(December 26, 2018 at 10:56 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 9:08 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We cannot justify our reliance upon reason, but no other system can justify its base assumptions either.  So in that regard, it is no better and no worse than any contrary belief. 

I agreed with your assessment up to this point.  We justify our reliance on reason with reasons.  Reasons are warranted because they depend on observations.  They are better than simply writing another fantasy novel of interlocking and mutually supporting assumptions.

For me, it's more like if one relied on something else other than reason to acquire knowledge, how would one go about doing that? Frankly, I just can't think of such an alternative method. Hence, my reliance on reason.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:38 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 10:56 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: I agreed with your assessment up to this point.  We justify our reliance on reason with reasons.  Reasons are warranted because they depend on observations.  They are better than simply writing another fantasy novel of interlocking and mutually supporting assumptions.

For me, it's more like if one relied on something else other than reason to acquire knowledge, how would one go about doing that? Frankly, I just can't think of such an alternative method. Hence, my reliance on reason.

And yet people try to use intuitions, personal preferences, social biases, analogies, and appearances to acquire what they call knowledge.

(December 26, 2018 at 11:48 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:38 am)Grandizer Wrote: For me, it's more like if one relied on something else other than reason to acquire knowledge, how would one go about doing that? Frankly, I just can't think of such an alternative method. Hence, my reliance on reason.

And yet people try to use intuitions, personal preferences, social biases, analogies, and appearances to acquire what they call knowledge.

I also use other people.

(December 26, 2018 at 1:53 am)zainab Wrote: If consciousness is a product of evolution, how can we trust its outputs?

Do not we live in a bubble .. Illusion of knowledge?

Well, consider the fact that in order to survive, the senses have to give data that is at least somewhat reliable and that the brain has to process that data in such a way that the conclusions are correct, at least to the extent that they impact on differential survival.

What that means is that we can relay, at least to some extent, about our perceptions on ordinary, human, scales of distance and time and in those contexts where the information would be related to survival.

On the other hand, we know of a great number of optical illusions, where our visual system gives incorrect conclusions. The same is true for other sensory modalities. In other words, our perceptions *cannot* be trusted in every detail and in every situation.

Also, in spite of what many say, logic is not very natural for us humans. We very often derive conclusions that are logically incorrect, but close enough for survival benefits. We tend to see faces in clouds, purposeful behavior in computers, and attribute creaks in wood to active agents. There are good evolutionary reasons for our illogic in many cases.

What this means ultimately is that we need to take all of our ideas as tentative and as expressing possibilities, not as being absolute and certain. We need to test each and every one of our assumptions to make sure they work in actual practice and continue to work in new situations. Inductive reasoning is NOT certain, but it is usually good enough when enough testing is done.

He has done extensive work in the area.

(December 26, 2018 at 1:17 pm)LastPoet Wrote: He has done extensive work in the area.

It's interesting that the speaker divides the self into the proto self, the core self, and the autobiographical self, and says we share the first two with other animals with brainstems. That makes the experience of a self (not self-consciousness) a much earlier development evolutionarily than we often take it to be.

I prefer defining consciousness as awareness filtered through a self-concept, which is similar to the combination of mind and self which your speaker made.

Awareness can be passive. Light strikes our eyes and our brains create images from that information. What does consciousness add to such relatively passive awareness? I would say it adds focus based on self-motivated goals. We actively select out certain aspects of the total information around us in accordance with our goals, like road signs when we are driving somewhere. In other words, we limit our total possible experiences based on our self-interests.

(December 26, 2018 at 1:07 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 1:53 am)zainab Wrote: If consciousness is a product of evolution, how can we trust its outputs?

Do not we live in a bubble .. Illusion of knowledge?

Well, consider the fact that in order to survive, the senses have to give data that is at least somewhat reliable and that the brain has to process that data in such a way that the conclusions are correct, at least to the extent that they impact on differential survival.

What that means is that we can relay, at least to some extent, about our perceptions on ordinary, human, scales of distance and time and in those contexts where the information would be related to survival.

It's likely true that our behaviors need to reliably produce survival, but it's not necessarily true that the truths that our minds refer to actually be true, only that believing them to be true leads to successful, pro-survival behaviors. It's entirely possible that we do all the right things, but for all the wrong reasons. So long as we do the right things, how would we go about determining that the reasons we did them were the right reasons? There doesn't appear to be a way out of this quandary.

(December 26, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 1:07 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Well, consider the fact that in order to survive, the senses have to give data that is at least somewhat reliable and that the brain has to process that data in such a way that the conclusions are correct, at least to the extent that they impact on differential survival.

What that means is that we can relay, at least to some extent, about our perceptions on ordinary, human, scales of distance and time and in those contexts where the information would be related to survival.

It's likely true that our behaviors need to reliably produce survival, but it's not necessarily true that the truths that our minds refer to actually be true, only that believing them to be true leads to successful, pro-survival behaviors.  It's entirely possible that we do all the right things, but for all the wrong reasons.  So long as we do the right things, how would we go about determining that the reasons we did them were the right reasons?  There doesn't appear to be a way out of this quandary.

But in order to do the right things, the interpretation has to have *some* correlation with reality. of course we don't see the entire picture: we don't see radio waves, for example, nor infrared. But what we do see does correspond to at least part of what is 'out there'. If it did not, it would seem quite unlikely that we would be able to do the 'right thing' even for survival.

Quote:How could we trust our consciousness

Like this:  Put $50 in singles where your consciousness can see it, then announce loudly to your consciousness  that you're going out for a bit.  When you come back, count the singles to see if any are missing...

No, wait - that's how you see if you can trust your roommate.  Sorry.

Boru

I hate the word "mind". All that is to me is just a description of the unique neurological pathways each individual grows into in evolution and even upbringing. I really do not see what is wrong with accepting that consciousness is simply our brain in motion, unique to each individual. "Mind" to me is such a loaded word that theists love to make separate than our physical self, and there is nothing at all that proves there is a separation between our uniqueness like a snowflake or fingerprint, which both depend on physical matter to happen.

The problem with using the word "mind" is that it gets twisted even by si fi fans and new agers as an excuse to gap fill, just like old mythological god believers like to use the word "soul".

If everything is made up of atoms, then all a "mind" can be still to me, is each individual's unique manifestation of neurological pathways born from our species long term evolution, and life to death individual interactions.