:38:24 AM5/26/12
to
news:jpos13$jco$1...@dont-email.me...
more substance. This guy is one of the greatest thinkers of all time and
defended his work against some other great thinkers. It has stood now for
nearly 500 years and hasn't really been shown to be wrong, but certainly
debateable. Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
'newly' discovered today.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060721133031/http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~fdoull/des-med.htm
>
>>> What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
>>> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
>>> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
>>
>> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
>
> To my knowledge yes that is a myth. Wishful thinking that does not pan
> out when careully measured. The possibility remains open that a soul
> will eventually be detected by other means. I think someday it will be
> detected. Rather I hope.
Here is a piece by Dr Karl (who I'm not a fan off and often found his
'knowledge' very debateable):
The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that is
both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at the
exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but the
science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for
hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as
1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts
actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed
"arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform
beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around
5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such
delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that
produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular
movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at
balance and any loss occurring readily noted".
He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the
April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight
loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In
this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients,
that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly
coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting
against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss
was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."
=So this is a real experiement that was done. I wonder if it has been done
in more modern times, surely it has?
He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs,
which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted
in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore
would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.
But before his article appeared in American Medicine, the New York Times on
the 11th March, 1907 had already published a story on him, entitled Soul Has
Weight, Physician Thinks, on page 5. His reputation was now assured, having
been published in both a medical journal and The New York Times (a Journal
Of Record).
As a result, the "fact" that the soul weighed three-quarters of an ounce
(roughly 21 grams) made its way into the common knowledge, and has stayed
there ever since.
But when you look more closely at his scientific work, you see large
problems.
Firstly, six (as in the six dying patients) is not a large enough sample
size. When I studied statistics, my lecturer convinced me that, concerning
people preferring one cola to another, "8 out of 10 is not statistically
significant, but 16 out of 20 is".
=The sample is not really relevant here as it is interesting even if only a
few people seem to loose 21 grammes on death.
Second, he got "good" results (ie, the patient irreversibly lost weight at
the moment of death) from just one of the six patients, not all six! Two of
the results had to be excluded because of "technical difficulties". One
patient's death did show a drop in weight of about three-eighths of an
ounce - but this later reversed itself! Two of the other patients registered
an immediate loss of weight at the moment of death, but then their weight
dropped again a few minutes later. (Does this mean that they died twice!?)
Only one of the six patients showed a sudden and non-reversible loss of
weight of three-fourths of an ounce (21 grams).
=see above
The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our
sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to determine
the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular death,
brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr.
Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907? And anyhow, how accurate and
precise were his scales back in 1907?
=obviously it would eventually become clear that the person was dead. then
it could be asumed quite reasonably that it happened when they let out that
last long sigh or whatever which accompanied the drop in weight.
From such slender beginnings as a single non-reproducible result, enduring
myths are born. There may be lightness after death - but this experiment
didn't prove it.
=Then he admits it does at least show that this might well still be the
case. Surely many people have set out to disprove this by now? Why have they
failed?
We do leave something behind us when we die - the enduring impact that we
have had on others. We would probably have as much success in measuring the
impression of that mental impact, as we would of measuring the weight of the
soul.
=Speculation.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
> Giga wrote:
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>
>>>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>>>> of which to be aware.
>>
>>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
>>> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
>>> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>>
>> The way I remember his excellent argument is somewhat different (Rene big
>> fave of mine). He claimed to have an idea in his mind of God. A being
>> that
>> was in a way infinite, transcendent etc. How could he have this idea,
>> Descartes asks. Surely not from this finite world, then from where? Only,
>> as
>> he claimed, from such a Being placing it in his soul, like a trademark
>> (Trade mark?). I find that this argument seems on the surface to be quite
>> trivial but I have found it more and more convincing as it has grown on
>> me.
>
> The Organians and Q from Star Trek are useful fictions. By his argument
> they must exist. They only exist as fiction. My take away is that if I
> follow his reasoning the capitalized Gog that he meant is a fiction the
> same as Q. Nice on TV. In other words I disagree with Descartes ;^)
You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a lot
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>
>>>> Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
>>>> of which to be aware.
>>
>>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that you
>>> don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in one
>>> illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>>
>> The way I remember his excellent argument is somewhat different (Rene big
>> fave of mine). He claimed to have an idea in his mind of God. A being
>> that
>> was in a way infinite, transcendent etc. How could he have this idea,
>> Descartes asks. Surely not from this finite world, then from where? Only,
>> as
>> he claimed, from such a Being placing it in his soul, like a trademark
>> (Trade mark?). I find that this argument seems on the surface to be quite
>> trivial but I have found it more and more convincing as it has grown on
>> me.
>
> The Organians and Q from Star Trek are useful fictions. By his argument
> they must exist. They only exist as fiction. My take away is that if I
> follow his reasoning the capitalized Gog that he meant is a fiction the
> same as Q. Nice on TV. In other words I disagree with Descartes ;^)
more substance. This guy is one of the greatest thinkers of all time and
defended his work against some other great thinkers. It has stood now for
nearly 500 years and hasn't really been shown to be wrong, but certainly
debateable. Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
'newly' discovered today.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060721133031/http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~fdoull/des-med.htm
>
>>> What does "exist" mean? There's the problem of a body that is still
>>> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
>>> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
>>
>> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
>
> To my knowledge yes that is a myth. Wishful thinking that does not pan
> out when careully measured. The possibility remains open that a soul
> will eventually be detected by other means. I think someday it will be
> detected. Rather I hope.
'knowledge' very debateable):
The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that is
both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at the
exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but the
science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for
hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as
1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts
actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed
"arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform
beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around
5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such
delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that
produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular
movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at
balance and any loss occurring readily noted".
He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the
April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight
loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In
this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients,
that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly
coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting
against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss
was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."
=So this is a real experiement that was done. I wonder if it has been done
in more modern times, surely it has?
He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs,
which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted
in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore
would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.
But before his article appeared in American Medicine, the New York Times on
the 11th March, 1907 had already published a story on him, entitled Soul Has
Weight, Physician Thinks, on page 5. His reputation was now assured, having
been published in both a medical journal and The New York Times (a Journal
Of Record).
As a result, the "fact" that the soul weighed three-quarters of an ounce
(roughly 21 grams) made its way into the common knowledge, and has stayed
there ever since.
But when you look more closely at his scientific work, you see large
problems.
Firstly, six (as in the six dying patients) is not a large enough sample
size. When I studied statistics, my lecturer convinced me that, concerning
people preferring one cola to another, "8 out of 10 is not statistically
significant, but 16 out of 20 is".
=The sample is not really relevant here as it is interesting even if only a
few people seem to loose 21 grammes on death.
