Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 180
Philosophy & Science / Re: Secrets of Math From the Bee Whisperer
« on: January 22, 2020, 08:54:33 pm »
IIRC, wasn't it shown that ants navigate by math?  That is, they may take a meandering path from point A to B, but they can take the straight-line path back from B to A because they mathematically "know" how many steps they've taken and so the actual distance covered away from the origin point.

The first one is certainly an experience that resonates for me, even more so the older I get.
Is it an appeal to something like Socrates' notion of "recollection" or the Platonic notion of innate ideas?

But, of course, my twisted mind can bring this to something like Hegel's notion of retroactivity, and perhaps something also about "over-determination."

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: January 15, 2020, 12:51:01 pm »
Thus, one could say that up until Kant, one of the principal problems of philosophy was to think substance, while ever since Kant, it has consisted in trying to think the correlation. Prior to the advent of transcendentalism, one of the questions that divided rival philosophers most decisively was ‘Who grasps the true nature of substance? He who thinks the Idea, the individual, the atom, God? Which God?’ But ever since Kant, to discover what divides rival philosophers is no longer to ask who has grasped the true nature of substantiality, but rather to ask who has grasped the more originary correlation: is it the thinker of the subject-object correlation, the noetico-noematic correlation, or the language-referent correlation? The question is no longer ‘which is the proper substrate?’ but ‘which is the proper correlate?’
-Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: January 14, 2020, 03:26:37 pm »
A lot of details have to be worked out, like is it an infantile consciousness that arrives and we have to wait for it to grow up, learn language, does disabling forgetfulness drive it insane, etc. But I think it could be suspenseful story building up to "summoning" a consciousness that will remember where it came from. So if my story is "true", what's showing up would be a soul.

Very Hegelian, I like it.  I love Hegel's line from The Phenomenology, "Wir sehen hiermit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." (So, again, we see language as the Dasein [being-there] of Spirit.)

Yet one cannot maintain that the sensible is injected by me into things like some sort of perpetual and arbitrary hallucination. For there is indeed a constant link between real things and their sensations: if there were no thing capable of giving rise to the sensation of redness, there would be no perception of a red thing; if there were no real fire, there would be no
sensation of burning. But it makes no sense to say that the redness or the heat can exist as qualities just as well without me as with me: without the perception of redness, there is no red thing; without the sensation of heat, there is no heat. Whether it be affective or perceptual, the sensible only exists as a relation: a relation between the world and the living creature I am. In actuality, the sensible is neither simply ‘in me’ in the manner of a dream, nor simply ‘in the thing’ in the manner of an intrinsic property: it is the very relation between the thing and I. These sensible qualities, which are not in the things themselves but in my subjective relation to the latter – these qualities correspond to what were traditionally called secondary qualities.

-Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude

For Sci (just being a QM quote) and Wilshire (a quote about things in themselves).  Mostly though, a quote for me, that someone actually intelligent spells out my vague notion about a relationality.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: January 13, 2020, 01:05:31 pm »
Not sure if anyone was/is watching the Netflix show Messiah, but it was fairly interesting.

I think you can see it in a sort of Kellhus-ian way too.  Show is kind of alternatively well-done and kind of not, but overall I think it's worth a watch.

Anything can be explained away, but does learning have to denote consciousness?

I'd definitely say "no" to that.  You can have something like a RNN "learn" but the neural network is, seemingly, not at all what I could call conscious at all.  In fact, it doesn't even have a mind, in any way I could think to define it.

General Earwa / Re: On the Nature of the No-God
« on: January 08, 2020, 01:12:53 pm »
Nice! I had posited something similar among the Westerosi, that the bleakest but arguably most interesting ending would be the shearing of souls from bodies. So everyone on Earwa, due to Physicalist Closure or at least Closure from the Outside, thinks they are saved from damnation even as their actual souls are being tormented forever in Hell.

Well, in one way, they are "saved" if it is the case that "language is the Dasein of Spirit" and the Outside is a constitutive intersubjective "plane" of that Spirit, then an enforced materialism might well "remove" the Soul.  Does the Outside exist as an "in-itself" whereby it would "exist" if not as an inter-subjective "for-themselves?"

