The paradox:
Feelings and thoughts don't agree.
and you don't believe one of the is the problem, and you try to solve it, when there is nothing to solve, so you are caught in the paradox forever.
(control yourself from flattery, but have a need for flattery)
But there is a problem with our mind.
There are problems that arise with meta-cognition (the mind is trying to understand itself)
"The paradox is that whereas one is treating his own thinking and feeling, as something separate from and independent of the thought that is thinking about them, it is evident that in fact there is, and can be, no such separation and independence."
Root paradox: trying to solve the problems of our thinking with our thinking.
jueves, 13 de junio de 2013
Meta-Dialogue: may 2
There is a possibility that God can exist.
One thinks that one knows. But are we really ever going to know?
Even if we can't reach an objective truth, we can try to reach it or have a n approximation of the truth to make life easier and to help other people (when it comes to science).
If we discover how the mind works, could we lose the sense of our self? of individualism?
Why is there a me?
Could it be to identify an epiphenomenon?
what consequences can this cause?
could it be an obstacle to reach the absolute truth?
But we can know any of this because we would have to jump out of the system, climb another level.
We can only understand a system that is inferior to ours.
Hofstader mentions the brain.
All brains look the same and function the same way, but not everybody thinks the same and not everyone understands each other.
Hofstader says that, contrary to Lucas, humans do have limits. We are not the top.
Something that affects everything are the senses or the information that is interpreted by each person. In other words, everyone has a different perception.
Reality is what exists outside of everyone. It is independent of the person. Truth is just a term that we give to how much the perception of each person approximates reality. It would be an approximation of our perception to reality.
But at the end, it will always be an approximation, we will never reach reality.
One thinks that one knows. But are we really ever going to know?
Even if we can't reach an objective truth, we can try to reach it or have a n approximation of the truth to make life easier and to help other people (when it comes to science).
If we discover how the mind works, could we lose the sense of our self? of individualism?
Why is there a me?
Could it be to identify an epiphenomenon?
what consequences can this cause?
could it be an obstacle to reach the absolute truth?
But we can know any of this because we would have to jump out of the system, climb another level.
We can only understand a system that is inferior to ours.
Hofstader mentions the brain.
All brains look the same and function the same way, but not everybody thinks the same and not everyone understands each other.
Hofstader says that, contrary to Lucas, humans do have limits. We are not the top.
Something that affects everything are the senses or the information that is interpreted by each person. In other words, everyone has a different perception.
Reality is what exists outside of everyone. It is independent of the person. Truth is just a term that we give to how much the perception of each person approximates reality. It would be an approximation of our perception to reality.
But at the end, it will always be an approximation, we will never reach reality.
On Dialogue #3
Nature of collective thought:
How humanity has been handling collective thought
Trying to see collective thought for what it really is.
We rarely think about how are thoughts have come to be (whether its from our parents, newspapers, etcetera). We should really question where our thoughts come from.
Collective thought influences our personal thoughts and this influences our collective thought.
It is hard to see the world without representations that we have since we are young.
We cant live in a world without representations, but we have to try to make the collective representations as accurate as we can to the real world (knowing that they are only representations).
How humanity has been handling collective thought
Trying to see collective thought for what it really is.
We rarely think about how are thoughts have come to be (whether its from our parents, newspapers, etcetera). We should really question where our thoughts come from.
Collective thought influences our personal thoughts and this influences our collective thought.
It is hard to see the world without representations that we have since we are young.
We cant live in a world without representations, but we have to try to make the collective representations as accurate as we can to the real world (knowing that they are only representations).
martes, 11 de junio de 2013
Armando de la Torre #5
History was the first social science.
After it economy, anthropology, psychology and sociology were added.
Gilhelm Dilthey:
Before, everyone who wanted to do science had to know mathematics. Dilthey was the first one who claimed that history would be a science even if it did not have mathematics.
These sciences don't need mathematics because it is not as important to predict and it is not important to measure.
Not every science needs the same method in order to be called sciences.
At the beginning the social sciences were seen as probabilistic, while the rest of the sciences were seen as exact sciences.
