Mark writes:
I see. You think you are a fancy computer of some sort. Amazing. OK, If all
you are is an assemblage of parts, and there is no "entity" who HAS those
parts (sounds a lot like Buddhism so far) then you are your functions. In other
words, if intellection or computation is occurring, then you ARE intellection
and computation. You are not a being that HAS functions, you ARE those
functions.
Jud:
If I describe a human being as a thinking entity that does not mean that the
thinking is automatically reified into a separate “property” of the thinker
– it simply means that the entity exists in a modality of thinking. If I
describe a human being as a dancer, that does not mean that the dancer's
activity of dancing is reified into a "property" of dancing "belonging" to the
dancer. You visit the ballet to see the ballet dancers not the dancing, for there
is no "dancing" – it doesn’t exist – you go to see the dancers existing in
a multitude of stylised steps and bodily movements, and this human modality
we call "dancing."
Of course this natural mapping drags a putative existential duality in its
wake, for the process of mapping "The apple is red" presupposes that being red
is in some way different to "just being an apple." and raises the ridiculous
absurdity that somewhere [perhaps in some propertyless Platonic Heaven?]
there exists some notional "apple" which is colourless, hanging around on some
propertyless tree in some propertyless Platonic realm awaiting the time when
some helpful human being overflowing with "properties comes along and dubs
it "red" or "green," or "ripe" or "rotten." The way the sentence is framed
"calls up" a spurious duality or object and property which does not actually
exist, other than in the minds of the human classificational utterer of the
words.
Mark:
Jud, you are trying to have it both ways. You want to say that you are an
entity that computes but that computation doesn't exist.
Jud:
It’s true - like all human beings I compute, and I am the existing computer
computing my computations - “computing" doesn’t exist.
Mark:
You want to say you are not an entity (aggregate of attributes or parts)
and that computation DOES exist.
Jud:
No Mark – I have never said that I am not an entity. I have raised
mereological questions on the list – but nobody has ever responded.
Mark:
It doesn't matter if you call it a cognitive modality or not. How can you
have an intellector without intellection? It is easier to have intellection
without an intellector than it is to have an intellector without intellection.
Now I feel overwhelmed by that "oceanic feeling" Freud denied until he died
Jud:
Allow me to throw you a lifebelt. ;-)
Intellection is simply an abstract WORD that we use to describe the
existential modality of a human being when he or she is thinking. When I am moving
the top knuckle-joint of my thumb I am in the existential modality of moving
the top knuckle-joint of my thumb.
Are you therefore claiming that there exists a: “Moving the top
knuckle-joint of thumbness?” Plainly: “Moving the top knuckle-joint of thumbness?” doesn
’t exist only the existential Jud Evans exists as he: “Moves the top
knuckle-joint of his thumb.”
Jud.
--- In [email protected]_
(mailto:heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) , _gevans613@a_ (mailto:gevans613@a) ... wrote: Mark Writes:
The body/brain is a mechanism.
Jud: Yes, The bodybrain or human holism is a biological machine.
Mark;
How does intellection grasp intuition? One intuits the sense of 2+24. The
explanation of it is the intellectual process of moving from one thought to the
next. Thought depends on intuition; not the other way around. If you start
with fragmentation, it will be difficult to attain to unity; much like
Descartes who wanted to be sure about something so he started with doubt.
Jud:
Hi Mark: "Intellection" doesn't grasp "intuition" because neither
"Intellection" nor "intuition" exist to grab anything. Only the intellector or the
intuitor" exists in the person of the human holism. Intellectionising and
intuiting are simply different existential cognitive modalities of the same
cognising entity â€" the human holism. The retrieval system of the holism has an
easier time transacting vivid and fresh memories in cognitive appraisal and
decision-making. When dealing with more fragmentary, hazy, less distinct stored
data, the holism feels that a certain evaluation is correct, but is incapable
of being able to clearly identify either the precise origination of the
disparate memory data, or resolve it into a definite clear idea. Hence the vague
feeling that: "There is something not quite right about this fellow â€" he
doesn't ring true," or: "I reckon we would be better getting the bus right now,
rather than waiting for the next one."