I'd think Bakker's answer might be a no, if we take the line of thinking that the Outside, Spirit, Soul, are sort of "derivative" of the illusory nature of the experience of consciousness.  However, on the same account, it could just be that despite an enforcing of a normative materialism by some mechanism, that the heuristic nature of consciousness would give rise to Spirit no matter what.  Perhaps this sort of thing is what Bakker is weighing for and against in the next series.

General Earwa / Re: On the Nature of the No-God
« on: January 07, 2020, 09:37:37 pm »
So, sort of a non-sequitur, but rather than make a whole new thread, I decided to dredge up a dead one.

So, I had a conversation with FB a while back and an idea came to me.

Mind you, I am mostly just going to vomit this out there, before I forget it again.

So, we have the idea, from the Mutilated, the somehow the No-God needs a "code" taken from the death of people.  We also have, from Bakker, extra-textually, the notion of the No-God as a p-zombie.  Last, we have a notion, that the closure of the world, is the "death of meaning" again from Bakker extra-textually.

So, what if the purpose of the No-God, is, essentially, something like what we would call an AI, who's "job" it is to "solve" the question of neural-correlates (the Code) then "overwrite" that Code with one that enforces a Materialist (that is, Physicalist, or Nihist, if you like) paradigm, where matter is nothing but material and there isn't anything else, nothing has "eternal" significance or meaning in reality.

The thing being, that the Cubit, or the notion of an Absolute (or a One, "big Other," God, or gods) means that the notion of Spirit (that is, Soul) is implicit in Earwan consciousness (not Mind, but specifically consciousness, as in, self-consciousness).  Note, that Bakker "forumulates" Earwa's working as a sort of mind in-itself, so, not only is the No-God working on the individual's neural correlates, it is working on extrapolating that outward, onto the survivors, as a "new" Code.

That is why there is a threshold that the population needs to be reduced to.  Because, the results can only be extrapolated so far.  The machine only so much "memory" to work with, enforcing a new Universal can only "deal" with so many Particulars.

So, in this sense, the Inchoroi, the Ark, and the No-God are Materialist "angels" or sort.  The No-God takes the place of God, as the "big Other," as a way to enforce an Absolute, but that being, of course, an Absolute Materialism.

Mostly this is some stream of consciousness nonsense, but maybe someone salvages something from it.

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: January 03, 2020, 05:27:23 pm »
The history of the world is not the theatre of happiness.  Periods of happiness are blank pages; for they are periods of harmony, periods of the missing opposition.

G.W.F. Hegel - Lectures on the Philosophy of History

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: January 02, 2020, 12:53:54 pm »
Consolidating - rating 2 movies that under-performed:

Ad Astra: has a 6.7 IMDB rating and deserves it. I watched it last night on a friend's recommendation ... wtf. Good story, should've been more exciting. Boring as fuck for a fascinating topic and theme. Stupid cheapo thrill stuff added for no fucking reason ( like getting attacked by "raiders" on the Moon - you're the US fucking military, you can't have it both ways with a Mad Max meets the military scenario - whatever ). Has a few moments, I guess - the theme/message/story all was sound, just dumb directing.

Yeah, we watched this as well.  The set up was pretty good, but then it all failed to develop into, really, well, much of anything.

We just watched Parasite.  Neat movie.  I think it would be awful dubbed, but I also just don't like dubbing.  It was good, although I think there was some cultural idiom we were of course missing.  Still, I'd recommend it if you don't mind subtitles.

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: December 31, 2019, 04:52:22 pm »
Such a notion of Absolute Knowing is grounded already in Hegel's definition of Self-Consciousness, in the passage from Consciousness to Self-Consciousness (in the Phenomenology). Consciousness first experiences a failure to grasp the In-itself: the In-itself repeatedly eludes the subject, all content supposed to pertain to the In-itself reveals itself as having been put there by the subject itself, so that the subject becomes increasingly caught up in the web of its own phantasmagorias. The subject passes from the attitude of Consciousness to that of Self-Consciousness when it reflexively assumes this failure as a positive result, inverting the problem into its own solution: the subject's world is the result of its own "positing.'
Slavoj Žižek - Less Than Nothing

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: December 30, 2019, 07:37:55 pm »
Sounds about right, well said. It seems just when Hollywood has learned something, like pay the fucking writers, it slips back into it's old bad habits analyzing art from a business perspective ( this movie was a smash hit, what made it so, solicit feedback from viewers - can the "special sauce", serve it in another movie - like putting beer in every dish since it worked in this one soup that everyone loves ). I wonder if this stems from a shortage of competence to meet demand, people out of their depth rising in the ranks to fill vacancies.

