NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/conscio/707

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.3 KB | 91 lines

Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!psci11.polisci.umn.edu!serb
From: [e-mail] (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: re: views on consciousness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: psci11.polisci.umn.edu
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:48:05 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Garsden) writes:

>As I read your words, I attribute to them a meaning. But this meaning, and my
>understanding of it, can't be touched, heard, tasted, seen, or smelt.
(some deleted)
>Human beings live in a world of meanings, represented by symbols. Many (all?)
>of those meanings have no existence apart from human beings, and they have no
>physical existence. Do you understand that sqrt(9) = 3? If so, prove it -

I think I basically agree with you, though there might be a slight
contradiction in these two points.  The reason sqrt(9) = 3 is that this is
real in the realm of SOCIAL REALITY -- which is created by shared
understandings and meanings within a culture or society.  That is, our
society does something like condone mass murder in wars but condemns simple
murder on the street because the linguistic symbols "war" and "murder" have
differnt socially constructed meanings.  BUT, you said that you personally "
attribute to them a meaning..."  THAT is a subjective act.  If you grant
your consciousness the ability to act subjectively, then the universe of
potential meanings is not limited by social convention.  In other words,
there is room for individuals to act subjectively in a manner that changes
social reality.  The other view would be, of course, that your subjective
ability to "attach" meaning is actually social, and that your subjectivity
disappears into the realm of social discourse.  Consciousness in that view
would be completely social.

>Nevertheless, meanings and understandings exist because I can observe them.
>What with, who knows? But if I observe them and everybody else does to,
>then they must exist, because that's how existence is defined.

Again, the subjective/social problem may exist here.  You observe them --
meanings and understandings -- but do you observe them?  Or are meanings and
understandings a way to interprete objects and phenomena outside of both you
and society.  I don't know the answer to this one completely.  Perhaps
meaning creates reality -- perhaps thought creates reality and the universe
springs from our consciousness in that way.  That would be a logically
defendable argument.

>The world human beings live in is defined by what they accept as real; and
>what they accept as real is purely relative - a majority view, which is never
>static. What is today's fanaticism is tomorrow's heresy. Worldviews have come
>and gone, and will for a long time yet.

Yes, I agree completely.  Although I'm intrigued by your use of "what they
accept as real."  How do they accept it, and why?  Why this reality and not
some other one?  Are there multiple realities, varying in their probability
of actualization based on the nature of different subjective and/or social
structures of meaning?

>To get back to your point - we live in a non-physical world of meanings which
>transcends and includes their physical representations and other objects.
>Somehow the meanings "exist" in consciousness. That's my view (for the moment
>:-) ).

Hmm, I guess I can agree with your transcendence of the physical, but I don'
t know if your view is really that much different than the one I had
originally put forth.  I was arguing that we used our senses to define
physical.  I guess what I should have said is we attribute a meaning of
being physical to certain things and not to others.  And that our sensory
perception has limits, thus limiting the phenomena we can categorize as
physical.  Once we categorize it as physical, we then do a lot of practical
things, bending it, shaping it, eating it, whatever.  But our senses do
sense something.  I guess what I'm getting it as there may be three separate
realities: subjective, social, and objective.  Subjective reality is our own
personal reality, and that is something that an individual creates for her
or his self, we can't know that others have the same subjective sensations
as we do.  Social reality is what you're talking about -- our use of
symbolic representations to communicate with other entities in a coherent
manner and create a society.  Language is in the realm of social reality, as
are meanings.  Our subjective reality has to fit at least somewhat with
social reality in order for us to be considered normal.  But at base, just
because you and I call the color red "red," that doesn't mean that we are
seeing the same thing.  Whatever we see subjectively, we've learned to label
it with a socially acceptable term.  Objective reality is the true nature of
the universe, which we can't know given the limitations of our senses.

I'll stop here.  I don't know if any of this made sense, but I found your
comments intriguing and thought provoking.
  -- scott, university of minnesota