The precise memories of why a man who displayed similar behavioural
characteristics to the one being assessed turned out to be untrustworthy, and the
unpleasant details of a similar event or events in the past, when an available
bus was ignored in favour of a later one have been forgotten - but the
lesson was learned and remains in a degraded memory format
Cheers,
Jud
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I see. You think you are a fancy computer of some sort. Amazing. OK, If all
you are is an assemblage of parts, and there is no "entity" who HAS those
parts (sounds a lot like Buddhism so far) then you are your functions. In other
words, if intellection or computation is occurring, then you ARE intellection
and computation. You are not a being that HAS functions, you ARE those
functions.
Jud:
If I describe a human being as a thinking entity that does not mean that the
thinking is automatically reified into a separate “property” of the thinker
– it simply means that the entity exists in a modality of thinking. If I
describe a human being as a dancer, that does not mean that the dancer's
activity of dancing is reified into a "property" of dancing "belonging" to the
dancer. You visit the ballet to see the ballet dancers not the dancing, for there
is no "dancing" – it doesn’t exist – you go to see the dancers existing in
a multitude of stylised steps and bodily movements, and this human modality
we call "dancing."
Of course this natural mapping drags a putative existential duality in its
wake, for the process of mapping "The apple is red" presupposes that being red
is in some way different to "just being an apple." and raises the ridiculous
absurdity that somewhere [perhaps in some propertyless Platonic Heaven?]
there exists some notional "apple" which is colourless, hanging around on some
propertyless tree in some propertyless Platonic realm awaiting the time when
some helpful human being overflowing with "properties comes along and dubs
it "red" or "green," or "ripe" or "rotten." The way the sentence is framed
"calls up" a spurious duality or object and property which does not actually
exist, other than in the minds of the human classificational utterer of the
words.
Mark:
Jud, you are trying to have it both ways. You want to say that you are an
entity that computes but that computation doesn't exist.
Jud:
It’s true - like all human beings I compute, and I am the existing computer
computing my computations - “computing" doesn’t exist.
Mark:
You want to say you are not an entity (aggregate of attributes or parts)
and that computation DOES exist.
Jud:
No Mark – I have never said that I am not an entity. I have raised
mereological questions on the list – but nobody has ever responded.
Mark:
It doesn't matter if you call it a cognitive modality or not. How can you
have an intellector without intellection? It is easier to have intellection
without an intellector than it is to have an intellector without intellection.
Now I feel overwhelmed by that "oceanic feeling" Freud denied until he died
Jud:
Allow me to throw you a lifebelt. ;-)
Intellection is simply an abstract WORD that we use to describe the
existential modality of a human being when he or she is thinking. When I am moving
the top knuckle-joint of my thumb I am in the existential modality of moving
the top knuckle-joint of my thumb.
Are you therefore claiming that there exists a: “Moving the top
knuckle-joint of thumbness?” Plainly: “Moving the top knuckle-joint of thumbness?” doesn
’t exist only the existential Jud Evans exists as he: “Moves the top
knuckle-joint of his thumb.”
Jud.
--- In [email protected]_
(mailto:heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) , _gevans613@a_ (mailto:gevans613@a) ... wrote: Mark Writes:
The body/brain is a mechanism.
Jud: Yes, The bodybrain or human holism is a biological machine.
Mark;
How does intellection grasp intuition? One intuits the sense of 2+24. The
explanation of it is the intellectual process of moving from one thought to the
next. Thought depends on intuition; not the other way around. If you start
with fragmentation, it will be difficult to attain to unity; much like
Descartes who wanted to be sure about something so he started with doubt.
Jud:
Hi Mark: "Intellection" doesn't grasp "intuition" because neither
"Intellection" nor "intuition" exist to grab anything. Only the intellector or the
intuitor" exists in the person of the human holism. Intellectionising and
intuiting are simply different existential cognitive modalities of the same
cognising entity â€" the human holism. The retrieval system of the holism has an
easier time transacting vivid and fresh memories in cognitive appraisal and
decision-making. When dealing with more fragmentary, hazy, less distinct stored
data, the holism feels that a certain evaluation is correct, but is incapable
of being able to clearly identify either the precise origination of the
disparate memory data, or resolve it into a definite clear idea. Hence the vague
feeling that: "There is something not quite right about this fellow â€" he
doesn't ring true," or: "I reckon we would be better getting the bus right now,
rather than waiting for the next one."
The precise memories of why a man who displayed similar behavioural
characteristics to the one being assessed turned out to be untrustworthy, and the
unpleasant details of a similar event or events in the past, when an available
bus was ignored in favour of a later one have been forgotten - but the
lesson was learned and remains in a degraded memory format
Cheers,
Jud
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---