Second, he got "good" results (ie, the patient irreversibly lost weight at
the moment of death) from just one of the six patients, not all six! Two of
the results had to be excluded because of "technical difficulties". One
patient's death did show a drop in weight of about three-eighths of an
ounce - but this later reversed itself! Two of the other patients registered
an immediate loss of weight at the moment of death, but then their weight
dropped again a few minutes later. (Does this mean that they died twice!?)
Only one of the six patients showed a sudden and non-reversible loss of
weight of three-fourths of an ounce (21 grams).
=see above
The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our
sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to determine
the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular death,
brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr.
Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907? And anyhow, how accurate and
precise were his scales back in 1907?
=obviously it would eventually become clear that the person was dead. then
it could be asumed quite reasonably that it happened when they let out that
last long sigh or whatever which accompanied the drop in weight.
From such slender beginnings as a single non-reproducible result, enduring
myths are born. There may be lightness after death - but this experiment
didn't prove it.
=Then he admits it does at least show that this might well still be the
case. Surely many people have set out to disprove this by now? Why have they
failed?
We do leave something behind us when we die - the enduring impact that we
have had on others. We would probably have as much success in measuring the
impression of that mental impact, as we would of measuring the weight of the
soul.
=Speculation.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
Zerkon
May 26, 2012, 10:40:07 AM5/26/12
to
In article <jpojrq$sre$1...@dont-email.me>, dfre...@yahoo.com says...
> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
No. rather "therefore existence" which is not necessarily illogical. "I
think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
difference to think about. Which does demand...
> What does "exist" mean?
Tricky.. in that any meaningful definition, I'll answer "exist means
becoming", a possible implication of exclusion forms. Here however
'exist' means a given basis for our discussion.
> There's the problem of a body that is still
> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
The Corpse is still a life environment. During a normal life the human
body is a host organism for all sorts of microbial life forms the human
body needs to function normally. Following my proposition here then
awareness/life does not leave. One form 'leaves' or changes.
> Even with plants that can
> recover from tiny shoots it's clear when a branch is dead or alive. The
I disagree. It is not necessarily clear when a branch is dead or alive.
Many trees look dead during winter. Many people look dead while asleep.
I just do not understand this:
> Does this mean spirits "exist" in some sense without bodies in some
> sense like a corpse exists without its spirit? Many have believed that
> or considered it obvious. Given the concept of self organizing systems
> it's not an automatic.
You now are speaking to yourself here. In this discussion I must base
ideas on those commonly acceptance and experienced in order to reach
what is not so accepted.
> So I don't think we can say that your statement is correct, nor can we
> state that it is incorrect.
>
> > Given the context of a total physicality, is it possible for
> > consciousness to exist without intent? Or better, is it possible that if
> > intent exists consciousness must also?
>
> Intent is a rather different issue.
I say not. I say intention is a much better concept than and
interchangeable with human will and less vague than 'purpose'. Will is
observed to be an intentional interaction with an environment. To live
is to interact. I (we all) must try to stay within the bounds of what
can be observed by others.
> > Would a definition of intent hold if reduced to "self-life interested
> > action"? Protozoa, as an example, displaying intent by the acts of
> > consumption, excretion and replication?
>
> I don't take that as the meaning of intent.
Why not?
> > Given the logic here leads to the conclusion all life is conscious,
> > might 'having a conscious' be qualified in variances as 'having a
> > circulatory system' or 'having a nervous system'? IOW, would it not
> > stand to reason that the conscious nature(s) of all life forms are as
> > diverse as what can be observed?
>
> I do take consciousness as floating point not binary.
>
> Can a single cellular organism have what we would consider intent?
Yes, according to my argument. What 'we' must consider is a valid
argument.
> I take intent as having decided on a goal.
"self-life interested action"? Ok agree, valid goal. However 'having
decided' this goal is a private affair. What can be observed is action.
Law easily makes the leap of associating 'intent' and 'act' that
concludes as legal proof of what a person decided.
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
>
> Zerkon wrote:
> >
> > Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
> > of which to be aware.
Excellent. Simply excellent, thank you.
> Zerkon wrote:
> >
> > Is this correct: In order to be conscious or aware, a thing must exist
> > of which to be aware.
> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
difference to think about. Which does demand...
> What does "exist" mean?
Tricky.. in that any meaningful definition, I'll answer "exist means
becoming", a possible implication of exclusion forms. Here however
'exist' means a given basis for our discussion.
> There's the problem of a body that is still
> there after the awareness leaves. Corpses exist and they lose no wait
> but it is clear they are no alive any longer.
body is a host organism for all sorts of microbial life forms the human
body needs to function normally. Following my proposition here then
awareness/life does not leave. One form 'leaves' or changes.
> Even with plants that can
> recover from tiny shoots it's clear when a branch is dead or alive. The
Many trees look dead during winter. Many people look dead while asleep.
I just do not understand this:
> The conscious or alive part is not dependent on the physical body in
> any clear or obvious way.
By what other means is the idea of life defined?
> any clear or obvious way.
> Does this mean spirits "exist" in some sense without bodies in some
> sense like a corpse exists without its spirit? Many have believed that
> or considered it obvious. Given the concept of self organizing systems
> it's not an automatic.
ideas on those commonly acceptance and experienced in order to reach
what is not so accepted.
> So I don't think we can say that your statement is correct, nor can we
> state that it is incorrect.
>
> > Given the context of a total physicality, is it possible for
> > consciousness to exist without intent? Or better, is it possible that if
> > intent exists consciousness must also?
>
> Intent is a rather different issue.
interchangeable with human will and less vague than 'purpose'. Will is
observed to be an intentional interaction with an environment. To live
is to interact. I (we all) must try to stay within the bounds of what
can be observed by others.
> > Would a definition of intent hold if reduced to "self-life interested
> > action"? Protozoa, as an example, displaying intent by the acts of
> > consumption, excretion and replication?
>
> I don't take that as the meaning of intent.
> > Given the logic here leads to the conclusion all life is conscious,
> > might 'having a conscious' be qualified in variances as 'having a
> > circulatory system' or 'having a nervous system'? IOW, would it not
> > stand to reason that the conscious nature(s) of all life forms are as
> > diverse as what can be observed?
>
> I do take consciousness as floating point not binary.
>
> Can a single cellular organism have what we would consider intent?
argument.
> I take intent as having decided on a goal.
decided' this goal is a private affair. What can be observed is action.
Law easily makes the leap of associating 'intent' and 'act' that
concludes as legal proof of what a person decided.
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
Zerkon
May 26, 2012, 11:16:43 AM5/26/12
to
In article <66c4554e-0a2a-4407-b7e3-
c78094...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
defined by the idea of being aware. I am saying here 'being aware of..'.
I see this as a important difference in that awareness or consciousness
is entirely dependent on interaction and evolved and evolves from and
with this interaction.
> Intent conveyed through genetics?
In short a qualified yes. Intent conveyed through life. Genetics being
one aspect.
