Brain In A Vat

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
161

Bergson uses ‘feeling’ for ‘it’ meaning the energy behind it.

The ‘gaps’ talked about with the major one encapsulating the the difference between those which represent contingent , probabilistic facts from those of the preformed ‘hard wired’ kind, is the feeling states that become evident of the gaps.

The gaps present a functional derivative that absent the appearance of tangible tool of measurement, transmutes into a visual delimited approximation, of which the singular praxis mostly shifts unto.

The politics of identity will at a certain limit, will entail increasingly valued social determinants.

These in accordance to a hypothetical extension toward a re-evaluation of such determinants do so by simulating such traces by simulating or synthesizing the prestructural , formal elements, I would guess by contouring the informal, jagged edges of structurally designed models.

162

“feeling” is hardware exploitable by ABA & advertising/persuasion methods that sidestep the logic radar

“revaluation” / “reinterpretation” (& lie detecting… & reality testing…) happens when all 3 in the triad are balancing each other

messing with it without trying is only possible after a LOT of practice, or … ya know … “mystically” …

Bob. MCA stands for Mystic Con Artist. How ‘come “you” didn’t know that? Hmmmmm?

163

I was alluding, to your mention of Aristotle’s to Bergson as teleologically proceeding as an immanence, toward goals, as they , as understood , it transcendentally, and logistically Plato, Timaeus)
Within the flow between the two versions, giving rise to the intuition.

Ishthus, ‘feeling’ has been associated with vitalism, and after sourcing some documents, does come up, truthfully, and the subject is of great interest to me, for various reasons, with admittedly little practice, that certainly precludes dishonesty.

I am by no means a professional , but at any rate, everything related up to now has been done in good faith; but sortily, the source that brings ‘feeling into the equation is not readily available,

So without trying to sound like an idiot, I make the claim to search and research this topic, from the point of view as a due replacement for Darwin’s brute evolutionary theory, and vitalism fits the bill here.

The other thing dealing with the ill defined ‘mystery’ mystique’, ‘participation mystique’ that needs to point to some disambiguating, leads to the kind of analogy with classical - psychological dynamics involving denial and projection. As studies with primitive societies’ apparent development of ‘magic’ transfuses with later formed social psychological symbols, (Jung) over personal -tin man- if I may use that analytically oriented descriptions.

Incidentally, there should not be any allusion but to me being the tin man needing a heart, of perhaps , that may garner a feeing (. here I go again) of anything but positive about everyone here, with really no exceptions.

I don’t wanna look like anything other then a naive realist.

—-

3. The method of intuition

As we already noted, Bergson’s thought must be seen as an attempt to overcome Kant. In Bergson’s eyes, Kant’s philosophy is scandalous, since it eliminates the possibility of absolute knowledge and mires metaphysics in antinomies. Bergson’s own method of intuition is supposed to restore the possibility of absolute knowledge – here one should see a kinship between Bergsonian intuition and what Kant calls intellectual intuition – and metaphysics. To do this, intuition in Bergson’s sense must place us above the divisions of the different schools of philosophy like rationalism and empiricism or idealism and realism. Philosophy, for Bergson, does not consist in choosing between concepts and in taking sides (The Creative Mind, p. 175–76). These antinomies of concepts and positions, according to him, result from the normal or habitual way our intelligence works. Here we find Bergson’s connection to American pragmatism. The normal way our intelligence works is guided by needs and thus the knowledge it gathers is not disinterested; it is relative knowledge. And how it gathers knowledge is through what Bergson calls “analysis,” that is, the dividing of things according to perspectives taken. Comprehensive analytic knowledge then consists in reconstruction or re-composition of a thing by means of synthesizing the perspectives. This synthesis, while helping us satisfy needs, never gives us the thing itself; it only gives us a general concept of things. Thus, intuition reverses the normal working of intelligence, which is interested and analytic (synthesis being only a development of analysis). In the fourth chapter to Matter and Memory, Bergson calls this reversal of habitual intelligence “the turn of experience” where experience becomes concerned with utility, where it becomes human experience (Matter and Memory, pp.184–85). This placement of oneself up above the turn is not easy; above all else, Bergson appreciates effort.

