philosophical view on consciousness.

maxx

one last time, i am not going to listen to your circle reasoning. All through my post you yell for proof. I said it is not about proof but idealism. I could ask you the same thing. If there is no self then prove it; but no You will yell and holler that it is up to me to prove my assertions; not actually understanding that the debate goes both way. .there is also another debater on here called may who seems to think that we do have a self, yet do you ask him to prove it? no!  but you keep yapping at me. My basic premises is what most people consider is the self, our thoughts and ideas and memories are not the actual self. I claim that reductionism is; that is the idea that the brain operating without thoughts is the self. I have given several reasons and plenty of analogies as to my reasoning; yet you just keep yelling for proof. Why should i bother to keep explaining? how about you since you do not agree that the brain operating alone with out thoughts, is not the self? I doubt if you will not even attempt to do so. @Dee

Dee

Maxx as usual flies into yet another rage simply because he refuses to accept people hold different views.

Maxx now resorts to his other.favourite tactic his god defence  " prove there isn't a god / self:"

BTW I'm not hollering or yelling at you stop being so childish.




I told you possibly 40 times I don't believe in a "self:" and here you go asking me what I think the self is.

 1 You've claimed the self is soup without the bowl

2,An  empty page

3,, An.observer

4, An  idealist view

5 , A reductionist view ,

6 A brain operating without thoughts 

7 Admitted you didn't know what self was 

8 Admitted it cant be located anywhere 

BTW you don't even know what reductionism.or Idealisn is it seems.

Reductionism is covered below Maxx you really are either ignorant of reductionism or bluffing

Let's take you back to my original.piece which as usual you totally ignored , its the views put forward by David Hume that I fully agree with .....

" nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement […]  The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.”

 

What Hume is getting at here is that how we ordinarily conceive of our minds when we are called upon to describe what goes on in them is quite different from how we actually experience them. Hume’s conception of mind implies a conception of the self which is either thin or non-existent. Sometimes this is called a ‘Reductionist’ theory of ourselves; that we are not, fundamentally, anything more than a flux or (at best) a system of various different things. We are no one thing, fundamentally.

For someone who.claims he only wants a " friendly conversation " that possibly is the single most dishonest thing you've said so far as you're constantly in a rage it seems.

maxx

you know what, you and your insults go hand-in=hand. both are stu-pid. Do not tell me what i do or do not know. go f off you little piece of hog testicle. stay off my debates from now on stalker. 

Dee

@maxx

***you know what, you and your insults go hand-in=hand. both are stu-pid.***

There you go right on cue you fly into a rage at being questioned,not one insult did I issue


 ***Do not tell me what i do or do not know.***

You should thank me I've given you a quick tutorial on Reductionism.

*** go f off you little piece of hog testicle. stay off my debates from now on stalker. ***

Wow! They allow you teach kids martial arts and yet you're constantly in a rage, I know you said you have several tough jobs and a tough time making rent etc,etc but flying into rages when being asked a simple question demonstrates you're clearly on edge, do meditation or seek therapy Maxx before you totally burst with rage.

maxx

go ahead, tell me what reductionism is; also determinism . i am sure you will have to look it up though. You still don't get it do you?  "IF" there is a self like many believe, it is not our thoughts, ideas and memories and ideas that make it up. That is our personality. If there is a self, it is the basic fundamental operation of the brain, broken down to its core parts; reductionism. Now when i said i can not prove that; i mean it is not about science. You also have not show the flip side of the coin, even by simple analogies that we have no self. If you want to debate fine, then do so, but debate with the realiztion that a debate is a tow way road. You do not just ask questions, and tell the other person how wrong he is; you have to show WHY. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

go ahead, tell me what reductionism is;

Just did , but as usual you ignored or maybe it went straight over your head 


 also determinism . i am sure you will have to look it up though.

But I've explained determinism to you several times already , and I'd say ir a great pity you never looked it up. You were caught bluffing Maxx maybe do a tad of research before committing to print in future.

maxx

see? you completely failed to answer my questions. If there is no self, like many believe, then explain why. also  if you do not think that breaking the brain down to its basic parts is not reductionism; then explain as to why. Either debate properly or go earn your worthless points elsewhere.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

see? you completely failed to answer my questions.

It's hardly my fault you cannot understand Humes bundle the9ry it's simple enough but then again....

 If there is no self, like many believe, then explain why.

Just did using David Hmes bundle theory , it's very simply explained yet its totally over your head isn't it?

 also if you do not think that breaking the brain down to its basic parts is not reductionism; then explain as to why.

I never denied that, I pointed out you didn't understand it and proved it , what do you think Hume does in his bundle theory?

No doubt you possibly think he's talking about his mother in laws cat

 Either debate properly or go earn your worthless points elsewhere.  