The idea of being 'hard wired'? Let's take your example of the herding
dog. Does a herding dog ever get better at herding from birth on? They
do. Dogs then either 1) 'learn' or 2) just *poof* become better. I think
they can learn. If they just become magically better this still means
they could not then also be wired very hard.
It would be a very hard sell to most dog owners to claim their working
dogs are not conscious and incapable of acting with an intention.
c78094...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> But then, what is consciousness anyway?
>
It is usually defined as a state or condition. The condition is usually
>
defined by the idea of being aware. I am saying here 'being aware of..'.
I see this as a important difference in that awareness or consciousness
is entirely dependent on interaction and evolved and evolves from and
with this interaction.
> Intent conveyed through genetics?
In short a qualified yes. Intent conveyed through life. Genetics being
one aspect.
The idea of being 'hard wired'? Let's take your example of the herding
dog. Does a herding dog ever get better at herding from birth on? They
do. Dogs then either 1) 'learn' or 2) just *poof* become better. I think
they can learn. If they just become magically better this still means
they could not then also be wired very hard.
It would be a very hard sell to most dog owners to claim their working
dogs are not conscious and incapable of acting with an intention.
Zerkon
May 26, 2012, 11:40:39 AM5/26/12
to
In article <jpomet$un2$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
> from where?
confirms it. Thinking 'a thought' like a package literally comes from
some where and then 'placed' in a space.
> more convincing as it has grown on me
You are growing it maybe?
Would you consider starting a new thread with this topic? It deserves to
have one made from a proponent.
> Surely not from this finite world
>
Only because of this finite world rather and ..
>
> from where?
confirms it. Thinking 'a thought' like a package literally comes from
some where and then 'placed' in a space.
> more convincing as it has grown on me
Would you consider starting a new thread with this topic? It deserves to
have one made from a proponent.
tooly
May 26, 2012, 12:33:06 PM5/26/12
to
Everyone knows that when you name the cow Daisy, you have to forgego
hamburgers. We build castles around our names. We grow significanse
from nothingness. All them dead soldiers on Memorial day haunt the
halls of our minds, sometimes flaring up the pilot flame to 'feel'.
Hmmm...Meaning, grown on the backs of suffering...and we raise names
upon our flags of honor...and then aspire to be as honorable
ourselves. That qualia stuff sure does a number on us, that's for
sure.
Immortalist
May 26, 2012, 1:01:09 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 8:16 am, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <66c4554e-0a2a-4407-b7e3-
> c780948a2...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
There is general agreement that a number of distinct notions of
consciousness need to be distinguished from one another; and there is
also broad agreement as to which of these is particularly problematic
– namely phenomenal consciousness, or the kind of conscious mental
state which it is like something to have, which has a distinctive
subjective feel or phenomenology (henceforward referred to as p-
consciousness).
We should distinguish creature consciousness from mental-state
consciousness. It is one thing to say of an individual person or
organism that it is conscious (either in general or of something in
particular); and it is quite another thing to say of one of the mental
states of a creature that it is conscious.
It is also agreed that within creature-consciousness itself we should
distinguish between intransitive and transitive variants. To say of an
organism that it is conscious simpliciter (intransitive) is to say
just that it is awake, as opposed to asleep or comatose. Now while
there are probably interesting questions concerning the evolution of
the mechanisms which control wakefulness and regulate sleep, these
seem to be questions for evolutionary biology alone, not raising any
deep philosophical issues.
To say of an organism that it is conscious of such-and-such
(transitive), on the other hand, is normally to say at least that it
is perceiving such-and-such. So we say of the mouse that it is
conscious of the cat outside its hole, in explaining why it does not
come out; meaning that it perceives the cat’s presence. To provide an
evolutionary explanation of transitive creature-consciousness would
thus be to attempt an account of the emergence of perception. No doubt
there are many problems here, to some of which I shall return later.
Turning now to the notion of mental-state consciousness, the major
distinction is between phenomenal (p-) consciousness, on the one hand
– which is a property of states which it is like something to be in,
which have a distinctive subjective ‘feel’ – and various functionally-
definable notions, such as Block’s (1995) access consciousness, on the
other. Most theorists believe that there are mental states – such as
occurrent thoughts or judgements – which are conscious (in whatever is
the correct functionally-definable sense), but which are not p-
conscious. (In my 1996a and 1998b I disagreed; arguing that occurrent
propositional thoughts can only be conscious – in the human case at
least – by being tokened in imaged natural language sentences, which
will then possess phenomenal properties.) But there is considerable
dispute as to whether mental states can be p-conscious without also
being conscious in the functionally-definable sense; and even more
dispute about whether p-consciousness can be explained in functional
and/or representational terms. It seems plain that there is nothing
deeply problematic about functionally-definable notions of mental-
state consciousness, from a naturalistic perspective. For mental
functions and mental representations are the staple fare of
naturalistic accounts of the mind. But this leaves plenty of room for
dispute about the form that the correct functional account should
take. And there is also plenty of scope for enquiry as to the likely
course of the evolution of access-consciousness. (In my 1996a, for
example, I speculated that a form of higher-order access to our own
thought-processes would have conferred decisive advantages in terms of
flexibility and adaptability in thinking and reasoning.) But what
almost everyone is also agreed on, is that it is p-consciousness which
is philosophically most problematic. It is by no means easy to
understand how the properties distinctive of p-consciousness –
phenomenal feel, or what-it-is-likeness – could be realised in the
neural processes of the brain; and nor is it easy to see how these
properties could ever have evolved. Indeed, when people talk about the
‘problem of consciousness’ it is really the problem of p-consciousness
which they have in mind. My strategy in this chapter will be to
consider a variety of proposals concerning the nature of p-
consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint, hoping to obtain some
adjudication between them...
http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Evolution-of-consciousness.htm
> In article <66c4554e-0a2a-4407-b7e3-
> c780948a2...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
consciousness need to be distinguished from one another; and there is
also broad agreement as to which of these is particularly problematic
– namely phenomenal consciousness, or the kind of conscious mental
state which it is like something to have, which has a distinctive
subjective feel or phenomenology (henceforward referred to as p-
consciousness).
We should distinguish creature consciousness from mental-state
consciousness. It is one thing to say of an individual person or
organism that it is conscious (either in general or of something in
particular); and it is quite another thing to say of one of the mental
states of a creature that it is conscious.
It is also agreed that within creature-consciousness itself we should
distinguish between intransitive and transitive variants. To say of an
organism that it is conscious simpliciter (intransitive) is to say
just that it is awake, as opposed to asleep or comatose. Now while
there are probably interesting questions concerning the evolution of
the mechanisms which control wakefulness and regulate sleep, these
seem to be questions for evolutionary biology alone, not raising any
deep philosophical issues.
