Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

perception, intentionality, and thinking

perception, intentionality, and thinking

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by isaacthe54 on September 16, 2000 at 06:23:59:

sambersil, you are thorough, but foolish in that you think you are done. you say, "i can't believe anything cause beliefs might be wrong. perceptions are all that is real, and philosophy starts from there." that's fine. but, you then go on to use that (perfectly valid) line to say that you can't assume anything else. but you can reason an aweful lot, even from just that. in fact, a lot of philosophy is just all about starting there.

ok, so, you talk about perception. information. what we could call "sense data", along with all other "experience" is all just the perception of the occurance.

you also talked about "knowing" as a state rather than an actively percieved thing. that is, i simply am in a state of "knowing" that i'm in america, i dont' have to be percieving that in order to "know" it. BUT, i DO have to have the "record" of perception available. or, i could say, the ability to percieve the memory of having percieved something. this starts to get really wordy, but you get what i'm talking about, i think, since i'm just paraphrasing what you said. anyway, i have to percieve, say, thom coming home in order to pick up the phone and say "yes, thom's home" when somenoe calls for him. i say it, because i know it, because i percieved it. the perception ITSELF placed me in the "state" of knowledge.

are you still with me?
it's about to get hairy.

so, we got info coming in. once said info comes in, i am placed in a state of knowing. that state of knowledge can also be expressed as information storage. that is, when thom came home, i started knowing that he came home, because the information was "recorded" somehow. even things that you "know" in deeper ways, like say, your name, what country you live in, what a pencil is made of, etc., can all be expressed as information storage, and any other way of expressing it is, as you put it, not necessarily true, because it depends on something other than perception. after all, this "knowing" is not end-all-be-all. we can, if we recieve new conflicting information, be placed into a state of not-knowing.

we have info coming in, staying there for a while sometimes.
place that on the back burner for now.

there is a concept in philosophy of mind called "intentionality." if you're lookin for a detailed discussion of intentionality, this ain't it. intentionality is not the "intent" of something in the conventional sense. it is the intent of something insofar as it is "about" something else. that is, i type the word characters <>. we all know what a dog is. but i didn't type a dog (that's just silly), i typed a word. the word is "about" the animal. it refers to it. the intentionality of d-o-g is the concept of the furry animal that slobbers on your hands and fetches newspapers. if you really think about it, the longer phrase i wrote there is ALSO only referring to a dog rather than being one, and so, has roughly the same intentionality as the letters d-o-g. in english, of course. that is, something can't have intentionality unless it's in a language, a system of symbols that relate to other things. these "things" are basically, in this whole minimalist paradigm, just bits of sense data, or percieved concepts. everything derives its intentionality from the language its in.

you'll see why this matters in a moment.

now, the information that comes in, some of it gets stored. the stored information can be said to be "about" another bit of information. i know the cats are in the box. i percieved the "cat" sense data, the "box" sense data, related in the "contained in the" way. this knowledge is about the perception. it has a certain intentionality.

that means, in a way, that "memory" (the so-called "stored info") is recorded in a sort of language. for, we cannot help but admit that the memory of an experience is different than the experience itself. that is, the perception of eating ice cream is not the same as teh perception of remembering eating ice cream, or the "knowledge" of what ice cream tastes like. i mean, i know what ice cream is like, but that knowledge IN ITSELF is not much like eating ice cream. that knowledge IS, however, REPRESENTATIVE of the experience, it is ABOUT the experience. indeed, without the experience,the knowledge would not exist.

so, we have info coming in, and stored in an intentional language. (intentional-meanings, not intentional-intent. i know this is confusing, and i'm sorry, but it's convention and teh term makes sense if you use it enough.)

now, its not nearly enough just to have an intentional system. you also have to have a decoder. you can't just pick up a french book and read it, unless you speak french. i don't, so it would be gibberish to me. the words are not about anything at ALL, i say! jeez! other examples could be given, but, by the very nature of intentionality, nothing can be about anything in and of itself. it must be decoded in order to relate to something. (you can say, well, the memory of a tree "looks like" a tree. that's just putting it in a visual language, but it's still a language. a video camera can see a picture that looks like a tree, but it has no idea that it's actually "about" a plant, cause it's not a sufficient decoder.)

so...
info in, stored. the stored perception is NOT the perception itself, but rather something that is representative of it. when the stored info is recalled, (here's the crazy part) i can
decode the information and
understand what it's about.

wow. ok...

so, when i say "i", like i have all thruout this message, what am i talking about? i am talking about whatever system it is that is taking in information, storing it in a language, and decoding the stored information. you shoudl really be aware that these "actions" are not simply the "perceptions of actions," because they are largely not percieved. i dont' have to know that i'm knowing something to know it. (um.. yeah.) i don't have to percieve decoding my memories. i just do. i am, then, this: the system, in whatever form that system shall be, that recieves, stores, and recalls perception-information.

i could stop there, and leave that as a definition of thinking, in the most basic sense, and it'd be hard to mess with. i could even then say, "i think, therefor, i am" and have it be the trophism it is intended to be. (that is, the "therefor" is really just silly. it's like saying "i'm eating steak, therefor, it's steak that i'm eating.")