In social sciences:
The efficient causes are not as important as the formal causes.
In the exact sciences:
the efficient causes are more important.
After the 1900 the conclusion was reached that the exact sciences are not exact, but are also probabilistic.
After all of this, Popper proved that nothing is exact, and everything is an approximation.
After it economy, anthropology, psychology and sociology were added.
Gilhelm Dilthey:
Before, everyone who wanted to do science had to know mathematics. Dilthey was the first one who claimed that history would be a science even if it did not have mathematics.
These sciences don't need mathematics because it is not as important to predict and it is not important to measure.
Not every science needs the same method in order to be called sciences.
At the beginning the social sciences were seen as probabilistic, while the rest of the sciences were seen as exact sciences.
In social sciences:
The efficient causes are not as important as the formal causes.
In the exact sciences:
the efficient causes are more important.
After the 1900 the conclusion was reached that the exact sciences are not exact, but are also probabilistic.
After all of this, Popper proved that nothing is exact, and everything is an approximation.
Gödel, Escher, Bach #13
Zen: jumping out of oneself.
jumping out of the system.
Can one enter their own system but at lower levels?
We will never be able to see ourselves. This is why we are a self-referential system.
Lucas things that we can jump out of ourselves because we are special (because we can think, think about who we are, reflect, etcetera.)
Are we as humans a formal system?
What would an informal system be?
something that doesn't have rules.
something that has no self-reference.
contradictions are allowed.
system: parts interacting.
jumping out of the system.
Can one enter their own system but at lower levels?
We will never be able to see ourselves. This is why we are a self-referential system.
Lucas things that we can jump out of ourselves because we are special (because we can think, think about who we are, reflect, etcetera.)
Are we as humans a formal system?
What would an informal system be?
something that doesn't have rules.
something that has no self-reference.
contradictions are allowed.
system: parts interacting.
Meta-Dialogue: apr 25
A topic mentioned a lot this week: How to get to know oneself
Don Quijote (advises)
Vow of silence (limits, etc)
Difficult Conversations
Drama (Monologue)
Rhetoric
Emerson: know thyself.
For all of these, one must acknowledge the things that we don't like about ourselves, in order to change them.
But, there are always things which we don't notice about ourselves. We always need other people to tell us and help us. For example Carmen, she didn't notice she did certain things, until we told her.
What we are trying to do at the MPC is to find our passion, by taking our education in our hands, learning through things.
But at the same time we are not only focusing in our passion. We are also trying to grow in other areas and learning to live.
This is getting out of our comfort zone. It is easier not to try different things.
Our feelings (Difficult Conversations) affect this. We want to please the rest of the people, not feel vulnerable, etc.
We become someone else when we don't listen to our feelings and we don't get to know ourselves as well.
A reality will be a reality or an approximation of a reality. And we believe it is our reality until we discover something else. (What if there i another universe?)
Don Quijote (advises)
Vow of silence (limits, etc)
Difficult Conversations
Drama (Monologue)
Rhetoric
Emerson: know thyself.
For all of these, one must acknowledge the things that we don't like about ourselves, in order to change them.
But, there are always things which we don't notice about ourselves. We always need other people to tell us and help us. For example Carmen, she didn't notice she did certain things, until we told her.
What we are trying to do at the MPC is to find our passion, by taking our education in our hands, learning through things.
But at the same time we are not only focusing in our passion. We are also trying to grow in other areas and learning to live.
This is getting out of our comfort zone. It is easier not to try different things.
Our feelings (Difficult Conversations) affect this. We want to please the rest of the people, not feel vulnerable, etc.
We become someone else when we don't listen to our feelings and we don't get to know ourselves as well.
A reality will be a reality or an approximation of a reality. And we believe it is our reality until we discover something else. (What if there i another universe?)
Mechanics #1
Motion: the earth moves.
Does this mean that if I want to measure motion (of a car) I have to add the motion of the Earth to it?
motion is also what happens in our bodies. (blood, etc).
Does this mean that if I want to measure motion (of a car) I have to add the motion of the Earth to it?
motion is also what happens in our bodies. (blood, etc).
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)