To say of an organism that it is conscious of such-and-such
(transitive), on the other hand, is normally to say at least that it
is perceiving such-and-such. So we say of the mouse that it is
conscious of the cat outside its hole, in explaining why it does not
come out; meaning that it perceives the cat’s presence. To provide an
evolutionary explanation of transitive creature-consciousness would
thus be to attempt an account of the emergence of perception. No doubt
there are many problems here, to some of which I shall return later.
Turning now to the notion of mental-state consciousness, the major
distinction is between phenomenal (p-) consciousness, on the one hand
– which is a property of states which it is like something to be in,
which have a distinctive subjective ‘feel’ – and various functionally-
definable notions, such as Block’s (1995) access consciousness, on the
other. Most theorists believe that there are mental states – such as
occurrent thoughts or judgements – which are conscious (in whatever is
the correct functionally-definable sense), but which are not p-
conscious. (In my 1996a and 1998b I disagreed; arguing that occurrent
propositional thoughts can only be conscious – in the human case at
least – by being tokened in imaged natural language sentences, which
will then possess phenomenal properties.) But there is considerable
dispute as to whether mental states can be p-conscious without also
being conscious in the functionally-definable sense; and even more
dispute about whether p-consciousness can be explained in functional
and/or representational terms. It seems plain that there is nothing
deeply problematic about functionally-definable notions of mental-
state consciousness, from a naturalistic perspective. For mental
functions and mental representations are the staple fare of
naturalistic accounts of the mind. But this leaves plenty of room for
dispute about the form that the correct functional account should
take. And there is also plenty of scope for enquiry as to the likely
course of the evolution of access-consciousness. (In my 1996a, for
example, I speculated that a form of higher-order access to our own
thought-processes would have conferred decisive advantages in terms of
flexibility and adaptability in thinking and reasoning.) But what
almost everyone is also agreed on, is that it is p-consciousness which
is philosophically most problematic. It is by no means easy to
understand how the properties distinctive of p-consciousness –
phenomenal feel, or what-it-is-likeness – could be realised in the
neural processes of the brain; and nor is it easy to see how these
properties could ever have evolved. Indeed, when people talk about the
‘problem of consciousness’ it is really the problem of p-consciousness
which they have in mind. My strategy in this chapter will be to
consider a variety of proposals concerning the nature of p-
consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint, hoping to obtain some
adjudication between them...
http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Evolution-of-consciousness.htm
Fred M. McNeill
May 26, 2012, 1:55:23 PM5/26/12
to
still be done, in fact 'we' have no 'choice as some
are 'built' in. Its just that the 'old' (and workable)
understandings need be practiced with more 'understanding',
superceded, but not replaced. This is one of the reasons
why I espouse the conservative POV, and condemn the
liberal. The liberal very human paradigm is based on false, hubris
based, understandings.
Giga
May 26, 2012, 4:14:41 PM5/26/12
to
news:MPG.2a2ac383f...@news.eternal-september.org...
I wouldn't say I'm a proponent, more a defender. I do not think it is so
easily dismissed.
easily dismissed.
Doug Freyburger
May 27, 2012, 7:13:05 AM5/27/12
to
Giga wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Giga wrote:
>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>
> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a lot
> more substance.
I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Giga wrote:
>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>
> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a lot
> more substance.
never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
and always has.
>>> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
>
>
> Here is a piece by Dr Karl (who I'm not a fan off and often found his
> 'knowledge' very debateable):
>
> The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that is
> both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at the
> exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but the
> science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
To my knowledge this work has long since been falsified. I wish it were
> Here is a piece by Dr Karl (who I'm not a fan off and often found his
> 'knowledge' very debateable):
>
> The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that is
> both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at the
> exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but the
> science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
that simple but it is not.
> People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for
> hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years.
corpse who is not the difference seemed clear until scientists started
trying to quantify the differences. The more accurate the measurements
the harder it becomes to quantify the difference between alive and dead
no matter that it is obvious at a glance.
> =So this is a real experiement that was done. I wonder if it has been done
> in more modern times, surely it has?
effect goes away.
> The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our
> sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to determine
> the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular death,
> brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr.
> Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907? And anyhow, how accurate and
> precise were his scales back in 1907?
>
> =obviously it would eventually become clear that the person was dead. then
> it could be asumed quite reasonably that it happened when they let out that
> last long sigh or whatever which accompanied the drop in weight.
many answers. If there's a soul that can be measured death is when it
leaves. Very hard to determine that objectively.
Doug Freyburger
May 27, 2012, 7:46:21 AM5/27/12
to
Zerkon wrote:
> dfre...@yahoo.com says...
second step is to leap to the conclusion of deity. Which one? Why not
consider the traditional alternaitves? No need to get stuck immediately
in the JCI creation model without considering the others.
>> What does "exist" mean?
>
> Tricky.. in that any meaningful definition, I'll answer "exist means
> becoming", a possible implication of exclusion forms. Here however
> 'exist' means a given basis for our discussion.
Right. I take "exist" to mean "can be detected with instrumentation"
plus "can be detected by many humans". It's necessary for me to add
that second part to take subjective beings into account.
>> Even with plants that can
>> recover from tiny shoots it's clear when a branch is dead or alive. The
>
> I disagree. It is not necessarily clear when a branch is dead or alive.
> Many trees look dead during winter.
Even in winter you can cut one branch and find quick then cut the next
and not find quick. To an expert tree pruner this difference is obvious
at a glance without cutting.
An interesting feature of plants is their branches can die, be cut away
and thye will regrow. But if you do not prune those same branches will
come back to life. With an animal this would be the flesh growing back
over the dead skeleton. With plants it's the cells growing to fill the
dead cell walls. With plants pruning off the dead parts is an
optimization problem. Cut too much and the plant will not grow as much
this year as it did last year. Cut too little and it will spend too
much energy recovering last year's branches and not prduce new growth.
Cut just enough and the amount of new growth is maximimized.
Nonetheless during the winter certain branches are dead. It's just that
plants can recover from the death of a part of themselves. Aliens they
are.
> Many people look dead while asleep.
I have not seen anyone asleep gradually turn blue then darker. A
sleeping person has breathing that can be seen by holding a mirror to
their nose to detect air movement if the breathing is too light to see
the movement of the chest.
> I just do not understand this:
>
>> The conscious or alive part is not dependent on the physical body in
>> any clear or obvious way.
It's the ancient observation that the moment of death is often obvious,
plus the observation that a living person and a dead person are very
different, plus a leap that concludes it was a soul that left the
person.
> By what other means is the idea of life defined?
It is not mandaotory to define life in terms of a soul leaving the body.
As understanding of self organizing systems improves it might eventually
be learned how to quantify life without a soul.
> I say not. I say intention is a much better concept than and
> interchangeable with human will and less vague than 'purpose'. Will is
> observed to be an intentional interaction with an environment. To live
> is to interact. I (we all) must try to stay within the bounds of what
> can be observed by others.
> ...
action. How can we tell when a unicelluar organisim has made a
decision? It's implicit in my idea that I'm an aggregate of many cells.
