Internal synergies

[petrushka.googol]

Why do people focus on external appurtenances rather than internal synergies ?

Should we not talk heart to heart rather than face to face ?

Is this a step in social evolution ?

Please opine.

[Delta1212]

Maybe we should, but we can't. You can't access the internal world of someone else without going through an external medium and that medium is going to affect that communication in some way or other.

[petrushka.googol]

What about telepathy ?

[imatfaal]

Even though this is the philosophy forum we tend to avoid discussing issues such as telepathy as if they were factual. Lots on this forum (not me) call into question the value of philosophy per se; it is much more difficult to see the use of an ethical idea founded on something false.

[petrushka.googol]

I don't endorse telepathy.... I was simply stating a what-if .....

[dimreepr]

I think the only way your premiss could work, telepathy aside, is if an individuals capacity for, honest, introspection could lead to a greater understanding of our fellow man.

[Gees]

Members;

 

Please consider:

 

What about telepathy ?

 

Because this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy studies the unknown, this is a valid question in philosophy. Personally, I do not agree that telepathy is doable and can make some pretty good arguments against it, but that is no reason to inhibit a person's ability to question.

 

For the above reasons, I put a + on that post in an attempt to neutralize the negative admonishment for simply asking a question. Asking questions is how we learn and is at the heart of philosophy.

 

Even though this is the philosophy forum we tend to avoid discussing issues such as telepathy as if they were factual. Lots on this forum (not me) call into question the value of philosophy per se; it is much more difficult to see the use of an ethical idea founded on something false.

 

It is interesting that you brought up the concept of "ethical" ideas. Is it ethical to limit a person's ability to question? Wouldn't that be the same as limiting a person's ability to gain knowledge? Or are we just limiting questions to the 'right' questions, which would limit the answers to the 'right' answers.

 

It is a very short slide from limiting questions to burning books. imo

 

Gee

[petrushka.googol]

Members;

 

Please consider:

 

 

Because this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy studies the unknown, this is a valid question in philosophy. Personally, I do not agree that telepathy is doable and can make some pretty good arguments against it, but that is no reason to inhibit a person's ability to question.

 

For the above reasons, I put a + on that post in an attempt to neutralize the negative admonishment for simply asking a question. Asking questions is how we learn and is at the heart of philosophy.

 

 

It is interesting that you brought up the concept of "ethical" ideas. Is it ethical to limit a person's ability to question? Wouldn't that be the same as limiting a person's ability to gain knowledge? Or are we just limiting questions to the 'right' questions, which would limit the answers to the 'right' answers.

 

It is a very short slide from limiting questions to burning books. imo

 

Gee

 

I found your post particularly palatable. In line with the OP our internal synergies meet more than meets the eye....

[imatfaal]

Members;

 

Please consider:

 

 

Because this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy studies the unknown, ...

It doesn't really. You could probably include most studies in Philosophy - but your statement is too strong; its prosaic but try looking up a dictionary definition - they are often a good starting point. Funnily your assertion is also almost self-contradictory. We can speculate, imagine, guess, and hypothesise about the unknown - but we cannot really study it; for then it would not be unknown.

 

For the above reasons, I put a + on that post in an attempt to neutralize the negative admonishment for simply asking a question. Asking questions is how we learn and is at the heart of philosophy.

That's nice - but this is a discussion forum and I hold dear the right to call a question worthless when I want to and believe I am right to do so. And I am not sure you are correct about learning - asking questions and listening to the answers is how we learn; endless flights of imagination with no formalism and no discipline can produce marvels but more often produces a self-satisfied mess with no academic, pedagogic, or aesthetic worth whatsoever. Asking questions is great - but the incisiviness of the questions one asks is the measure not the volume nor the asking in and of itself.

 

It is interesting that you brought up the concept of "ethical" ideas. Is it ethical to limit a person's ability to question? Wouldn't that be the same as limiting a person's ability to gain knowledge?

It is a question of how we live our lives - of course I brought up Ethics. And no one limited anyone's right to ask questions - you are being needlessly melodramatic. Gaining knowledge about the workings of telepathy; really? - again your definitions are slipping.