solipsism, then, is just one of many possible explanations for what the "i" system is and how it works. of course it's not necessarily true, because it's a hypothesis. what's more, it can never be tested. but it's an interesting theory.

another explanation is purist realism. again, same thing as solipsism, we'll never know if either are true, or both, or neither, but that's not here nor there. in any event, the "self" is roughly the thing that is doing these three things, and if we stop there, we can still say "i think, therefor, i am." after all, thinking is just the reception, storage, and retrieval of the information we all *know* exists.

the thing that is doing this "thinking" i am calling a "thinking thing." that's isaac. isaac is the thinking thing.

also, sambersil, you should not say that descartes is full of it if you've never read what he had to say. that's just rude and stupid. i did a really bad job of putting forth descartes' idea, and that's not anything to do with descartes. (if you read his work, THEN say he's full of it, that's another thing all together. but then you'll be able to say why.) really, solipsism wasn't his baby or anything, he simply used it as another possible explanation of experience. (he was also a fan of the "malicious demon" example. ie, "what if there was some malicious demon feeding me false information. would it be any different from my point of view?" kind of a predecessor to the whole matrix thing.) actually, i think you'd probably like descartes. he was a 5 who freaked out and realized that most of the world was running on bullshit, and decided to start over. you'd probably like nietsche, too, tho he didnt' write as much in philosophy of mind, which seems to be your interest.

also, i realize that the inventing may be the fun part here. but you are not inventing the wheel. you are sitting on a block of marble saying that it's a wheel, cause it's as round as it's ever gonna get. reading philosophy is good, in fact BEST, when the person you're reading did a sloppy job of it. cause then you can say what's wrong with it. when they did a good job, you might borrow their thoughts and use it as a spring board, or use the arguments in your own way. at the very least, you may figure out a new way to express your ideas. it's not cheating in the slightest. reading philosophy wouldn't be going out and buying a wheel. it'd just be drawing a circle and making a chisel. (was this wheel metaphor carried a tad too far? i'm not sure. :)

you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
(even if you think you don't know anything.)

trust me.

i know.

isaac

Follow Ups:

looking for job, give me more information M. Reza Fahlevi 12:41:42 11/03/00 (0)
you're "isaac the 5w4"? you should be "isaac teh 5w4." Osing more cerebrotonic than thou John 00:39:10 09/20/00 (0)
Heh heh heh... Sambersil 00:04:03 09/17/00 (4)
- assumption of wrongness isaac 02:53:58 09/17/00 (3)
  - Re: Assumption of wrongness Sambersil 17:44:14 09/17/00 (2)
    - Re: Assumption of wrongness isaacthe54 23:32:42 09/18/00 (1)
      - Re: Assumption of wrongness Sambersil 19:59:58 09/19/00 (0)
Re: perception, intentionality, and thinking Laurence 08:38:34 09/16/00 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: sambersil, you are thorough, but foolish in that you think you are done. you say, "i can't believe anything cause beliefs might be wrong. perceptions are all that is real, and philosophy starts from there." that's fine. but, you then go on to use that (perfectly valid) line to say that you can't assume anything else. but you can reason an aweful lot, even from just that. in fact, a lot of philosophy is just all about starting there. : ok, so, you talk about perception. information. what we could call "sense data", along with all other "experience" is all just the perception of the occurance. : you also talked about "knowing" as a state rather than an actively percieved thing. that is, i simply am in a state of "knowing" that i'm in america, i dont' have to be percieving that in order to "know" it. BUT, i DO have to have the "record" of perception available. or, i could say, the ability to percieve the memory of having percieved something. this starts to get really wordy, but you get what i'm talking about, i think, since i'm just paraphrasing what you said. anyway, i have to percieve, say, thom coming home in order to pick up the phone and say "yes, thom's home" when somenoe calls for him. i say it, because i know it, because i percieved it. the perception ITSELF placed me in the "state" of knowledge. : are you still with me? : it's about to get hairy. : so, we got info coming in. once said info comes in, i am placed in a state of knowing. that state of knowledge can also be expressed as information storage. that is, when thom came home, i started knowing that he came home, because the information was "recorded" somehow. even things that you "know" in deeper ways, like say, your name, what country you live in, what a pencil is made of, etc., can all be expressed as information storage, and any other way of expressing it is, as you put it, not necessarily true, because it depends on something other than perception. after all, this "knowing" is not end-all-be-all. we can, if we recieve new conflicting information, be placed into a state of not-knowing. : we have info coming in, staying there for a while sometimes. : place that on the back burner for now. : there is a concept in philosophy of mind called "intentionality." if you're lookin for a detailed discussion of intentionality, this ain't it. intentionality is not the "intent" of something in the conventional sense. it is the intent of something insofar as it is "about" something else. that is, i type the word characters <<dog>>. we all know what a dog is. but i didn't type a dog (that's just silly), i typed a word. the word is "about" the animal. it refers to it. the intentionality of d-o-g is the concept of the furry animal that slobbers on your hands and fetches newspapers. if you really think about it, the longer phrase i wrote there is ALSO only referring to a dog rather than being one, and so, has roughly the same intentionality as the letters d-o-g. in english, of course. that is, something can't have intentionality unless it's in a language, a system of symbols that relate to other things. these "things" are basically, in this whole minimalist paradigm, just bits of sense data, or percieved concepts. everything derives its intentionality from the language its in. : you'll see why this matters in a moment. : now, the information that comes in, some of it gets stored. the stored information can be said to be "about" another bit of information. i know the cats are in the box. i percieved the "cat" sense data, the "box" sense data, related in the "contained in the" way. this knowledge is about the perception. it has a certain intentionality. : that means, in a way, that "memory" (the so-called "stored info") is recorded in a sort of language. for, we cannot help but admit that the memory of an experience is different than the experience itself. that is, the perception of eating ice cream is not the same as teh perception of remembering eating ice cream, or the "knowledge" of what ice cream tastes like. i mean, i know what ice cream is like, but that knowledge IN ITSELF is not much like eating ice cream. that knowledge IS, however, REPRESENTATIVE of the experience, it is ABOUT the experience. indeed, without the experience,the knowledge would not exist. : so, we have info coming in, and stored in an intentional language. (intentional-meanings, not intentional-intent. i know this is confusing, and i'm sorry, but it's convention and teh term makes sense if you use it enough.) : now, its not nearly enough just to have an intentional system. you also have to have a decoder. you can't just pick up a french book and read it, unless you speak french. i don't, so it would be gibberish to me. the words are not about anything at ALL, i say! jeez! other examples could be given, but, by the very nature of intentionality, nothing can be about anything in and of itself. it must be decoded in order to relate to something. (you can say, well, the memory of a tree "looks like" a tree. that's just putting it in a visual language, but it's still a language. a video camera can see a picture that looks like a tree, but it has no idea that it's actually "about" a plant, cause it's not a sufficient decoder.) : so... : info in, stored. the stored perception is NOT the perception itself, but rather something that is representative of it. when the stored info is recalled, (here's the crazy part) i can : decode the information and : understand what it's about. : wow. ok... : so, when i say "i", like i have all thruout this message, what am i talking about? i am talking about whatever system it is that is taking in information, storing it in a language, and decoding the stored information. you shoudl really be aware that these "actions" are not simply the "perceptions of actions," because they are largely not percieved. i dont' have to know that i'm knowing something to know it. (um.. yeah.) i don't have to percieve decoding my memories. i just do. i am, then, this: the system, in whatever form that system shall be, that recieves, stores, and recalls perception-information. : i could stop there, and leave that as a definition of thinking, in the most basic sense, and it'd be hard to mess with. i could even then say, "i think, therefor, i am" and have it be the trophism it is intended to be. (that is, the "therefor" is really just silly. it's like saying "i'm eating steak, therefor, it's steak that i'm eating.") : solipsism, then, is just one of many possible explanations for what the "i" system is and how it works. of course it's not necessarily true, because it's a hypothesis. what's more, it can never be tested. but it's an interesting theory. : another explanation is purist realism. again, same thing as solipsism, we'll never know if either are true, or both, or neither, but that's not here nor there. in any event, the "self" is roughly the thing that is doing these three things, and if we stop there, we can still say "i think, therefor, i am." after all, thinking is just the reception, storage, and retrieval of the information we all *know* exists. : the thing that is doing this "thinking" i am calling a "thinking thing." that's isaac. isaac is the thinking thing. : also, sambersil, you should not say that descartes is full of it if you've never read what he had to say. that's just rude and stupid. i did a really bad job of putting forth descartes' idea, and that's not anything to do with descartes. (if you read his work, THEN say he's full of it, that's another thing all together. but then you'll be able to say why.) really, solipsism wasn't his baby or anything, he simply used it as another possible explanation of experience. (he was also a fan of the "malicious demon" example. ie, "what if there was some malicious demon feeding me false information. would it be any different from my point of view?" kind of a predecessor to the whole matrix thing.) actually, i think you'd probably like descartes. he was a 5 who freaked out and realized that most of the world was running on bullshit, and decided to start over. you'd probably like nietsche, too, tho he didnt' write as much in philosophy of mind, which seems to be your interest. : also, i realize that the inventing may be the fun part here. but you are not inventing the wheel. you are sitting on a block of marble saying that it's a wheel, cause it's as round as it's ever gonna get. reading philosophy is good, in fact BEST, when the person you're reading did a sloppy job of it. cause then you can say what's wrong with it. when they did a good job, you might borrow their thoughts and use it as a spring board, or use the arguments in your own way. at the very least, you may figure out a new way to express your ideas. it's not cheating in the slightest. reading philosophy wouldn't be going out and buying a wheel. it'd just be drawing a circle and making a chisel. (was this wheel metaphor carried a tad too far? i'm not sure. :) : you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. : (even if you think you don't know anything.) : trust me. : : i know. : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/519.html

Your Ad Here