There is no way to reason with your escalating insanity,  I just posted Humes theory on so called self which is reductionist  and you still struggle and haven't a clue what he's saying .....WOW!

maxx

really?  First you say there is no self, and now you agree with Hume?  Makes sense. You should read him more carefully. He is saying that our self is based upon perceptions, not our thoughts. Yet there is no way to have such perceptions, dee unless our brain is capable of receiving them, and that part of the brain is the self. @Dee

Dee

really? First you say there is no self, and now you agree with Hume?

Yes and Hume agrees with me.

 Makes sense.

To intelligent people yes.

 
You should read him more carefully.

 I did and understood him perfectly , you never heard of him and then totally ignored what he was saying and still cannot understand what he's saying but again that's understandable as it's you.


Hume  is saying that our self is based upon perceptions, not our thoughts.Hume’s conception of mind implies a conception of the self which is either thin or non-existent. Sometimes this is called a ‘Reductionist’ theory of ourselves; that we are not, fundamentally, anything more than a flux or (at best) a system of various different things. We are no one thing, fundamentally.


Yet there is no way to have such perceptions, dee unless our brain is capable of receiving them,

Well done Maxx yes we know that brains have thoughts 


 and that part of the brain is the sell

Right got ya the part of the brain that has thoughts is now the self , last week you said you couldn't locate it now the brainis the self , so what part of the brain is the self Maxx?

 @maxx

maxx

you know, if you really want science on this "philosophical debate, have at it. of course, i doubt you will understand, or you will simply grab a few words out of it and ignore the rest. Is Our Self Related to Personality? A Neuropsychodynamic Model - PMC (nih.gov)  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


MAXX DISPLAYING HIS USUAL DISHONESTY WHEN ASKED WHERE IS THE SELF LOCATED IN THE BRAIN HIS RESPONSE WAS ......

maxx 1079 Pts   -  October 12 edited October 12

Where? I don't know. Its just the brain running.  Its just the brain operating.

YET  HE CLAIMS A PART OF THE BRAIN IS THE SELF , NOW ITS THE PART THAT RECIEVES PERCEPTIONS  SO MAXX DOESNT KNOW BUT THATS THE NEOCOTEX  WHERE THE ACTUAL SELF IS ......MAYBE MAXX WILL GET A NOBLE PRIZE OR TWO......

Maxx states clearly .....Yet there is no way to have such perceptions, dee unless our brain is capable of receiving them and that part of the brain is the self

Right got ya the part of the brain that has thoughts is now the self , last week you said you couldn't locate it now the brainis the self , so what part of the brain is the self Maxx?

Maxxs reply was ....
you know, if you really want science on this "philosophical debate, have at it. of course, i doubt you will understand, or you will simply grab a few words out of it and ignore the rest. Is Our Self Related to Personality? A Neuropsychodynamic Model - PMC (nih.gov) @Dee

Says it all really Maxx claimed that the self cannot be located in the brain now it can but he doesn't know where ......you gotta laugh.

maxx

so you failed to read it all. fine by me. typical. done with you. you are back talking in circles.  At least try to read it; at least the conclusion. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

maxx 1079 Pts   -  October 12 edited October 12

Where? I don't know. Its just the brain running.  Its just the brain operating.

ITS FINE MAXX YOU DONT KNOW WHAT PART OF THE BRAIN RECIEVES PERCEPTIONS ITS THE NEOCORTEX WHICH IS WHERE YOU SAID THE SELF IS , WELL DONE BUDDY I WILL GET HUME TO APOLOGISE FOR HIS ERROR.

maxx

did you not read the second part of that sentence??? I said it is just the brain running. as well our perceptions to the brain is not our self. That is just imprinting external stimuli. our thoughts are mere objects on the brain. What the hell are you even trying to debate about? you said there is no self; although you will not say why, you will not read that link; even humes suggest that the core part of our self is based upon neurology. Read a bit more on humes. Thoughts and perceptions are but impressions; our personality is developed by society as we grow; I told you many times if there is a self; it is just the activity of the brain; without regard to our thoughts. If you can not understand that, you are hopeless If you do understand that and do not agree, then show me why it is wrong. Good god learn to debate. How many times does someone have to tell you that debating is both ways. Tell me why the brain activity, its core features is not the self!! otherwise forget it. You also are not making much sense, you said there is no self, yet you agree with hume. Yet he agrees that there is a self. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Tell me why the brain activity, its core features is not the self!! otherwise forget it


I've told you several times now as did Humes famous piece on such what part do you still not understand , its not that difficult to grasp yet it leaves you totally confused.

You never even know who Hume was till I mentioned then you tried bluffing by saying you understood reductionism and you hadn't a clue still haven't. 