If the aggregate dies the cells die. If the aggregate makes a decision
the cells act on that decision. The cells individually are not the
agent making the decision. This might end up being a hallow definition.
I hope it does not.
>> Can a single cellular organism have what we would consider intent?
>
> Yes, according to my argument. What 'we' must consider is a valid
> argument.
Right. Different meaning than the one I used.
> dfre...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
>> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
>> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>
> No. rather "therefore existence" which is not necessarily illogical. "I
> think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
> difference to think about. Which does demand...
That's his first step. Cognito ergo sum. Therefore existance. His
>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
>> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
>> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>
> No. rather "therefore existence" which is not necessarily illogical. "I
> think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
> difference to think about. Which does demand...
second step is to leap to the conclusion of deity. Which one? Why not
consider the traditional alternaitves? No need to get stuck immediately
in the JCI creation model without considering the others.
>> What does "exist" mean?
>
> Tricky.. in that any meaningful definition, I'll answer "exist means
> becoming", a possible implication of exclusion forms. Here however
> 'exist' means a given basis for our discussion.
plus "can be detected by many humans". It's necessary for me to add
that second part to take subjective beings into account.
>> Even with plants that can
>> recover from tiny shoots it's clear when a branch is dead or alive. The
>
> I disagree. It is not necessarily clear when a branch is dead or alive.
> Many trees look dead during winter.
and not find quick. To an expert tree pruner this difference is obvious
at a glance without cutting.
An interesting feature of plants is their branches can die, be cut away
and thye will regrow. But if you do not prune those same branches will
come back to life. With an animal this would be the flesh growing back
over the dead skeleton. With plants it's the cells growing to fill the
dead cell walls. With plants pruning off the dead parts is an
optimization problem. Cut too much and the plant will not grow as much
this year as it did last year. Cut too little and it will spend too
much energy recovering last year's branches and not prduce new growth.
Cut just enough and the amount of new growth is maximimized.
Nonetheless during the winter certain branches are dead. It's just that
plants can recover from the death of a part of themselves. Aliens they
are.
> Many people look dead while asleep.
sleeping person has breathing that can be seen by holding a mirror to
their nose to detect air movement if the breathing is too light to see
the movement of the chest.
> I just do not understand this:
>
>> The conscious or alive part is not dependent on the physical body in
>> any clear or obvious way.
plus the observation that a living person and a dead person are very
different, plus a leap that concludes it was a soul that left the
person.
> By what other means is the idea of life defined?
As understanding of self organizing systems improves it might eventually
be learned how to quantify life without a soul.
> I say not. I say intention is a much better concept than and
> interchangeable with human will and less vague than 'purpose'. Will is
> observed to be an intentional interaction with an environment. To live
> is to interact. I (we all) must try to stay within the bounds of what
> can be observed by others.
>> I don't take that as the meaning of intent.
>
> Why not?
To me intention is when I decide to take action and then I do take
>
> Why not?
action. How can we tell when a unicelluar organisim has made a
decision? It's implicit in my idea that I'm an aggregate of many cells.
If the aggregate dies the cells die. If the aggregate makes a decision
the cells act on that decision. The cells individually are not the
agent making the decision. This might end up being a hallow definition.
I hope it does not.
>> Can a single cellular organism have what we would consider intent?
>
> Yes, according to my argument. What 'we' must consider is a valid
> argument.
Doug Freyburger
May 27, 2012, 7:51:13 AM5/27/12
to
tooly wrote:
>
> Just some questions. Plant a seed any which way, beneath the ground,
> and it still grows toward the light [sense of gravity in some way?].
> I have what I call 'devil weed' in my yard; it grows only under
> fences, behind obstacles, anywhere it is hard to get to. I've watched
> this weed for years, and I'm convinced there is something with
> 'intent' going on. Is it conscious? It's a plant silly. I've seen
> dogs come 'out of the womb' fully cognizant of it's breeding
> 'function'...such as working dogs, herding dogs, fighting dogs, fowl
> chasing dogs, digging dogs. NO one has to train them [or very little
> anyway], and they automatically simply do what they were bred for.
> Intent conveyed through genetics?
It is a given that animals and plants have inheretted instinct. It is a
>
> Just some questions. Plant a seed any which way, beneath the ground,
> and it still grows toward the light [sense of gravity in some way?].
> I have what I call 'devil weed' in my yard; it grows only under
> fences, behind obstacles, anywhere it is hard to get to. I've watched
> this weed for years, and I'm convinced there is something with
> 'intent' going on. Is it conscious? It's a plant silly. I've seen
> dogs come 'out of the womb' fully cognizant of it's breeding
> 'function'...such as working dogs, herding dogs, fighting dogs, fowl
> chasing dogs, digging dogs. NO one has to train them [or very little
> anyway], and they automatically simply do what they were bred for.
> Intent conveyed through genetics?
given that humans make decisions and take actions on them.
> But then, what is consciousness anyway?
animals and plants makes decisions and take actions on them. Plus to
what extent humans are influenced by our instincts.
Being on the inside of humanity it is very hard to measure what is
decision and what is instinct. We typically can't tell the difference
in our own actions so we over estimate what is decision and
underestimate what is instinct.
Zerkon
May 27, 2012, 9:54:42 AM5/27/12
to
In article <jpoli5$8oo$1...@dont-email.me>, clyd...@gmail.com says...
Intent does not imply choice but neither does it imply choice is
excluded. Choice is a dependent condition. Mind you, I am not going to
claim to understand how or what other forms of life 'intend' only how
they act. In this discussion intent only implies action or actually the
opposite... specific actions imply intent.
> Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
"Law of nature" does because, in my view, it (all "laws of..") is a
perspective created by humans to assist human feelings of certainty and
probability. Nature taken as an entirety however is existence. Would
this be considered intent?
> Does a computer (program) have intent...so, consciousness?
Does a storage shed intend storage? Does a hammer intend to hit the
nail? Does a bee hive cell intend honey?
Computers are nothing||||other than a human way to manipulate, use and
represent forms of electricity to humans. So this question about
computers is actually about specifc forms of electricity.
> Does intent imply that there was a choice?
Good one. Excellent. I must figure this out, now.
Intent does not imply choice but neither does it imply choice is
excluded. Choice is a dependent condition. Mind you, I am not going to
claim to understand how or what other forms of life 'intend' only how
they act. In this discussion intent only implies action or actually the
opposite... specific actions imply intent.
> Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
perspective created by humans to assist human feelings of certainty and
probability. Nature taken as an entirety however is existence. Would
this be considered intent?
> Does a computer (program) have intent...so, consciousness?
nail? Does a bee hive cell intend honey?
Computers are nothing||||other than a human way to manipulate, use and
represent forms of electricity to humans. So this question about
computers is actually about specifc forms of electricity.
Dare
May 27, 2012, 12:02:42 PM5/27/12
to
"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message news:MPG.2a2bfc17a...@news.eternal-september.org...
