Can a hammer hammer itself? An eye see itself by its own? So, can you understand? But can you understand that you understand? If you can, that means there is something else other than than just your body. How could you understand that you understand? Would be like an scissors cutting itself.

File: 34 KB, 479x641, images (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:18:24 2020 No.16674423 [Reply] [Original]

Can a hammer hammer itself? An eye see itself by its own? So, can you understand? But can you understand that you understand? If you can, that means there is something else other than than just your body. How could you understand that you understand? Would be like an scissors cutting itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:37:28 2020 No.16674519 >>16674423 >can you understand that you understand? No.

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins Wed Oct 28 22:46:36 2020 No.16674571 >>16674519 IF THAT IS SO, IT IS INDICATIVE OF, EITHER: (I) LACK OF SOUL, WHICH ENTAILS THAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SELFCONSCIOUSNESS, OR (II) LETHARGIC SOUL.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:06:26 2020 No.16674674 >>16674571 Fuck off back to >>>/int/ papist scum

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:46:43 2020 No.16674852 >>16674571 You can't lack something that never existed as anything other than a mental sleight-of-hand in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:52:06 2020 No.16674870 >>16674852 why cant npcs unserstand induction?

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins Wed Oct 28 23:53:01 2020 No.16674876 File: 345 KB, 800x399, KENNY XXVII.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16674852 OK, SOULLESS FLESHVESSEL.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:56:33 2020 No.16674896 >>16674870 >>16674876 t. monkeys larping as deities

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:56:57 2020 No.16674903 It's impossible to understand that you understand, because you would need to be a higher being to be able to do so. >>16674571 >>16674876 Why does this trip always type in caps? This is some mega autism.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:06:04 2020 No.16674946

>>16674423
Yes, a hammer can hammer itself. Just turn the head of the hammer so that it faces the handle of the hammer, then make the wood flimsy.
An eye can see itself, too. This is concievable. Eyes can curve outwards. If so, an eye can curve inwards. If it curves inward to a great enough degree, it can see itself.

࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins Thu Oct 29 00:09:43 2020 No.16674964

>>16674903
>It's impossible to understand that you understand, because you would need to be a higher being to be able to do so.

NOT REALLY; DO NOT CONFLATE CONTAINER WITH CONTENT; THE SOUL IS ONE'S ENTITY; IT IS THE SOURCE OF ONE'S BEINGNESS, AND IT IS THE SEAT OF ONE'S CONSCIOUSNESS —NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH AWARENESS—; IT IS PRECISELY THE SOUL, WHICH IS CONSTITUTED BY DIVINE SUBSTANCE, THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT IS APPREHENDED BY THE SENSES, AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE MIND, AND FELT BY THE SPIRIT, AND TO DERIVE KNOWLEDGE FROM THIS COMPREHENSION.

THE FACT THAT THE SOUL IS CONSTITUTED BY DIVINE SUBSTANCE DOES NOT ENTAIL ONTIC DIVINITY AS SUCH, BUT IT DOES ENTAIL A RELATION OF SUPERIORITY, AND OF OPTIMALITY, TOWARDS THOSE WHO LACK A SOUL.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:11:13 2020 No.16674975 Can a man pull himself up? Before you say no, consider that he may have bootstraps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:11:20 2020 No.16674977 >>16674964 So, in short, the fact that we are aware suggests, if not logically concludes that we can understand that we understand? Why do you type in caps?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:13:36 2020 No.16674992

>>16674975
He's not pulling himself, he's pulling his straps, which in turn then pull up his foot. Note that it is not his entire being, but his foot. If a man were to truly pull himself up, it must be pulling his body with his body alone, no ropes or anything to aid him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:31:44 2020 No.16675096 >>16674977 He's a poop eater retard, that's why

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:34:23 2020 No.16675101 This is horrible logic, an understander can understand itself, the understander is not at all comparable to a hammer

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:35:20 2020 No.16675107 >>16674992 You can jump without bending your knees, watch https://youtu.be/caEK_W4uabA

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:36:59 2020 No.16675115 File: 17 KB, 321x303, 1347241780500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16675107

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:37:09 2020 No.16675118 >>16675101 This idea is used in Plato's Charmides and Meno. How can you know what you know and don't know if you do not know it? You can't have a science of not knowing science like you can not have a vision of what you aren't seeing.

࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins Thu Oct 29 00:39:59 2020 No.16675129

>>16675101

THAT WHICH STANDS UNDER DOES NOT, AND CANNOT, BY ITS OWN STANDING, STAND UNDER ITS OWN STANCE; SOMETHING BEYOND, AND, SIMULTANEOUSLY, WITHIN, AND AMIDST, IS NECESSARY TO GRASP THE WHOLE, AND GIVE IT SIGNIFICANCE, ORDER, AND PURPOSE —THAT THING IS CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH IS A FACTOR OF THE SOUL.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:41:14 2020 No.16675136 >>16675101 Listen to >>16675118, in the dialogue they do not come to a clear conclusion, and it is somewhat implied that we as humans can't really know what we know we know, et cetera.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:41:37 2020 No.16675137 >>16675118 You can tho; every now and then, overestimations, underestimations, unpredicted fluxes, missing populations, and so on, hint at us that there's something we're clearly missing, even though we don't know what it is

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:45:17 2020 No.16675152 >>16675137 You don't know WHAT it is you are missing though. You can have a vague idea you're missing something but you can't know precisely what it is without knowledge of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:50:19 2020 No.16675178 File: 229 KB, 1100x1100, RETKSHI__79474.1477934987.1100.1100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This hammer BTFOs philosophers!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:51:57 2020 No.16675182 >>16675152 Yes, true. But you'd have some information about the unknowns

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:56:17 2020 No.16675193 >>16674423 Can a catalog of things that aren't spoons list itself as an item? It is certainly a catalog, and not a spoon, so it can list itself. Yet there's nothing else to the catalog, but whatever stuff that's included there.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 02:07:22 2020 No.16675484
File: 1.12 MB, 3200x2035, 2011_NYR_02480_0044_000andreas_gursky_rhein_ii.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16674423
A finger points everywhere except at itself. A set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves leads to paradox (the axiom of specification just renders the set incoherent, it doesn't resolve the antinomy). No, introducing self-reference in general leads to paradox ("This sentence is false"). We can understand these because we are a level above them, so to speak. But can we understand that we understand? This is the question you pose.
We can make reference to our conscious mind/Self. But can this Self reference itself? Isn't this what it's doing in the first place?
Hold on, let's rewind. First, notice in all of the above cases (and in your examples), paradox arises in things that can't even in principle reference themselves while being logically coherent. Language, hammers, sets (which are described in a logical-mathematical language). These things are physical or inert structures. It would be reasonable to infer that any self referential physical system is a priori impossible.
So does this mean consciousness is special? I would say yes. It can reference itself without being incoherent (if you don't believe this, then there is no self that is reading these words, and hence no "you" who is not believing what I'm saying).
This fits well with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and Omega-consistency, which I'll use to support my point. Goedel's theorem, put crudely, affirms the synthetic nature of mathematics. It is not a deck of cards filled with analytic statements (formalism). The complete picture of mathematics borrows from and is derived from the mind, things prior to logical-mathematical structures.
However, Omega-consistent logical systems can be considered complete. This means consciousness is Omega-consistent. Keep in mind the converse is not necessarily true. I'll leave you with a question to consider or research: is AI Omega-consistent? Is it even in principle possible?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 04:27:19 2020 No.16675957 >>16674423 DUDE THE WORD "NOUN" IS ITSELF A NOUN WHAAAAAOAAAHAHAHAAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:11:50 2020 No.16677264 >>16675484 I did not specify a set that contains all sets that aren't an X object, just a finite list if you want

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:46:09 2020 No.16677442 >Study neurosci >Literally understand how you understand Also I'm 14 and this is fuuuuuuuuuuuucking deep, like woah dude! Calm your intellect we can't keep up

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:48:15 2020 No.16677457 >>16674519 you either understand that you understand or you understand that you don't. it still proves OP's point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:51:12 2020 No.16677474 >>16677442 You can't understand what you do not know and if you do not know it then you truly do not fully understand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:03:57 2020 No.16677546 >>16677442 I Just quoted Aristotle, it ins't my words you retarded. But yeah, I also have 16 and I too love to make funny replys to normies that talk about greek philosophy. Keep your shitpost up man

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:06:14 2020 No.16677561 >>16675101 >This is horrible logic motherfucker the guy invented logic

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:06:31 2020 No.16677565 >>16677457 Unfalsifiable statement, huh? Well, time to go then. Cheers anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:07:30 2020 No.16677568 >>16677442 neuroscience and cognitive science are mostly horse shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:05:17 2020 No.16678337 >>16677568 Care to elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:15:46 2020 No.16678411 >>16677565 this is not only in the scope of empirical investigations, so falsifiability is not applicable at all.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:09:33 2020 No.16679513