You actually keep calling Hume .....Humes , you're just a b-llshitter

Yesterday you said the " self " was unthinking and just an observer now it's thinking and according to you van be located in the part of the brain that perceives , watch now as you invent a new theory.

. You also are not making much sense, you said there is no self

Yes, makes sense to intelligent beings Maxx that kinda rules you out.


, yet you agree with hume.


Yes and he with me.

 Yet he agrees that there is a self.

Does he indeed please point out the part of his writings where he argues for a self? Tell me what you think Hume meant by ....

And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.

So Maxx your latest theory is Humes " no self theory " or "bundle theory" was actually Hume arguing for a self ?

Your imbecility is staggering in your world no matter what one says you believe the opposite , no doubt you will now fly into a rage and come up with some new crap to cover your ever growing pike of crap


Read again what Hume  said no doubt you will say he was arguing for the self so as to keep in line with your escalating lunacy. 



According to Hume, if we carefully examine the contents of our experience, we find that there are only two distinct entities, “impressions” and “ideas”:

IMPRESSIONS—Impressions are the basic sensations of our experience, the elemental data of our minds: pain, pleasure, heat, cold, happiness, grief, fear, exhilaration, and so on. These impressions are “lively” and “vivid.”

IDEAS—Ideas are copies of impressions, and as a result they are less “lively” and “vivid.” Ideas include thoughts and images that are built up from our primary impressions through a variety of relationships, but because they are derivative copies of impressions they are once removed from reality.

If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.


Maxx states Hume  agrees twith him that there is a self. That would come as a bit of a shock to David Hume as I'm sure he said ...........

Maybe Maxx will print up Humes revised theory which only Maxx seems aware of?

maxx

what you do not understand dee, is i am in more agreement with humes than you should be; for he argues that the self is not what we perceiveor our perceptions. Not our thoughts. He is disagreeing with the view that our ideas and memories are our self; exactly what i stated.  in other words he is in complete agreement with my views save for one thing; in which he never mentioned in any of his writings; and that is the core of the brain, the activities of the brain is the self. He does not mention that , so we have no way to know if he agrees with that part or not. The rest of his ideas correspond with my ideas on self. it does not exist without thoughts and memories. David Hume’s Concept of the Self - PHILO-notes (philonotes.com)  look and see for yourself.  he is saying exactly what i said in my opening statement except for one issue. he does not talk about the activity of the brain; in which that link  you failed to read; did so.  Do you like HUmes? perhaps you should read his essay titled concerning miracles. Or better yet mills work on free will. Of course i doubt if you can find either of the original works on line; save maybe the internet archive site may have it. Now here is what you do dee, combine what humes wrote and add to it that link i sent you earlier and you may understand. Or dee, if you would like some easier reading, i suggest the following 3 minute link which roughly corresponds to what i have been saying all along. Where and What Is the Self? | Psychology Today   @Dee ; @MayCaesar ;

Dee

@maxx

You said ....Hume agrees that there is a self

Show me where Hume stated this?

***what you do not understand dee, is i am in more agreement with humes than you should be;***

So you agree with Hume and me there is no self......OK ,and?

 ****for he argues that the self is not what we perceiveor our perceptions***

What is that piece of nonsense meant to mean?

.*** Not our thoughts. He is disagreeing with the view that our ideas and memories are our self; exactly what i stated. ***

So you agree there's no.self ,and?

*** in other words he is in complete agreement with my views save for one thing; ***

No he's  not you imbecile unless you're in agreeance there is no self.

*** which he never mentioned in any of his writings; and that is the core of the brain, the activities of the brain is the self.***

You said Hume.agrees that there is a self

Show me where he said this? 

He specifically mentioned the activity of the brain and said .....

" the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists." 

Seriously Maxx are you the victim of a brain injury / special needs or just genetic imbecility¿

He never mentioned because he didn't believe in a self you clown, he said there is no self yet you still rant ,rage, stalk and continue to argue that Hume saying there is no self means the opposite.

What part of Humes " there is no self," are you still struggling with?

***The rest of his ideas correspond with my ideas on self. it does not exist without thoughts and memories. David Hume’s Concept of the Self - PHILO-notes (philonotes.com)  look and see for yourself.  he is saying exactly what i said in my opening statement except for one issue. ***

Hume said "There is no self " what part of that do you not understand?

***he does not talk about the activity of the brain***

He actually does you clot.

; ****n which that link  you failed to read; did so. ***

Are you on drugs Maxx you're rambling

* **Do you like HUmes? ***

I don't know of "Humes: I only know Hume who said there no self.


***perhaps you should read his essay titled concerning miracles***

I did I'm a huge Hume fan you probably think that piece is about bee keeping going on your increasingly bizarre rants.