Does all life have intent...What is life?
Did life intend itself?
Does a crystal formation have the intent to form its structure?
Is it conscious...its actions implying intent?
I don't know the answers....
not even sure if the questions are relevant.
My human perspective biases my intent...and actions
> In article <jpoli5$8oo$1...@dont-email.me>, clyd...@gmail.com says...
>> Does intent imply that there was a choice?
>
> Good one. Excellent. I must figure this out, now.
>
> Intent does not imply choice but neither does it imply choice is
> excluded. Choice is a dependent condition. Mind you, I am not going to
> claim to understand how or what other forms of life 'intend' only how
> they act. In this discussion intent only implies action or actually the
> opposite... specific actions imply intent.
>
>> Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
>
> "Law of nature" does because, in my view, it (all "laws of..") is a
> perspective created by humans to assist human feelings of certainty and
> probability. Nature taken as an entirety however is existence. Would
> this be considered intent?
Is "intent" a way to enhance the feeling of certainty and probability?
>> Does intent imply that there was a choice?
>
> Good one. Excellent. I must figure this out, now.
>
> Intent does not imply choice but neither does it imply choice is
> excluded. Choice is a dependent condition. Mind you, I am not going to
> claim to understand how or what other forms of life 'intend' only how
> they act. In this discussion intent only implies action or actually the
> opposite... specific actions imply intent.
>
>> Is a "law of nature"....gravity, etc. ... considered as intent?
>
> "Law of nature" does because, in my view, it (all "laws of..") is a
> perspective created by humans to assist human feelings of certainty and
> probability. Nature taken as an entirety however is existence. Would
> this be considered intent?
Does all life have intent...What is life?
Did life intend itself?
Does a crystal formation have the intent to form its structure?
Is it conscious...its actions implying intent?
I don't know the answers....
not even sure if the questions are relevant.
My human perspective biases my intent...and actions
Giga
May 27, 2012, 5:41:31 PM5/27/12
to
news:jpt281$oiv$1...@dont-email.me...
about it.
>
>>>> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
>>
>>> To my knowledge yes that is a myth ...
>>
>> Here is a piece by Dr Karl (who I'm not a fan off and often found his
>> 'knowledge' very debateable):
>>
>> The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that
>> is
>> both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at
>> the
>> exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but
>> the
>> science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
>
> To my knowledge this work has long since been falsified. I wish it were
> that simple but it is not.
Then you can cite something then?
>
>> People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for
>> hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years.
>
> Because there is such a difference between a person who is alive and a
> corpse who is not the difference seemed clear until scientists started
> trying to quantify the differences. The more accurate the measurements
> the harder it becomes to quantify the difference between alive and dead
> no matter that it is obvious at a glance.
Cite.
>
>> =So this is a real experiement that was done. I wonder if it has been
>> done
>> in more modern times, surely it has?
>
> Real experiment. Keep controlling for more and more items and the
> effect goes away.
Cite.
>
>> The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our
>> sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to
>> determine
>> the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular
>> death,
>> brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr.
>> Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907? And anyhow, how accurate
>> and
>> precise were his scales back in 1907?
>>
>> =obviously it would eventually become clear that the person was dead.
>> then
>> it could be asumed quite reasonably that it happened when they let out
>> that
>> last long sigh or whatever which accompanied the drop in weight.
>
> How to measure death has been discussed for over a century. There are
> many answers. If there's a soul that can be measured death is when it
> leaves. Very hard to determine that objectively.
Cite.
> Giga wrote:
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Giga wrote:
>>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>
>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a
>> lot
>> more substance.
>
> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
> and always has.
I think you should read his book rather than jumping to wild conclusions
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Giga wrote:
>>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>
>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a
>> lot
>> more substance.
>
> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
> and always has.
about it.
>
>>>> Is that a myth about loosing 21 grammes then?
>>
>>> To my knowledge yes that is a myth ...
>>
>> Here is a piece by Dr Karl (who I'm not a fan off and often found his
>> 'knowledge' very debateable):
>>
>> The trailer for the 2003 movie, 21 Grams, starts off with a sentence that
>> is
>> both authoritative and inexact: "They say that we all lose 21 grams at
>> the
>> exact moment of death". It's a short and sweet attention-grabber - but
>> the
>> science behind that sentence adds up to zero.
>
> To my knowledge this work has long since been falsified. I wish it were
> that simple but it is not.
>
>> People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for
>> hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years.
>
> Because there is such a difference between a person who is alive and a
> corpse who is not the difference seemed clear until scientists started
> trying to quantify the differences. The more accurate the measurements
> the harder it becomes to quantify the difference between alive and dead
> no matter that it is obvious at a glance.
>
>> =So this is a real experiement that was done. I wonder if it has been
>> done
>> in more modern times, surely it has?
>
> Real experiment. Keep controlling for more and more items and the
> effect goes away.
>
>> The third problem is a little more subtle. Even today, with all of our
>> sophisticated technology, it is still sometimes very difficult to
>> determine
>> the precise moment of death. And which death did he mean - cellular
>> death,
>> brain death, physical death, heart death, legal death, etc? How could Dr.
>> Duncan MacDougall be so precise back in 1907? And anyhow, how accurate
>> and
>> precise were his scales back in 1907?
>>
>> =obviously it would eventually become clear that the person was dead.
>> then
>> it could be asumed quite reasonably that it happened when they let out
>> that
>> last long sigh or whatever which accompanied the drop in weight.
>
> How to measure death has been discussed for over a century. There are
> many answers. If there's a soul that can be measured death is when it
> leaves. Very hard to determine that objectively.
Giga
May 27, 2012, 5:42:20 PM5/27/12
to
news:jpt46c$2jj$1...@dont-email.me...
> Zerkon wrote:
>> dfre...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
>>> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
>>> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>>
>> No. rather "therefore existence" which is not necessarily illogical. "I
>> think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
>> difference to think about. Which does demand...
>
> That's his first step. Cognito ergo sum. Therefore existance. His
> second step is to leap to the conclusion of deity. Which one? Why not
> consider the traditional alternaitves? No need to get stuck immediately
> in the JCI creation model without considering the others.
lol
>> dfre...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> Too much like Descarte's First Meditation on Philosophy. Watch that
>>> you don't make his blunder of going from "I think therefore I am" in
>>> one illogical hop to "therefore God exists".
>>
>> No. rather "therefore existence" which is not necessarily illogical. "I
>> think therefore existence" if thought is dependent upon things of
>> difference to think about. Which does demand...
>
> That's his first step. Cognito ergo sum. Therefore existance. His
> second step is to leap to the conclusion of deity. Which one? Why not
> consider the traditional alternaitves? No need to get stuck immediately
> in the JCI creation model without considering the others.