I think it's somewhat cyclical, but still comes down to economics.  Thing is, even most writers buy into the "culture industry" model, since they are (generally) less "artist" and more writer.  So, they'll tend to write what "sells."  The industry also seems to have periods of risk-taking and risk-aversion.  Or, at least, seem to try to "balance" there far toward the "averse" portion, which makes financial sense, but doesn't really deliver the "best quality" art, in all likelihood.

But, considering the teleology, the aim is the make money, not really to make great film/shows necessarily.  That might well be someone (the director, a writer) but it's not the industry's aim as a whole.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: December 30, 2019, 06:29:02 pm »
Well, they're devolving into mass market crappy tv, that's too bad as there's some rich conversation to be had between religion and atheistic science.
Sounds like typical "culture industry" sort of stuff.  Just like GoT devolved into as well.

From SEP on Adorno:
There Adorno argues that the culture industry involves a change in the commodity character of art, such that art's commodity character is deliberately acknowledged and art “abjures its autonomy” (DE 127). With its emphasis on marketability, the culture industry dispenses entirely with the “purposelessness” that was central to art's autonomy. Once marketability becomes a total demand, the internal economic structure of cultural commodities shifts. Instead of promising freedom from societally dictated uses, and thereby having a genuine use value that people can enjoy, products mediated by the culture industry have their use value replaced by exchange value: “Everything has value only in so far as it can be exchanged, not in so far as it is something in itself. For consumers the use value of art, its essence, is a fetish, and the fetish—the social valuation [gesellschaftliche Schätzung] which they mistake for the merit [Rang] of works of art— becomes its only use value, the only quality they enjoy” (DE 128). Hence the culture industry dissolves the “genuine commodity character” that artworks once possessed when exchange value still presupposed use value (DE 129–30).

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: December 30, 2019, 04:01:56 pm »
So we're better off without it ( will )? We have more options if we don't willfully act? I get it, but what now? Since I'm typing this, I limited myself against all other possible action - clever, but how is this useful?

I don't think we are better or worse off with or without "will" though.  I don't think is the point at all.

As his example of marriage proposes, the notion that the will should "dispose" of the injunction "thou shall not" is, in his estimation, nonsense.  Why?  Because the very limitation of "I shall X" is a implicit "I shall not A, B, C, D, E, F" (and so on).

So, this "will-worship" that he talks about is really a misapplication of some "positive" notional "freedom" that doesn't really exist.  Not in the sense that whose who used it seem to want it to be.  You can't get rid of the "shall not" any more than you can do everything at once.

So, what he seems to be to be advocating is to embrace limit (and the implicit sacrifice it entails) and not be injective against limitation.  I'd also note, that personally, I'd think this should not be taken as being against the notion of transcending limitation.  Rather, it's more about taking account of the constitutive role of limitation in creativity (i.e. a notional freedom).

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: December 30, 2019, 01:20:03 pm »
This one appears incomplete. I enjoyed where it was going, but not sure what the conclusion/insight is - or is it simply to judge the will-worshippers as misguided? Where/how should we guide instead? It's one thing to illuminate logical fallacy with a position/point of view, but what supersedes the fallacy? Or is what Chesteron is saying that Free Will is no more limiting than everything else and not worthy of special focus?

Well, the main thrust, to me, was this part: "Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice."

That was the part that Žižek quoted which made me go and look up the source.  I think Chesterton's point is that, in a sort of Hegelian way, the "will" is not "positivity" in-itself, rather, the will is the (negative) discriminatory, limiting factor.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 180