The Cartisian Theater of self, or homunculus(small person) illusion. A house of mirrors?

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 1:13pm

"Does this mean that Logic is God and that love is not?"

No it means that Love IS Logical (Rational). The entire universe and anything within could not exist without the support of what is surrounding it == Love in a mechanical sense.

People are similar. They cannot survive without the support of those around them == Love in a social sense.

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 2:27pm

So we aren't as far apart as you think we are nor do I think we are. I am going to have to take some time and think how I might better express what I was saying earlier.

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 3:27pm

Perhaps I should have said;

"Logic supports the existence of ALL that is and thus is the Love that holds the universe itself together and causes it to be what it is (Creates) == God."

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 4:42pm

" thus is the Love that holds the universe itself together and causes it to be what it is (Creates) == God."

That statement in and of itself James is nicely said. That is the most logical thing I've ever seen you write, although I did know that it was your underlying form for your logic or how you structure. Like I said, I'm going to take some time on the Cartesian theater as being a true phenomena and why we bump into the furniture so to speak. My thoughts on it are that infinity exists literally as the underlying structure of reality, it has no beginning or end since it encapsulates everything both abstract and concrete, (remember Infinity is purely abstractive and yet exists) we exist in a very real limited universe the physical concrete/abstract are interconnected dynamically as a singluarity. Again, logic in and of itself doesn't exist it's the way we connect this to that in some context. Also Love in and of itself doesn't exist in any object thing way it it's how we connnect to that which we connect. I am not being clear here but then again I'm not sure anyone is exactly. Most of us live to one degree or another in a Cartesian theater, hell I do it's how we function, My experiences and what I was hearing from a larger cultural framework clashed right at this point. And I might not be able to give any clearer view to what I am trying to express other than while something is true at one level in context of what is being referenced to, it is not true as we scale up in conceptual dimension.The illusion of the Cartesian theater gives us the impression that we can and we cannot.
That's again a round about way of saying we are interdependent on the environment in our perceptions as surely as the environment exists whether we are here to see it or not. I do like how you have pushed Love up the hierarchy of importance that is very nice.

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 4:55pm

I wanted to also add you aligned love with connection as much as logic is awareness of connection that's interesting. I also have always thought that logic follows a path of efficiency automatically. The most logical is the simplest and thus most efficient this is the way we build buildings. I've always thought Logic dictates love is better than not to love it's the path that is efficient and that scales up in relationship to attraction or connection in many ways.

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 5:05pm

Logic is established by the lack of contradiction. "What is cannot also be what isn't."

"What is" is established merely by your choice of relevant concern. Your senses already do that for you regarding physical "instinct" concerns. They function by contrast between what is relevant and what isn't.

The conscious mind steps to a higher level of discernment in making plans that cannot be sensed yet conform to a reality that "can be" as long as contradiction is avoided.

Then of course, the person has to struggle between what he consciously decides to pursue and what his subconscious and instincts want him to pursue (staying on the diet). ]:o)

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 5:33pm

Then of course, the person has to struggle between what he consciously decides to pursue and what his subconscious and instincts want him to pursue (staying on the diet). ]:o) "

The sub Conscious is what I'm interested in. It's a very powerful framework that really filters how we act and percieve. Again, I would go back to the original statement that Dennett's statement in relationship to the Cartisian theater is true we live with this illusion as he makes a statement that self is fiction and that the brain is computational. A computational view of the brain is very old and is not seriously held as being true at all. A sort of Correspondence theory of the brain so to speak, incredibly simplistic. I also might add that every philosophy major that sort of holds a strong sense of correspondence to be true holds to a computational view of the brain as well, or a desire or hope to get on the otherside of self and define it in some objective way. NUTS..Oh well.... So Dennett can't help himself even as the evidence is in front of him since this would contradict his sub conscious framework at the same time. he'd have to admit that God while not true as a separate from, may actually mean something else that he hadn't considered. That is tough for an atheist to swallow. I neither hold to a singular being separate from reality controlling it (That makes me atheist to some) but neither would I say the word is meaningless, it's a descriptor word at the very minimum pointing to something. An interesting thing and I wonder if Richard Dawkins change of heart in regards to consciousness being a part of reality (Jeff is hoping that Dawkins will be in chruch soon) is following along this line. Again I posted an interesting person named Alva Noe in a reedit of my post if you didn't get a chance to see. Thanks for your insights on this James. I may not structure it exactly like you have said it but you do add to my thoughts none the less. Much appreciated

Comment by david thurman on December 1, 2009 at 5:50am

was going to add a thought to this as I slept on it. The Cartesian Theater effect is very real due to how we have evolved. This effect is best described as an environmental disassociation caused by our ability to handle long term memories. Dennett was correct in his assessment, and I like the term, but this assessment has historically been noted for thousands of years in religion and has been very much a central theme in eastern and middle eastern philosophical thoughts. So while modern science now recognizes it as an empirically true Dennett continues by his own analogy of being in Cartesian Theater. He uses the Metaphorical structure Virtual machine as a term. In using this term, or phrase he is using a metaphor that we can understand, It's a bit like Newton describing the universe as a series of cogs this is not correct. to properly state this condition one needs to reach into or use a system that more closely matches nature. Non linear Dynamic systems is a structural metaphor that comes much closer to reality than using a metaphor virtual machine the events that are going on. Very complex, somewhat unpredictable and very dynamic and yet with an absolutely deterministic outcome determined by their original conditions. So if we look at the complexity of the world environment around us systematically, we can systems approach to the human brain and scale it into a singluar brain. We can scale up to the universe level the same way and ultimately beyond the universe and baick in time and forward in time in the same way. A more accurate model is a set of nested systems interlinked depending upon scale. The variations are dependent upon complexity. We as humans have a slightly more complex system than say monkeys and it goes down the line for all neurological creatures including amoeba's. Cartesian theater is simply a product of evolution culture working together one reinforcing the other generating our sense of Cartisian theater is all. I have a sense there is a reason for this occurring in our development, logic is intrinsic in reality so this occurrence is not some odd convergence and I have a couple of ideas of why. The point of this post though is to say, Dennet is correct, his assessment points to himself and his statements as false in what it imply's.

From this again the Metaphorical term mother earth father sky becomes more understandable from a systems perspective, and is much more accurate than treating the human brain as a machine. For the Christian view Jesus's Comment "The father and I are one" is the same metaphorical statement.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page