Doug Freyburger
May 28, 2012, 8:32:17 PM5/28/12
to
Giga wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote...
nonsense starting very close to the beginning. I get to disagree with
well known philosophers if I want to.
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> Giga wrote:
>
>>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a
>>> lot more substance.
>
>> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
>> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
>> and always has.
>
> I think you should read his book rather than jumping to wild conclusions
> about it.
I've read Meditations on First Philosophy. I thought it was based on
>
>>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has a
>>> lot more substance.
>
>> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
>> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
>> and always has.
>
> I think you should read his book rather than jumping to wild conclusions
> about it.
nonsense starting very close to the beginning. I get to disagree with
well known philosophers if I want to.
Giga
May 29, 2012, 2:08:02 AM5/29/12
to
news:jq15eh$og0$1...@dont-email.me...
>I thought it was based on
> nonsense starting very close to the beginning.
So you read a few of the first pages, from the link I posted the other day.
>I get to disagree with
> well known philosophers if I want to.
Don't you have to know their positions before you can 'disagree' with them?
A lot of people seem to think 'I've heard "I think therefore I am" is from
Meditations' what more do I need to know', lol.
> Giga wrote:
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>>> Giga wrote:
>>
>>>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has
>>>> a
>>>> lot more substance.
>>
>>> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
>>> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
>>> and always has.
>>
>> I think you should read his book rather than jumping to wild conclusions
>> about it.
>
> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
The whole book? When? How many times?
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>>> Giga wrote:
>>
>>>> You do not seem to understand his argument at all. I assure you it has
>>>> a
>>>> lot more substance.
>>
>>> I think he failed to consider other options. For example I think he
>>> never considered the Hindu view that existance exists without creation
>>> and always has.
>>
>> I think you should read his book rather than jumping to wild conclusions
>> about it.
>
> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
>I thought it was based on
> nonsense starting very close to the beginning.
>I get to disagree with
> well known philosophers if I want to.
A lot of people seem to think 'I've heard "I think therefore I am" is from
Meditations' what more do I need to know', lol.
Doug Freyburger
May 29, 2012, 10:27:36 AM5/29/12
to
Giga wrote:
for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
1) Why can't everyone with an idea of deity be wrong? Patternicity.
2) Why can't the ideas of deity in religions outside of the JCI family
beat the ideas of deity in religions inside of the JCI family? Occam's
Razor.
He deals with neither of those questions to my satisfaction. He does
not touch the second one at all. It's like discussing all of human
history by only drawing material from the Toltec, Mayan and Aztec
civilizations.
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
>
> The whole book? When? How many times?
The entire book end to end. A bit under a year ago. Once was plenty
>
>> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
>
> The whole book? When? How many times?
for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
1) Why can't everyone with an idea of deity be wrong? Patternicity.
2) Why can't the ideas of deity in religions outside of the JCI family
beat the ideas of deity in religions inside of the JCI family? Occam's
Razor.
He deals with neither of those questions to my satisfaction. He does
not touch the second one at all. It's like discussing all of human
history by only drawing material from the Toltec, Mayan and Aztec
civilizations.
Giga
May 29, 2012, 1:20:48 PM5/29/12
to
news:jq2mco$5pb$1...@dont-email.me...
find the trademark argument very convincing. That doesn't reflect on the
Cogito though!
>
> 1) Why can't everyone with an idea of deity be wrong? Patternicity.
He doesn't even seem to require others to me aware of this 'idea of God'. It
is enough that he has this idea, he assumes at least some of his readers do.
I am basically a believer in some understanding of the word 'God' but I
doubt I have this idea that he seems to describe.
>
> 2) Why can't the ideas of deity in religions outside of the JCI family
> beat the ideas of deity in religions inside of the JCI family? Occam's
> Razor.
This is a good point. We are talking about the 1600s in Europe. Academia was
very dominated, as was everything really, by the Catholic church. Descartes
himself may have wanted to include ideas about other religions in the book
but may not have been able to or thought it was too risky.
> Giga wrote:
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
>>
>> The whole book? When? How many times?
>
> The entire book end to end. A bit under a year ago. Once was plenty
> for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
> for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
> nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
I agree it does seem to very theologically motivated and I personally do not
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've read Meditations on First Philosophy.
>>
>> The whole book? When? How many times?
>
> The entire book end to end. A bit under a year ago. Once was plenty
> for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
> for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
> nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
find the trademark argument very convincing. That doesn't reflect on the
Cogito though!
>
> 1) Why can't everyone with an idea of deity be wrong? Patternicity.
is enough that he has this idea, he assumes at least some of his readers do.
I am basically a believer in some understanding of the word 'God' but I
doubt I have this idea that he seems to describe.
>
> 2) Why can't the ideas of deity in religions outside of the JCI family
> beat the ideas of deity in religions inside of the JCI family? Occam's
> Razor.
very dominated, as was everything really, by the Catholic church. Descartes
himself may have wanted to include ideas about other religions in the book
but may not have been able to or thought it was too risky.
Doug Freyburger
May 29, 2012, 4:49:46 PM5/29/12
to
Giga wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The entire book end to end. A bit under a year ago. Once was plenty
>> for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
>> for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
>> nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
>
> I agree it does seem to very theologically motivated and I personally do not
> find the trademark argument very convincing.
Given the reputation of the book I was looking forward to something much
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The entire book end to end. A bit under a year ago. Once was plenty
>> for me. The fact that almost the entire text is a hokey justification
>> for the second point does nothing to change the fact that I think it's
>> nonsense. In the entire book never once does he consider alternatives.
>
> I agree it does seem to very theologically motivated and I personally do not
> find the trademark argument very convincing.
better. I sure hope that's not the current state of the art in the
meaning of life.
> That doesn't reflect on the Cogito though!
into arguments about existance. Nope, tons of stuff arguing for the
existance of one specific deity.
Doug Freyburger
May 31, 2012, 10:40:23 AM5/31/12
to
Giga wrote:
>
> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
> 'newly' discovered today.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060721133031/http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~fdoull/des-med.htm
The one I used was the public domain audio from Librivox that uses the
>
> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
> 'newly' discovered today.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060721133031/http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~fdoull/des-med.htm
public domain text from Project Gutenberg. The phrasing in the
translation seems a little different but it is substantially the same.
http://librivox.org/meditations-on-first-philosophy-by-rene-descartes/
Nice. They have Discourse on the Method. I'll download that one after
I post this and add it to the rotation of discs I listen to during my
commute to/from work, lodge and so on.
Giga
Jun 1, 2012, 6:00:42 PM6/1/12
to
news:jq7vsn$1vt$1...@dont-email.me...
Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out to
you while you drive? Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
are not clear and take notes. It has been estimated that the first time we
read a complicated text maybe only 10% is taken in! So probably *reading*
something a few times is fairly minimal plus a bit of audio.
I mean this isn't bedtime stories or something, this is one of the greatest
literary and philosophical acheivements of all time!
you while you drive? Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
are not clear and take notes. It has been estimated that the first time we
read a complicated text maybe only 10% is taken in! So probably *reading*
something a few times is fairly minimal plus a bit of audio.
I mean this isn't bedtime stories or something, this is one of the greatest
literary and philosophical acheivements of all time!
Doug Freyburger
Jun 4, 2012, 10:48:34 AM6/4/12
to
>> Giga wrote:
>
>>> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
>>> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
>>> 'newly' discovered today.
>
>
>>> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
>>> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
>>> 'newly' discovered today.
>
>> The one I used was the public domain audio from Librivox that uses the
>> public domain text from Project Gutenberg.
>
>> public domain text from Project Gutenberg.
>
> Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out to
> you while you drive?
That depends on whether you personally happen to meet the average of
> you while you drive?
only 10% retention when listening to a book. And whether you play it
more than once. I get much better retention than that when reading
visually is as far as I will go on that front.
> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
> are not clear and take notes.
vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
> I mean this isn't bedtime stories or something, this is one of the greatest
> literary and philosophical acheivements of all time!
Over the weekend I transferred Discourse on the Method to my pending
queue. I'll read it in only several months.
Giga
Jun 5, 2012, 6:19:32 AM6/5/12
to
news:jqihs1$goe$1...@dont-email.me...
learning, so if you are one it might well be that you get more retention
from an audio-book. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone is like me in
this (def more visual).
>
>> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
>> are not clear and take notes.
>
> If I were to wait until I could read visually I would never read the
> vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
Another good reason to use audio for sure.
>
>> I mean this isn't bedtime stories or something, this is one of the
>> greatest
>> literary and philosophical acheivements of all time!
>
> Which means it's more important for me to read it than to not read it.
Of course. Doing both would be even better, maybe I should try the audio
: ).
> Giga wrote:
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Giga wrote:
>>
>>>> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
>>>> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
>>>> 'newly' discovered today.
>>
>>> The one I used was the public domain audio from Librivox that uses the
>>> public domain text from Project Gutenberg.
>>
>> Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out
>> to
>> you while you drive?
>
> That depends on whether you personally happen to meet the average of
> only 10% retention when listening to a book. And whether you play it
> more than once. I get much better retention than that when reading
> visually is as far as I will go on that front.
Some people are what is called 'Auditory' learners I have recently been
>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Giga wrote:
>>
>>>> Meditations is a very accessible work and editions often include
>>>> various debates he had with contemporaries covering areas still being
>>>> 'newly' discovered today.
>>
>>> The one I used was the public domain audio from Librivox that uses the
>>> public domain text from Project Gutenberg.
>>
>> Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out
>> to
>> you while you drive?
>
> That depends on whether you personally happen to meet the average of
> only 10% retention when listening to a book. And whether you play it
> more than once. I get much better retention than that when reading
> visually is as far as I will go on that front.
learning, so if you are one it might well be that you get more retention
from an audio-book. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone is like me in
this (def more visual).
>
>> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
>> are not clear and take notes.
>
> If I were to wait until I could read visually I would never read the
> vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
>
>> I mean this isn't bedtime stories or something, this is one of the
>> greatest
>> literary and philosophical acheivements of all time!
>
> Which means it's more important for me to read it than to not read it.
: ).
Doug Freyburger
Jun 5, 2012, 10:27:42 AM6/5/12
to
Giga wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Giga wrote:
>
>>> Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out
>>> to you while you drive?
>
>> That depends on whether you personally happen to meet the average of
>> only 10% retention when listening to a book. And whether you play it
>> more than once. I get much better retention than that when reading
>> visually is as far as I will go on that front.
>
> Some people are what is called 'Auditory' learners I have recently been
> learning, so if you are one it might well be that you get more retention
> from an audio-book. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone is like me in
> this (def more visual).
I will note that when in college I read the textbooks and then noticed
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Giga wrote:
>
>>> Does this really count as 'reading the book', having someone read it out
>>> to you while you drive?
>
>> That depends on whether you personally happen to meet the average of
>> only 10% retention when listening to a book. And whether you play it
>> more than once. I get much better retention than that when reading
>> visually is as far as I will go on that front.
>
> Some people are what is called 'Auditory' learners I have recently been
> learning, so if you are one it might well be that you get more retention
> from an audio-book. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone is like me in
> this (def more visual).
that in class some of the professors did little other than read the
textbook to the class. Once I detained that was happening in any one
class I took up reading a novel or another textbook during the class
meetings. One professor saw me do this, got upset, asked me a question.
I looked up, mentally played back the audio, quoted a couple of
sentences he just said, pointed out how it varied from the textbook,
suggested why I was dubious on that point as it didn't fit in with the
rest of the material. Last time that professor called on me in class
unless he wanted a counterpoint response. Not sure what this says about
my audio learning but it does say I do well at visual learning.
>>> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
>>> are not clear and take notes.
>>
>> If I were to wait until I could read visually I would never read the
>> vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
>
> Another good reason to use audio for sure.
through the Anti-Federalist papers in my uber-classic cycle* When
that's finished I'll do the Discourse on the Method. I may disagree
with Descartes on his Meditation for being what I consider easily
dismissed theology (you have noticed I have a very minority view on that
topic) but it did contain good material and the guy did some amazing
math work.
* I interleave uber-classics, light classics and pleasure reading. My
current light classic is Of Human Bondage. I just finished a detective
novel and will start a new science fiction novel for pleasure. A disc
of each in a cycle during my commute.
Giga
Jun 5, 2012, 1:06:07 PM6/5/12
to
news:jql50u$v7f$1...@dont-email.me...
You can do both well I guess.
>
>>>> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
>>>> are not clear and take notes.
>>>
>>> If I were to wait until I could read visually I would never read the
>>> vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
>>
>> Another good reason to use audio for sure.
>
> For me it's the difference between ever or never. I am currently going
> through the Anti-Federalist papers in my uber-classic cycle* When
> that's finished I'll do the Discourse on the Method. I may disagree
> with Descartes on his Meditation for being what I consider easily
> dismissed theology (you have noticed I have a very minority view on that
> topic) but it did contain good material and the guy did some amazing
> math work.
It is very well written as well IMO, very clear and even enjoyable to read
(very special for philosophy books : ))
>
>>>> Ideally you would read sentences over and over if they
>>>> are not clear and take notes.
>>>
>>> If I were to wait until I could read visually I would never read the
>>> vast majority of books in my to-read list. Simple as that.
>>
>> Another good reason to use audio for sure.
>
> For me it's the difference between ever or never. I am currently going
> through the Anti-Federalist papers in my uber-classic cycle* When
> that's finished I'll do the Discourse on the Method. I may disagree
> with Descartes on his Meditation for being what I consider easily
> dismissed theology (you have noticed I have a very minority view on that
> topic) but it did contain good material and the guy did some amazing
> math work.
(very special for philosophy books : ))
0 new messages