 

 

Or are we just limiting questions to the 'right' questions, which would limit the answers to the 'right' answers.

Have you heard of gigo? Basing an ethical argument on a known falsehood is only interesting in a very narrow sense. There are not two sides to every argument, there does not always need to be comprehension of the middle ground ; claiming that both sides of a question need to be investigated and weighed equally is falling into the trap of the fallacy of moderation. There is no telepathy; we do not need to consider the effects of telepathy on our ethical and moral compass. A toy ethical system premised on the existence of telepathy might be interesting but it can never even approxiate a real world ethical system as it is flawed ab initio.

 

It is a very short slide from limiting questions to burning books. imo

 

Gee

And you get a full-house of fallacies by rounding it off with the slippery slope. Good job.

[petrushka.googol]

Pls refer the link : telepathic ability in dolphins

 

http://www.paulapeterson.com/ITP/InterspeciesTelepathicProject.html

[Strange]

Pls refer the link : telepathic ability in dolphins

 

http://www.paulapeterson.com/ITP/InterspeciesTelepathicProject.html

 

That website also has articles on "dolphin-humans", on people who claim to have given up food and live purely on light, and that crystals can be used as medicine. It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that should be referenced on a science forum.

[petrushka.googol]

 

That website also has articles on "dolphin-humans", on people who claim to have given up food and live purely on light, and that crystals can be used as medicine. It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that should be referenced on a science forum.

 

In my defence I state that it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of each article that occurs on a website. I was only citing a link which I neither endorse nor condemn. I was merely soliciting some opinions to gauge what people really think. I think penalizing me for this was a trifle indiscreet.

[Strange]

 

In my defence I state that it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of each article that occurs on a website.

 

It is pretty obvious that everything on that website is complete and utter nonsense.

[swansont]

 

In my defence I state that it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of each article that occurs on a website. I was only citing a link which I neither endorse nor condemn. I was merely soliciting some opinions to gauge what people really think. I think penalizing me for this was a trifle indiscreet.

 

You have an obligation to ascertain veracity if you are using it to support your argument, rather than merely document its existence.

 

But back to telepathy, as a hypothetical: how is that accessing someone's internal workings? All telepathy might be*, if it existed, would be transferring a conversation without using sound. One would still have to form the message, and the limitations of conversation still exist. Just like wireless technology still means using words, just without the wires.

 

*since it hasn't been established to exist, though, one could make up anything they wanted. That's the problem with poorly-defined fiction.

[petrushka.googol]

 

You have an obligation to ascertain veracity if you are using it to support your argument, rather than merely document its existence.

 

But back to telepathy, as a hypothetical: how is that accessing someone's internal workings? All telepathy might be*, if it existed, would be transferring a conversation without using sound. One would still have to form the message, and the limitations of conversation still exist. Just like wireless technology still means using words, just without the wires.

 

*since it hasn't been established to exist, though, one could make up anything they wanted. That's the problem with poorly-defined fiction.

 

To use a cliche, I'm insinuating a kind of soul-soul bond as opposed to one defined by temporal limitations, as it were, if you get my drift.....

[Strange]

 

To use a cliche, I'm insinuating a kind of soul-soul bond as opposed to one defined by temporal limitations, as it were, if you get my drift.....

 

You seem to be digging yourself deeper into a pit of irrational nonsense.

[swansont]

 

To use a cliche, I'm insinuating a kind of soul-soul bond as opposed to one defined by temporal limitations, as it were, if you get my drift.....

 

That's great if you're writing a fantasy novel, and as such you can make up anything you want. But here in the real world, not so much.

[petrushka.googol]

 

That's great if you're writing a fantasy novel, and as such you can make up anything you want. But here in the real world, not so much.

 

To rephrase, I am referring to platonic relationships (where oral / visual communication dominates over touch).

[Gees]

Imatfaal;

 

Although I can understand your need to respond to my post, your following response is much too lengthy and off topic. I am not a moderator, so I can not move or split a thread; on the other hand, I can not allow such poor logic to go unchallenged.

 

So if you would consider moving your post, I will be happy to respond to it. It would fit nicely into the thread, "What do you think philosophy is?" or maybe "What is philosophy to you?" (not sure of the name) which was started by Swansont and is on the top of the second page in the General Philosophy forum.

 

It doesn't really. You could probably include most studies in Philosophy - but your statement is too strong; its prosaic but try looking up a dictionary definition - they are often a good starting point. Funnily your assertion is also almost self-contradictory. We can speculate, imagine, guess, and hypothesise about the unknown - but we cannot really study it; for then it would not be unknown.

That's nice - but this is a discussion forum and I hold dear the right to call a question worthless when I want to and believe I am right to do so. And I am not sure you are correct about learning - asking questions and listening to the answers is how we learn; endless flights of imagination with no formalism and no discipline can produce marvels but more often produces a self-satisfied mess with no academic, pedagogic, or aesthetic worth whatsoever. Asking questions is great - but the incisiviness of the questions one asks is the measure not the volume nor the asking in and of itself.

It is a question of how we live our lives - of course I brought up Ethics. And no one limited anyone's right to ask questions - you are being needlessly melodramatic. Gaining knowledge about the workings of telepathy; really? - again your definitions are slipping.

Have you heard of gigo? Basing an ethical argument on a known falsehood is only interesting in a very narrow sense. There are not two sides to every argument, there does not always need to be comprehension of the middle ground ; claiming that both sides of a question need to be investigated and weighed equally is falling into the trap of the fallacy of moderation. There is no telepathy; we do not need to consider the effects of telepathy on our ethical and moral compass. A toy ethical system premised on the existence of telepathy might be interesting but it can never even approxiate a real world ethical system as it is flawed ab initio.

And you get a full-house of fallacies by rounding it off with the slippery slope. Good job.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Gee

Petrushka;

 

Please consider:

 

What about telepathy ?

 

As I stated before, I have serious doubts about the feasibility of telepathy. The problem is that telepathy is generally considered to be a power, something that we can control. This means that it would be accomplished with the conscious rational aspect of mind, or that we would do it intentionally in the same way that we direct our speech or ideas or our bodies. There is no indication, that I know of, that implies this can be accomplished, and there is no avenue or path to follow that would secure this connection.

 

So does this mean that there is no such thing as internal synergy? No.

 

Because the unconscious aspect of mind is reactive rather than self-directed, it works mostly through emotion. It mentally connects people through bonds forged in trauma, or familial bonds, or even temporary bonds forged in the mob/riot mentality. In the last 60 years or so, we have learned that pheromones, whether to find a mate, or to follow a trail to food, can connect us mentally. Pheromones work through an emotional need or drive and cause us to have common thoughts related to that need or drive. But all of these connections work through emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind. Bonds are forged with emotion.

 

What you would call internal synergy, I would call recognition of a kindred spirit, which is also based in emotion. We recognize a person with similar experiences as a mental reflection or continuation of our selves. So internal synergy, or an internal connection, does exist and we have evidence of it -- we just don't have much conscious control over it.

 

Jung introduced the term "collective conscious" and explained that species have a collective consciousness that exists, but is part of the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that it controls us more than we control it. This is where the feeling of internal synergy comes from, the unconscious. This collective consciousness of Jung's is now referred to as an "objective psyche".

 

There are some people, who referring to monks that have learned to control the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind, believe these monks can control telepathy. But this is where Swansont's post comes in, which is why I put a + on it. Swansont noted that the conscious mind communicates with words, or at least pictures, so even if a monk could work out how to break down the barriers between the conscious mind and the objective psyche, that does not enable them to also break down these barriers in a receiver's mind. Since only the unconscious is capable of accessing the objective psyche, the sender and the receiver of telepathy would both have to be able to access the objective psyche and be able to sort through the unconscious objective psyche. In theory this may at some future time be plausible, but at present it is not.

 

Gee

[Strange]

Jung introduced the term "collective conscious" and explained that species have a collective consciousness that exists, but is part of the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that it controls us more than we control it. This is where the feeling of internal synergy comes from, the unconscious. This collective consciousness of Jung's is now referred to as an "objective psyche".

 

Except there is as much evidence that the "collective unconscious" exists as there is for telepathy or unicorns.