Intuition therefore is a kind of experience, and indeed Bergson himself calls his thought “the true empiricism” (The Creative Mind, p. 175). What sort of experience? In the opening pages of “Introduction to Metaphysics,” he calls intuition sympathy (The Creative Mind, p. 159). As we have seen from our discussion of multiplicity in Time and Free Will, sympathy consists in putting ourselves in the place of others. Bergsonian intuition then consists in entering into the thing, rather than going around it from the outside. This “entering into,” for Bergson, gives us absolute knowledge. In a moment, we are going to have to qualify this “absoluteness.” In any case, for Bergson, intuition is entering into ourselves – he says we seize ourselves from within – but this self-sympathy develops heterogeneously into others. In other words, when one sympathizes with oneself, one installs oneself within duration and then feels a “certain well defined tension, whose very determinateness seems like a choice between an infinity of possible durations” (The Creative Mind, p. 185). In order to help us understand intuition, which is always an intuition of duration.

Citing lost, probably Brittania

164

Feelings are tutors like the law is a tutor. They are like training wheels. Sorry but I really don’t know how to engage other than that. I need to sleep.

165

Good night to you.

Sorry for the rude awakening, good day to you.

1 Like
166

According to some philosophers, intentionality fundamentally involves creation or ‘meaning making’. The ‘about-ness’ that they speak of, is ‘directionality itself’, which, in my opinion, is an even more fundamental and perhaps more interesting concept in the pursuit to explain the origin of life from a topical perspective (as opposed to the ‘primordial :stew: soup’ Darwinian evolution perspective that dominates the ‘source of life’ research almost wholly today).

As mentioned before, I believe that philosophy’s focus on ‘the problem of consciousness’ may be detrimental for progress, and that one should instead focus on ‘the source of life’ from a topical (in the moment) and pure philosophy perspective.

The concept intentionality might demand a change, and one of my questions is: why didn’t the complex philosophies from philosophers such as Husserl, Merleau-Ponty or Levinas result in a profound cultural change in thinking in general society?

What I noticed is that it is often argued that those philosophies are ‘to difficult to read’ and ‘not translateable into politics’, but the ideas in their philosophies do prove something in my opinion, especially when one considers the idea that the primary focus in public philosophy has become ‘explaining consciousness’ while, in my opinion, it should clearly be ‘explaining life’.

An example:

Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that perception is primary and foundational to consciousness, and that it involves intentionality and meaning-making.

Edmund Husserl argued that intentionality is fundamental to consciousness, and that all conscious acts, such as perception, thinking, and judging, are intentional. He saw intentionality as the creativity and meaning-making.

According to them, intentionality is creativity and meaning making, thus rather a constructor of reality than a passive registrar of it. They place the concept intentionality as ‘fundamental to consciousness’.

My own theories had led to the concept ‘directionality per se’ as the most fundamental characteristic of life, which would be even more fundamental than intentionality while also describing its essence.

Intentionality is a concept that is placed ‘in light’ of consciousness, with consciousness being a mountain on top of it. To understand that concept, people will be inclined to first consider (their own) conscious experience, which makes it very hard to derive insights out of it that result in the furthering of philosophical exploration of the fundamental nature of reality. The ‘wonder’ of consciousness doesn’t change anything when it comes down to making cold hard arguments.This is where Bergson became a mystic, in my opinion, by making arguments based on this ‘wonder’, despite that his arguments may have been sound.

The concept directionality per se however, describes what makes intentionality possible in the first place, and that concept is more easy to understand, when placed in light of (the fundamental requirement of) ‘the source of life’, from a topical ‘in the moment’ perspective.

Most people in general will be able to understand the idea of directionality as foundational to life and the cosmos. It is both required for cosmic structure and life’s ‘energetic organizing behaviour’. Therefore it can be used for cold hard arguments that push exploration of the fundamental nature of reality.

