4 ms·

I don't think its correct to automatically assume naive solipsism of the author. these two statements are both true (as far as we can verify in this limited hu

I don't think its correct to automatically assume naive solipsism of the author. these two statements are both true (as far as we can verify in this limited human existence, anyway): 1. there is a world beyond an individual's consciousness. 2. an individual can only ever experience the world through their own consciousness, and therefore their own senses and memories. Bloom's statement contradicts neither of those things. He is simply acknowledging that from an individual's own subjective point of view, their own consciousness is really the only thing they can work with in a direct sense. That isn't a denial or negation of exterior reality. For practical purposes though, if we wish to examine consciousness we are pretty much stuck in examining our own consciousness, since that's the only one we have direct access to.

Retric 10y ago
The human brain can be directly influenced by the outside world. Calling that either 'senses' or 'memories' is abusing the terms rather heavily. Alternatively, someone can eat LSD without sensing it. But, that LSD is still going to have a profound effect.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I don't understand your point, and it seems to me that you didn't understand mine. Of course the human mind (which is NOT identical with the brain, not a good idea to conflate those terms) is influenced by the outside world. Sense organs (and the sensations in consciousness that arise due to them) are the means through which external reality causes changes in consciousness. Why is it wrong to call that "senses"? How is that abusing the term? It's the literal meaning of the word.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Sight and balance is a sense, direct neural stimulation is something else. A stroke for example can do all sorts of nasty things without influencing memory or triggering anything you can detect.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      I'm still not sure what your point is and I think you're off topic. What's your point about "direct neural stimulation"? First off, what does that even mean? Surely your own eyes directly stimulate your optic nerves which directly stimulate your visual cortex. Is there a different kind of stimulation you had in mind? I'm not sure what you mean by "a stroke can do things without influencing memory or triggering anything you can detect". Do you mean that people sometimes become unconscious during a stroke? Maybe. So what? The effects of a stroke are most certainly detectable afterwards though. I'm really just not sure what you're trying to get at.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Apply a weak electric current to a specific point and people get the sensation they are being watched. It's not a perception it's altering post processing of sensory data. A stroke can remove your ability recognize faces. You could still describe someone, but you would not be able to look at a picture of you wife and know who they where. You would be able to recognize her voice. These are not in the two category's proposed earlier, thus memory and observation fail fully describe what's going on.
        metaphorm 10y ago
        yeah, you're definitely off topic. Prosopagnosia is an interesting phenomenon but it's not related to what Bloom was discussing or what I was elaborating on. Bloom's discussion was a highlighting of the ways in which cultural transmission of events imbues the sensory perception and recollection of memory in every person in society with a certain kind of filter which he describes by analogy as if it was some sort of group mind. my point of elaboration was meant to emphasize that when we examine the contents of consciousness, we necessarily are limited to examining our own consciousness qualitatively. Reporting on the consciousness of others is only ever capable of producing yet another stimulus in our own input stream that we would interpet the same way we interpret any other exogenous stimulus. Despite that, this does not imply solipsism. Only an admission of the limitations we are faced with in this examination.

Retric 10y ago

The human brain can be directly influenced by the outside world. Calling that either 'senses' or 'memories' is abusing the terms rather heavily. Alternatively, someone can eat LSD without sensing it. But, that LSD is still going to have a profound effect.

metaphorm 10y ago
I don't understand your point, and it seems to me that you didn't understand mine. Of course the human mind (which is NOT identical with the brain, not a good idea to conflate those terms) is influenced by the outside world. Sense organs (and the sensations in consciousness that arise due to them) are the means through which external reality causes changes in consciousness. Why is it wrong to call that "senses"? How is that abusing the term? It's the literal meaning of the word.
- Retric 10y ago
  Sight and balance is a sense, direct neural stimulation is something else. A stroke for example can do all sorts of nasty things without influencing memory or triggering anything you can detect.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    I'm still not sure what your point is and I think you're off topic. What's your point about "direct neural stimulation"? First off, what does that even mean? Surely your own eyes directly stimulate your optic nerves which directly stimulate your visual cortex. Is there a different kind of stimulation you had in mind? I'm not sure what you mean by "a stroke can do things without influencing memory or triggering anything you can detect". Do you mean that people sometimes become unconscious during a stroke? Maybe. So what? The effects of a stroke are most certainly detectable afterwards though. I'm really just not sure what you're trying to get at.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Apply a weak electric current to a specific point and people get the sensation they are being watched. It's not a perception it's altering post processing of sensory data. A stroke can remove your ability recognize faces. You could still describe someone, but you would not be able to look at a picture of you wife and know who they where. You would be able to recognize her voice. These are not in the two category's proposed earlier, thus memory and observation fail fully describe what's going on.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        yeah, you're definitely off topic. Prosopagnosia is an interesting phenomenon but it's not related to what Bloom was discussing or what I was elaborating on. Bloom's discussion was a highlighting of the ways in which cultural transmission of events imbues the sensory perception and recollection of memory in every person in society with a certain kind of filter which he describes by analogy as if it was some sort of group mind. my point of elaboration was meant to emphasize that when we examine the contents of consciousness, we necessarily are limited to examining our own consciousness qualitatively. Reporting on the consciousness of others is only ever capable of producing yet another stimulus in our own input stream that we would interpet the same way we interpret any other exogenous stimulus. Despite that, this does not imply solipsism. Only an admission of the limitations we are faced with in this examination.