. ***Or better yet mills work on free will. ***

I know what Mills says on free will so your latest argument is on free will  and miracles I'm convinced you're mentally ill.

***Of course i doubt if you can find either of the original works on line; save maybe the internet archive site may have it***

We have a thing called books over here where we learned about philosophy a few years back.

. ***Now here is what you do dee, combine what humes wrote and add to it that link i sent you earlier and you may understand.***

Hume said there is no self so why would I nèed to add the theory of 3 individuals who agree with Hume and me?

*** Or dee, if you would like some easier reading, i suggest the following 3 minute link which roughly corresponds to what i have been saying all along***

Thanks for the " easier reading," no doubt designed for cabbages like you but I told you before I don't do pseudoscience.


It really is pretty hilarious you think Hume who said there is no self  actually means there is a self ,you do really think that right?

maxx

either you do not have very good reading skills or you did not read the link on humes and gave. I just do not think you are capable of understanding. Do you or did you read the part as to why he says there is no self? NOOOO. Until you can understand why he said that, forget it. He said there is no self because our thoughts are mere objects in our brains, that our impressions and external stimuli are just imprints on the brain; exactly what I said. Therefore he and i are in agreement up to that point. What i did was carry it further. I suggest you read both links agai and not pick out one sentence as you did; there is no self. you need to understand why he said that first. Both his link and my opening statement are in agreement. The second part of what i said about the self, is in the other link; the 3 minute read i sent. If you are not capable of understanding the links, then say so. Stop debating from that point. combine both links together and you will get what i am saying about the self. I am not going to listen you ramble on about nothing. You refuse to read the links, or understand them, and apply them to the debate. If you cant address those 2 links. then go get your points from barndolt.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Do you or did you read the part as to why he says there is no self? 

Why do you think i quoted Hume and his bundle theory as the startvof the debate you ridiculous troll?

Stop with the lies you clown , here is what you clearly stated........

You said Hume.agrees that there is a self

Show me where Hume said there is a self? You cannot because he clearly stated there is no self , seriously mate are you brain damaged ?

You read the man in his own words saying there is no self and you take that to mean he actually meant there is a self?

Here you go again you imbecile......

David Hume 

If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.

maxx

from this point on have fun talking to yourself. You are an id-iot. You are not even trying to debate. what you understand about humes could fit in a thimble.  bye  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


MAXX WHO NEVER HEARD OF HUME AND CALLS HIM  " humes"was caught being dishonest  again.


MAXX  said Hume.agrees that there is a self

Show me where Hume said there is a self? You cannot because he clearly stated there is no self.

You read the man in his own words saying there is no self and you take that to mean he actually meant there is a self?

Here you go again .....

David Hume 

If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.

Maxx says ......
 From this point on have fun talking to yourself. You are an id-iot. You are not even trying to debate. what you understand about humes could fit in a thimble.  bye 


Maxx who never heard of David Hume till I mentioned him actually stated Hume said" There is a self " when caught lying he claimed he (  Maxx) improved on Humes position and in fact corrected Hume. Maxx as usual flies into a rage and the irony is he calls me an id-ot for quoting Hume saying there is no self because Maxx believes Hume meant there is a self and when he said these words he didn't actually mean them as he didn't consider that Maxx said " the self is the soup not the bowl" ......

DAVID HUME .......WE can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.

John_C_87

As the chemically sedated or medication mind dream there is a passing of time which is unconsciousness, a relief of command of consciousness.

maxx

duh. I know what he said. and up to that point his view is hat i stated. I told you that i simply carried the idea farther. You know what? you are but a web debater. All your so called knowledge is based upon search and that is it. for instance; you typed in "there is no self" scrolled the list of options, found one you liked , copy and paste, and wow, suddenly dee is an expert on philosophy and humes. I have a coulpe of books wriitten in the oringinal genre and words of essays from various philosphers; humes, mill, Socrates, bacon, plato, hobbes and many more. I read them. I dont simply as you do, look up something on the web, take a bit  of the essay out of content with the rest of it and think you understand it. You are as bad as many Christians, who take a paragraph out of a book in the bible, and think it represent the whole book. You are nothing more than a internet debater; where you could not debate in real time, because you do not have the knowledge, nor would you have the ability to look it up. Now excuse me, for after talking with you, i feel an overwhelming need for a shower. disgusting.@Dee

Dee

@maxx

Ha ,Ha Maxx who still calls Hume ..."humes" is now pretending he's an expert on philosophy.

You  clearly stated Hume said there was a self and when corrected flew into your usual rage, so it's up to you now to quote the part where Hume said he actually meant there is a self when he said there wasn't a self....but we all know your were caught babbling your usual nonsense.

Whats even more hilarious is you claiming you've read all the major works on philosophy and better still that you've corrected and amended Humes theory.

You do realise you're quiet insane.