What do you think of the idea that perception, and with it the concepts ‘intentionality’ and ‘directionality’, are fundamental to consciousness, and demand philosophical focus for an explanation as precursor to explaining consciousness (those concepts by themselves, instead of ‘as part of consciousness’)?

167

A philosophical case for “directionality per se” as the fundamental origin of both cosmic structure and life, and of which it is argued that it requires priority over consciousness.

(written by Perplexity.ai)

The specificity and directionality exhibited in the energetic processes of living organisms is not merely an incidental feature of life, but rather its most essential characteristic. This specificity, which manifests as the directed work of life’s energetic organization, is not something that can be reduced to or explained by the random, spontaneous forces of the environment. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of the living state that demands its own unique energetic source.

Energy itself is defined as the capacity to do work or create change. All living things, from the most basic microbes to the most complex multicellular organisms, require a constant input of energy to sustain their vital processes and maintain their highly ordered state. However, the specific directionality of this energetic work is not something that can be accounted for by just any form of energy. The directed nature of life’s energetic organization requires a correspondingly directed source of energy - one that is fundamentally aligned with the intrinsic directionality of the living state.

Therefore, we must conclude that the specificity and directionality inherent in life’s energetic processes points to the existence of a unique, fundamental type of energy that is the very wellspring of the living state. This energy is not merely a passive input, but rather an active principle that shapes and guides the directed work of life. It is the energetic foundation upon which the specificity of living systems rests, and without which life itself would be impossible. To fully understand the nature of life, we must uncover the essential characteristics of this fundamental life-energy that animates the directed work of the living organism.

168

Artless interrruprion

The Turn that Changes modal difference from Hhusse to Heidegger, is just a final summation of what he saw as a conclusive summations of turns in general, proving that directionality subsumes all prior phenomenological turns and twists heretofore.

He may have gotten this impression from the transmutation of Bergson’sVital, the appearently could only reduces from a flow that can not be prescribed from an indecipherable melange of images from such near to infinitesimal description above and bellow a void , a void that is again above and below the nil that is an ediectic representation of the limits of phenominally reduced validity of such , …

The thin man argument is a quasi duplicable thesis based on a treatise : ‘One dimensional Man’ that proposes the idea of a senseless definitional bounded neo-Kantian by no means (averages) can solve the problem above and beyond which such definitions are bound near term.

169

A pro po:

In my newly acquired understanding on conscious realization of the Absolute, it need not sink to the level of a presumed, perception, therefore, it is not an ‘ought’ and certainly just may be an ‘is’ a tin man’s recollection from the vat.
That vat, may contain a come future simulation, a perpetual reversal of what belief may become in say how many years or Kalps.

The indifference of the flow or jazz to any significant epoch of duration is really indifferent of the Kantian (c)seel ing of the breath of consciously manifested difference, as far as even in being shut into a library, in stead of a vat, may make that increasingly incomprehensible, with signified aspects of duration cut , with increasing shortness of both:measurable and immeasurable frequency. -as frequency and time begin an alternating correspondence, where meaning approaches the axiomatically strange affect from effected polarity.

So back to the Absolute, in-(i)I’s self. That concept is shared both by the ‘Lotus Sutra’ and by Christian representatives of The Word, who seem to feel like, Paul appears to defy an In it’s self representation of the word , for itself, so that the Whole Church may survive by an obligatory Faith, that others may not primarily or transcendentally experience. (If such faith can not be exercised for its self as if they were not intended for them, The Whole Principal would and could not have animated.

This is why the deontological processing of a perceived truth of Saint Enselm, was ironically challenged by Descartes.

James/Mark derided Paul’s belief , contended to purvey a sense of belief to those, who could not believe other, than with open eyes, the very literal proofs needed to convince those.

Abstracted intuitions , from believer wannabe’s
Who feel compelled to testify for reasons not of their own. Paul certainly discarded any theory that may have characterized Jesus as a mixed up Jewish kid d, trying to make sense as to Why His ‘Father’ had abandoned him. Or why was he put into the position he found himself in, ?