>>16678337
>dude, like what if all human behavior can be traced to biological impulses and chemicals in your brain
>ok, then i will do the exact opposite that you tell me i should be doing
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST HECKIN DISRESPECT SCIENCE DUDE I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:17:59 2020 No.16679573 >>16679513 >ok, then i will do the exact opposite that you tell me i should be doing You think this is a proof? Also, how do you account for things like drug addiction, coma from a head trauma etc.?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:20:10 2020 No.16679587

>>16679513
Your brain makes you release dopamine, serotonine and/or oxytocine whenever you try to bait/troll/coom/be contrarian.
Some neurons remember that those actions will 'make' you happy, briefly.
Then you see this thread, and you just can't control your urges to gain easy tasty happy chemicals. As a result, you bait and receive the desired yummy chemos. Congrats anon

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:26:13 2020 No.16679617

>>16679573
>You think this is a proof?
yes, because if someone believes something based on valid reasoning, then valid reasoning is sufficient to explain the belief in some way
if correct reasoning is sufficient to explain the belief, biological impulses are not necessary to explain the belief.
if biological impulses are not necessary to explain the belief, we can believe otherwise.
so if we believe something based on reason, we can believe otherwise and are free for all practical purposes.
>>16679587
see the above boyo

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:31:51 2020 No.16679665 >>16679617 This is peak pseud shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:33:37 2020 No.16679685 >>16679665 midwit cope

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:36:15 2020 No.16679706 >>16679685 You're the one who's coping. There's no escaping the neurosciences, my friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:37:14 2020 No.16679711 >>16675484 >A finger points everywhere except at itself. What if it bends?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:37:43 2020 No.16679717 >>16679513 >ok, then i will do the exact opposite that you tell me i should be doing Not possible while I have needles in your brain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:40:14 2020 No.16679731 >>16679706 Stemlord faggot , get out of here with your scientism and read Spinoza

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:41:20 2020 No.16679739

>>16679617
>humans are rational
No, they aren't. People are pretty fucking dumb, as you are happily displaying. Most of the dumb shit you believe, you believe purely because it justifies you doing something that you want to do, and then you fill in the gaps as needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:47:34 2020 No.16679805 >>16679731 You should read at least a book on anatomy and neurology, friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:23:41 2020 No.16680058 >>16679617 And reasoning is a (complex) biological impulse

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:56:56 2020 No.16680315 >>16679717 >you dont have free will when im controlling you yes? >>16680058 yes, but this does not contradict what i said. notice i said we are free for all practical purposes >>16679706 until you can prove otherwise, youre just coping

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:12:24 2020 No.16680439 >>16674423 It's a miracle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:11:11 2020 No.16680884 >>16675178 That's not a hammer, it's a balloon

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:13:30 2020 No.16680904 >>16674423 It's simple: there's no "you."

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:22:42 2020 No.16680979 >>16674571 your caps is on you massive faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:23:02 2020 No.16680983 >>16680315 No, we're not free; it's hard to see the strings given how complex the coweb is, but there's a coweb nonetheless

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:31:18 2020 No.16681035

>>16674519
this.
> hammer can hammer another hammer, cant hammer itself
> eye can eye another eye, cant eye itself
> understanding can understand another understanding, can't understand itself
you cannot understand that you understand in the sense that one 'understanding' is understanding itself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:18:26 2020 No.16681349
File: 71 KB, 726x1408, bouguereau-aurora-d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16674423
>can you understand that you understand?
No, i don't think you can.
When understanding is considered as an object of analysis it loses its main property: understanding itself.
This happens because when we understand something, the real understanding (the immediate act of understanding) is already acting, so what we are trying to understand (understanding as an object) cannot be the understanding itself: It must be something else. For understanding is essentially a single phenomenon, a unique activity. It cannot "duplicate" itself and persist as an act (understanding) and object of activity (object of understanding) simultaneously.
Cheers

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:22:25 2020 No.16681783
File: 8 KB, 261x193, aristotle-bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16674423
>understanding

Not only is Plato hitting on something, we still do not have a clear account of what "understanding" itself is. Of course, we understand the general idea, and the word motives a discussion, but good luck with that analysis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:25:55 2020 No.16681811 >>16674977 the fact that we are aware of our awareness

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature