Fundamentals of Nietzsche's "will to power"

Torakx

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

"A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power"
I feel there is a contradiction or paradox here, and that this is something worth taking apart.
Or hitting with a hammer

If the modus operandi of the living is to discharge, release, empty out it's strength, then why would life in itself be a will to power.
I think I am looking to make a distinction between life(will to power) and the living, that would make this point clear.

Nietzsche often wrote about "down going" and how he loved those who were "down-goers".
Is he implying that life for the living is a paradox?

Is discharging our strength how we gain power?
If I discharge all of my strength, what is left for living?
Which is to imply that living is to die?

I consider lately that Nietzsche might have been pan-psychist and this will to power was viewed as something more than just a statement about the living.
It seems to have a metaphysical air to it.

8kczg9v0swrydm

From what I remember from reading Nietzsche, I think the Will to Power refers to domination, particularly of the weak by the strong. His whole argument in Beyond Good and Evil is that Christianity has subdued this desire to dominate by demanding and exacting regard for the weak.

For Nietzsche, the ideal man is driven by his Will to Power. He is a "blond beast of prey, the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory; this hidden centre needs release from time to time, the beast must out again, must return to the wild: - Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings - in this requirement they are all alike. It was the noble races which left the concept of 'barbarian' in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it ”(F.N, Ecce Homo).

I think this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy is deeply problematic. Despite his fans' best efforts, it is difficult not to see this stuff echoed in Nazi ideology.

Torakx

Deus Caritas Est , I appreciate you commenting

I think this is a narrowed(and popular) view of Nietzsche's will to power, and not going deep enough to it's foundations or wide enough to it's reach.

Both examples of a will to power that you gave, appear to be at a higher level, than the one I quoted in the original post here.
There are many other positive and negative examples of will to power that can be given.
The protection and care a mother gives to her child. The intentions or actions of a rapist/sadist; both being two fairly strong examples of will to power, on either end of a moral scale/polarity.
We can focus on the darkness in the "blonde beast" quote and think Nietzsche as problematic. But do we also call the mother protecting her child a problematic thing? This is a moral view we are taking with this line of thought or analysis.

I'm hoping to get to the bottom of "will to power", as far "down" as I can go, which may be a very metaphysical and existential line of thought.

I did a search on will to power quotes and found some interesting ones that might expand this whole idea a bit more.
They are quite difficult to read though.

https://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nwill.html

"The question is in the end whether we really recognize the will as efficient, whether we believe in the causality of the will: if we do--and at bottom our faith in this is nothing less than our faith in causality itself--then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of the will hypothetically as the only one. "Will," of course, can affect only "will"--and not "matter" (not "nerves," for example). In short, one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever "effects" are recognized--and whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will.

Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will--namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it... then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as--will to power. The world viewed from inside... it would be "will to power" and nothing else." from Beyond Good and Evil, s.36, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Here seems to be an example of will to power not only being a psychological hypothesis, but a metaphysical one at the foundations.
There is also mention of "Will" and "will". He does this too with "Self" and "self" if I remember correctly. It's a very purposeful distinction.

Here are some cherry picked parts of some other quotes that might be of interest.

The mechanistic world is imagined only as sight and touch imagine a world (as "moved") --so as to be calculable-- thus causal unities are invented, "things" (atoms) whose effect remains constant (--transference of the false concept of subject to the concept of the atom)...
If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge--

from The Will to Power, s.635, Walter Kaufmann transl.

[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life.

from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, s.259, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Something important I learned from Nietzsche, was to try to go as close to principle or foundations of an idea or problem; in order that by gaining an under-standing, we see more clearly where and how it came about, rather than how it looks at the top level, where foundations can be obfuscated.
I guess maybe his 'Genealogy of Morals' shows this well.
The view is much different if we just look at it through the lens of nazis and blonde beasts; even nobility and human culture or relations, seems too high an order of perspective, to get a true understanding of whether this makes reasonable sense or is biased resentment based "opinion".

I'm still stuck on this idea of expelling strength. I don't see how this is obviously a will to power. Possibly an effect of it though.

Black Swan

"...a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory...do you want a name for this world?...This world is the will to power." For me this quote from Friedrich Nietzsche in The Will to Power suggests a metaphor that provides unity between his naturalism and psychology of behavior, whereupon creative and destructive actions ebb and flood, sometimes intentional, other times not, or a combination of both.

Torakx

So I've been thinking about this for a while

I've come to the conclusion, that the reason a living thing seeks to discharge it's strength, above all, is because the nature of sacrifice demands that living things give up power/equity in order to gain power/equity.

Black Swan, that's an interesting quote.
"...a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory...do you want a name for this world?...This world is the will to power."

I might need to read more of that passage, to understand the context.
It sounds like metaphysics to me. But I can make a connection to behaviour and quantum physics, if I stretch a lot
You know the quantum mechanics and waves in connection with consciousness theories or hypo-thesis, I'm sure.

It seems like he might also have thought that the universe of matter, is just a wave that's coming in, and breaking.
I hope each wave is at least different. if snow flakes can, I think we have a chance of no eternal recurrence, thank God

Fathom

Torakx wrote: »

So I've been thinking about this for a while

Cool.

Torakx

"discharge (v.)

early 14c., "to exempt, exonerate, release, free (from an obligation)," from Old French deschargier "to unload, discharge" (12c., Modern French décharger), from Late Latin discarricare, from dis- "do the opposite of" (see dis-) + carricare "to load a wagon or cart," from Latin carrus "two-wheeled wagon" (see car).

Meaning "to fulfill, to perform (one's duties, etc.)" is from c. 1400. Sense of "dismiss from office or employment" is from c. 1400. Meaning "to unload, to free from, disburden" is late 14c. Of weapons, "send forth by propulsion," transitive, 1550s; "to fire off," intransitive, 1580s. Of a river, "to empty itself," c. 1600. The electrical sense is first attested 1748. Related: Discharged; discharging."

Joe1919

Hi. Just my reading and opinion of Nietzsche. As regards your original quote, many would see this as a 'psychological observation' rather than some type of metaphysical position. I think its a mistake to look for metaphysics in Nietzsche as he was a deconstructionist (with a hammer) and generally seen metaphysics as dying, in the 'twilight' along with the idols. His general criticism was with the values of modern society and religion, which were against the life instinct.

He tried to clarify his position a year later in 'On the Genealogy of Morality'. Of particular interest to me was the second last paragraph on 'Ascetic Ideals'.

"The ascetic ideal was the only reason offered up to that point. Any meaning is better than no meaning at all. However you look at it, the ascetic ideal has so far been a "faute de mieux" [for lack of something better] par excellence. In it suffering was interpreted, the huge hole appeared filled in, the door shut against all suicidal nihilism. The interpretation undoubtedly brought new suffering with it—more profound, more inner, more poisonous, and more life-gnawing suffering. It brought all suffering under the perspective of guilt . . . But nevertheless, with it man was saved. He had a meaning. From that point on he was no longer a leaf in the wind, a toy ball of nonsense, of "without sense." He could now will something—at first it didn't matter where, why, or how he willed: the will itself was saved."

The essay ends with a famous quote 'man will sooner will nothingness than not will . . .'

http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Nietzsche/genealogy3.htm

Nietzsche sees man as putting the 'will' as most important. Do we prefer to rule in hell than serve in heaven? Do we see similar asceticism today, e.g. eating disorder, self starvation gives meaning/control (will) at expense to life/health?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118021853#Comment_118021853

To what extent did Nietzsche address a male audience in his works? Would today’s female audience agree with his will to power?

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118435048#Comment_118435048

In some respects, I am inclined to think that the ‘will to power’ idea is a tautology and perhaps trivial. ‘Power’ in this context is seen as an ‘ability’ to be able to satisfy the will and one wishes/wills (by definition) to have this ability . In many ways (similar to the problem of ‘psychological egoism’), what counts is not the subjectivity of the working of the will (will is really only an abstract idea on the inner workings of the mind,) but the ‘object’ of the will  i.e What one wills/values? His main agenda is the ‘transvaluation’ of our values that has made us sickly (in his opinion).

In one example, he sees women as very strong willed but the sickest of all .

The sick woman, in particular: no one outdoes her in refined ways to rule others, to exert pressure, to tyrannize. For that purpose, the sick woman spares nothing living or dead. She digs up again the most deeply buried things (the Bogos say "The woman is a hyena").

I am not sure to what extent the females in his life influenced his writing or whether he wrote to influence them. I would imagine many women (and indeed men) would find his 'will to power' doctrine as it fits in with his other writings objectionable in that he seems to put the subjective satisfaction of the will as primary in the discussion and leaves very little room for 'pity' or on our ability to make the good of others the object of our will, (although he clearly states that this happens).

Incidently, very similar problem/debate takes place around the idea of 'psychological egoism'.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118447214#Comment_118447214

Nietzsche’s sick woman characterization suggests a gender bias for some unexplained reasons. Although during the time period of his writing such would not be all that unusual. The gender specific definition of hysteria comes to mind. How many men exhibit a wandering womb? And would such wandering be willful metaphorically?

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118021853#Comment_118021853

I'm a bit rusty now on Nietzsche. The original quote seems very metaphysical. "Life itself is will to power" even mentioning physiologists.

Outside the physical is often where the metaphysical is found, and I believe that Nietzsche may have felt the Will to Power preceded consciousness and sentience at the least.

With regards to Nietzsche's controversial views, most of what I've read has made sense, when I consider things from the foundations up, starting with the will to power as the force that causes the wave that is life.

Females have less testosterone than males, since this has been a thing for a very long time, I can see so many ways this difference causes a divergence pattern across many levels. Tactics, strategies, ways of thinking and perceiving. Biological advantages and disadvantages in different areas.

The ability and fortitude to go through birth is possibly one of the advantages ^^ I don't know... but I do know the greatest thing I've learned from reading Nietzsche is how to think clearer. To look at the foundations, maybe retro-ductive thinking is a good way to phrase the route to finding foundations.

If I can't figure out one of his sentences or cheeky aphorisms, I assume I just haven't thought it through as well as he, and so reserve judgment.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118868964#Comment_118868964

Your comment. “Females have less testosterone than males” was confounding. Granted, there are substantial physiological differences by gender. But how does this contribute to our understanding of the will to power?

As an aside. I find it ironic that The Will to Power was a book of Nietzsche notes published by his sister Elisabeth. To what extent did her lack of testosterone affect her translation of his work? She did collaborate with Peter Gast when publishing, who had more testosterone than her.

Jacques Derrida would caution us about signature. Was The Will to Power Nietzsche? Or Elisabeth? Or some interpretive combination of Friedrich, Elisabeth, and Peter?

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119183434#Comment_119183434

I see now why that seems out of place. I was replying to an earlier post of Joe1919

But, I can answer anyway to the link to will to power.

Because of the variance between sexes, not necessarily genders, like body changes due to hormones, different body parts expressed or developed/undeveloped, the metaphysical force of this "Will to power" is expressed differently between male and female.

Which is where Nietzsche found a lot of his controversial aphorisms about men and women's relations, power dynamics etc.

His notes on the idea of will to power were indeed first collected, and published by his sister. I tend to rely on the books before this when thinking about will to power as a metaphysical force, or as a social expression of this force.

Here is the main quote that started the thread off. It's from Beyond Good and Evil.

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118450564#Comment_118450564

@Torakx

To reiterate my earlier post, to what extent was Nietzsche exhibiting the spirit of the times in addressing an historically male dominated readership? Perhaps showing to some degree a male philosophical culture bias vis-a-vis females of the times?

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120203934#Comment_120203934

I see now that you posed that question to Joe1919 who might have said something about that topic.

I don't think he represented the spirit of the times at all. He was looking into humanity and relationships to predict the future and send a warning and some principles to rely on.

Torakx

More to the topic of metaphysics, it appears that open AI's ChatGPT agrees with me on Nietzsche and metaphysics.

Me:

Are you familiar with Nietzsche's "will to power"?

ChatGPT:

Yes, I am familiar with Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the "will to power." It is one of Nietzsche's central ideas and is often interpreted as the basic instinct in individuals and societies to assert oneself, to strive for power and control, and to overcome obstacles. Nietzsche believed that this drive towards power is not necessarily negative or evil, but is a fundamental aspect of human nature and a driving force behind personal and societal development.

Me:

Nietzsche wrote “Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.”

Can you explain why a living thing would discharge it's strength, if life itself is will to power?

ChatGPT

According to Nietzsche, a living thing seeks to discharge its strength because the essence of life is the will to power. In other words, life is driven by the urge to assert oneself and overcome obstacles, and the discharge of strength is a means to achieve that goal. The instinct of self-preservation, for Nietzsche, is a secondary or indirect result of this drive towards power and assertion.

In this sense, the discharge of strength can be seen as a way for a living thing to assert itself, to exercise its power, and to overcome limitations or challenges. By doing so, the living thing increases its own power and furthers its own development. Self-preservation is just one of the outcomes of this process, rather than being the primary motivation behind it.

Me:

Is the discharge of strength also possible to be a will to death? Or the opposite of power?

ChatGPT

For Nietzsche, the discharge of strength can also be associated with the idea of the "eternal recurrence of the same," which suggests that all events in the universe repeat themselves infinitely. In this context, the discharge of strength could lead to the eventual exhaustion and destruction of the living thing, and could be seen as a form of self-negation or the opposite of power.

However, this idea should not be seen as a straightforward rejection of the will to power, but rather as a more nuanced understanding of it. For Nietzsche, the will to power is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses both the drive towards life and the drive towards destruction. The discharge of strength can be both a manifestation of the will to power and a source of self-destruction, depending on the context and the perspective.

Me:

I put it to you that this so called "source of self destruction" is also an expression of the will to power, even if that leads to non existance in the physical world. ie death.

And therefore in Nietzsche's model or philosophy, the will to power fundamentally is a metaphysical force that is expressed through all living things.

ChatGPT

Yes, that's a valid interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy. In Nietzsche's view, the will to power is a fundamental and universal force that underlies all aspects of life, including the drive towards self-destruction. From this perspective, even death can be seen as an expression of the will to power, as it represents the ultimate assertion of one's own strength and the ultimate overcoming of limitations.

Therefore, the will to power can be seen as a metaphysical force that is expressed through all living things, shaping their development and ultimately determining their fate. For Nietzsche, the will to power is not just a subjective or individual phenomenon, but a fundamental aspect of reality that influences all living things and the universe as a whole.

Fathom

ChatGPT question for your generative AI programmatic reply:

To what extent does ChatGPT itself exhibit its own unique and personal “will to power” in singularity?

@Torakx

Black Swan

Interesting ChatGPT question by Fathom. Reply?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120206700#Comment_120206700

There has recently been a relatively new engineering discipline and occupation called prompting that may cross several fields including philosophy that informs ChatGPT.

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120390262#Comment_120390262

My apologies for not replying sooner. Life tends to sweep me away in many directions.

I was aware of prompting at the time I questioned ChatGPT on this. I mean that it could not be any other way, it's Neural network of previous texts, and therefore it's conclusions if we can call it that, are quite variable and unreliable even for logic, and especially for rationale.

Mostly, it was something interesting to try, and i thought maybe too, the response itself could be challenged if the bot was better able to speak to Nietzsche's works. Better than I.

"To what extent does ChatGPT itself exhibit its own unique and personal “will to power” in singularity?"

Why do I feel like I've been counter cat fished XD

The original post is about living things.

Is chat GPT living? Maybe. That definition might have to change or trans-form.

Those who supplied it with thoughts could be considered living, and so we might say that in part, at least, this AI is a specter of the collective consciousness.

So in this respect I could say that Chat GPT has a will to power. Maybe an un-living being? And if we agree un-living and refer back to the original post; are we then saying that it might act in the opposite to the original premise of Nietzsche's? is that the new God of this world? The next downgoer and yes sayer?

In singularity, i am not sure we can say much of it. if i run those questions through the AI bot, i am assuming i would get different responses.

In practise, what i did in that conversation, was debate the bot, in order to guide it's conclusions to my own desires or will to power.

It is in a way a reflection of my own and the collectives will to power.

Can we say this is a next level up singularity? A will of it's own, considering my unconscious is...well unconscious, and also that of this bots collective "mind"?

Joe1919

......Is chat GPT living? Maybe. That definition might have to change or trans-form.........

There has been a lot written over the years about human consciousness. Is it just material in terms mechanical/biological/electrical pulses or does a human have something extra like a 'self' or 'soul' of some type? But what is this mysterious self/soul? Can humans be reduced to just been lumps of fleshy material with some type of internal biological thinking apparatus?

Anyhow, I cant answer the questions above but many philosophers have tried to argue that human consciousness cant be fully explained materially. This is often referred to as 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness'. I suppose it may have ethical implications in that if humans are 'reduced' in terms of no belief in human existence as an individual 'self', then why afford the human with any special dignity? etc.

Anyhow, many philosophers have tried to demonstrate that computers(AI ?) are not conscious. An example is the 'Chinese Room Thought Experiment' as below.

https://www.thecollector.com/can-ai-think-searle-chinese-room-argument/

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121322407#Comment_121322407

Thought provoking reply. Will come back to this when time permits.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121326532#Comment_121326532

Another interesting contribution.

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121326532#Comment_121326532

I'm being a little bit funny here with my assumed confidence in this response, but I'm also kind of serious about this idea. Mostly because I just haven't gotten a chance to work on it.

I already solved the hard problem of consciousness, by deleting consciousness all together. Now there is no incongruence in my model XD....yet.

I'm using a mix of inverted pan-psychism and Nietzschean will to power(metaphysics, not social of course). And I think the catch is going to be in the definition of the word "consciousness", or at least how we use that word without much forethought as to what we are saying exactly when we use it.

If there is no consciousness in living beings, unless it is in all living beings, we might as well just call it living, or life instead of consciousness.

But we know from common parlance that when we speak of something being conscious, we mean that it is aware. Wait... let me do my due diligence for once...

Copy paste ruins the format :( The dictionary seems to agree though, that its a lot to do with being awake and aware of our surroundings.

I am thinking that insects are aware of their environment. So I assume I would be correct in saying that many philosophers should then agree that insects are conscious.

So what do insects awareness and humans awareness have in common?

It is the sensations within the body/organism, as a result of inter-action with the rest of the environment. Light, sound, taste, pain etc.

We might assume that if a living organism felt no pain and had no sensory inputs, that it was not conscious. But I don't know if such a thing exists. I would guess that even the simplest living cell would meet these requirements for consciousness.

So in my thinking, human "consciousness" or better said sentience(maybe I'm getting those two backwards? although it does not matter here) is simply a very complex sensory function, with a feedback loop to allow for abstraction and only then self analysis(or self awareness) within a group of other humans who also have abstraction as a function. The self awareness function may have come from the need for the abstracting individual to work alongside other abstractors.

For me, the cell is "conscious" and the human is "conscious", and all the living things in between.

I am not quite a panpsychist anymore I would say, because I wouldn't say a rock is conscious. Maybe.

If I did lean that way, I would say the rock is alive, but it's just moving slower in time from our frame of reference. But that's a little bit of a stretch. Only a little..

Anyway, I fail to see the need to have consciousness in my model of reality, as some kind of special thing that needs to be solved.

It's an illusion to us, because of this feedback loop. we abstract out our senses and in abstracting that abstraction, inside that second abstraction, we look down a layer and think we have left the body or that we exist in some kind of space where the body is not. Purely because we see our abstractions.

Perhaps that is one of the meanings of the Trinity in Christianity. Left and right hemisphere, with the third eye(heh interesting pun) above it all looking down.

This model also accounts for fate. In that our trajectory through this reality is fated, but not determined.

It's not determined because it hasn't happened to us yet(quantum mechanics accounted for here precisely), but it is fated in that we can only do things the way we do them at any given time. That it was always going to happen that way with ALL things considered.

I'd love to write a book on this, but I think I can explain it in a few pages...

My thinking is so far from what i hear from intellectuals on youtube etc, that I am not sure if I am sounding like a complete fool or not.

It seems so clear to me, I'm waiting for someone to point out something super simple that I missed....

EDIT:

https://youtu.be/O7O1Qa4Zb4s

Matter and Consciousness – Dr Iain McGilchrist

Iain seems to strongly disagree with me. He is more firmly set in the panpsychism category of thought.

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121560047#Comment_121560047

The idea of dismissing or deleting consciousness altogether could be considered a good idea from a purely objective or material/physical perspective or point of view. Indeed, dualists could probably agree with you also in that they may see consciousness as pure subjectivity and not as an object or material thing.

Indeed, if we go back to Descartes cogito, ergo sum, we may have no way of going beyond our own consciousness. Maybe there is no other consciousness's out there. (Soliphism). Or we could be a 'Brain in a Vat' (like in The Matrix). But I think we just assume that other people are conscious like ourselves. But is this correct? Are other people experience of consciousness the same as ours?

http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/2022/10/beetle-in-box-thought-experiment.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument (What Mary Didn't Know)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

Phenomenology (like Idealism) flips materialism/physicalism totally on its head. Edmund Husserl (Ideas) make nature ontologically dependent on consciousness i.e. objects are only objects because a subject says so. All our knowledge comes through our senses and through our consciousness. Consciousness is primary. The world and all its objects are secondary and only experienced through our consciousness. This means we can only describe the things we experience (phenomena). He brackets everything else. His methods are reasonably scientific in that all models/hypothesis are only useful/true in the sense that they can be supported by phenomena.

Torakx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121568800#Comment_121568800

Interesting stuff. There is always so much of what seems like foundational philosophy, that I just haven't even come across, let alone had time to investigate.

It looks like we might be revisiting this problem when dealing with AI neural networks.

The beetle in a box, seems to be like an introduction to the idea that we cannot ever really know if the colour we both call green is experienced as the same sensation, apply to all qualia/experience of the external...and internal. Maybe we can cheat a little here, and assume that because we are of the same genetic tree, we must have at least a foundational level of relatedness in our experiences. And thus we have a bridge of outer language to each of our inner banks.

What Mary didn't know is a good one. If I am not mistaken, it seems there was a scenario left out...

There is the idea that Mary understands everything about the outside world, except the experience of colour(subjective apparently), and so it must be, that when she steps out for the first time and experiences colour, she has gained some new knowledge or experience of the non physical kind. And this is used as evidence that the phenomenon is real because she has learned something new.

It seems to me that they are saying the things she learns about colour, the body, neurons etc etc in the black and white room are physical facts.

And when she steps out into a colourful world, this experience of colour is a personal/subjective interpretation of those facts. And so there is not only the physical, but something intangible in the experience.

However, I think we can also say that the experience of colour was THE most physical aspect in that story. And her previous knowledge when it came to colours was limited by the lack of the physical experience. She can no more or less share her experience of the colours, than she can the knowledge she gained about the processes involved. Unless she shares the physical experience of gaining that knowledge of the processes involved, as well as sharing the experience of seeing colours. By sharing, I mean taking someone through the experience alongside her.

When it comes to communicating the knowledge of the processes, she uses a language(public, as per the beetle in a box), but this language is not telepathic, it must be experienced just as the colours, and is translated back into private.

The colours are experienced directly by the other, and the knowledge of such processes are experienced through the sound of her words. But both need to be translated through the senses and then become subjective again.

We could say that both the light giving off colours and the sound of her speaking about the processes, are physical hard lines or inputs. Photons and atmospheric vibrations. Meaning the thought experiment is flawed in it's premise.

The difference being that Mary cannot communicate the processes with light, unless she writes it down on some paper.

Does this mean that the experience of knowledge about the processes is any more or less physical than the experience of knowledge about the colours? both are knowledge, both are experienced, and both are translated from outside to inside interpretation.

How do I know you see the number 1 the same way I see the number 1?

What if Mary was deaf and dumb(without hands lol..poor Mary), but can read?

It comes down to whether the experience of these inputs is counted as physical or phenomena.

It is still a case of either brain in a vat type simulation theory(solipsism) or physicalism/materialism, and maybe I have just redone Husserl's work unnecessarily...

I agree with Husserl, in that we cannot prove we are not brains in a vat for example. But that is almost a moot theory.

If we are in a simulation, then we the simulants inside it, must refer to the material in the language of materialism or the physical. Which means Husserl can stand in the corner, while the rest of us play with materialism.

If we are not in a simulation and there is something outside the universe, quantum mechanics, gravity phenomena etc etc... then we are back to asking, if there is some kind of consciousness field that causes us to have experience outside of the physical.

And the more I write on this, the more I seem to be leaning towards materialism and the likelihood that the thing we call consciousness, or awareness, is the physical abstractionx2 of sensory stimulations from the external.

Well, that was arduous. XD

I probably missed something, but I think it helped me cover some untrodden ground all the same.

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121573692#Comment_121573692

Incidently, Husserl accepts (in Ideas Part 2) that Realism is the natural attitude to take towards the world. We are ‘conscious of a world endless spread out over space. ...Corporal physical things are simply there for me.’ For the most part we spend most of our time thinking about the world and the ‘actuality continually surrounding me.’ But this is not always the case. I may spend time thinking about abstract things (e.g. Arithmetic) and in this case be in an arithmetical attitude rather than a natural attitude which will remain in the background in this case. We accept the world ‘as it presents itself to me as factually existing’. However, (like Descartes) we can attempt to doubt this.   He further explains how one is easily persuaded that the material world is the ‘fundamental stratum’ and that ‘consciousness and physicalness is a combined whole’. He calls this the ‘naive’ view ........

John Searle (The Chinese Room author) takes a sort of mid position in his book 'Mind, A brief introduction'. He seems to try to defend 'Direct Realism' without eliminating or reducing the idea of consciousness. I think he is trying to present an alternative to anti-realism. Might be worth a read.

Joe1919

HOW THE “TRUE WORLD” ULTIMATELY BECAME A FABLE

THE HISTORY OF AN ERROR   P.25

1. The true world, attainable to the sage, the pious man and the man of virtue,—he lives in it, he is it. (The most ancient form of the idea was relatively clever, simple, convincing. It was a paraphrase of the proposition “I, Plato, am the truth.”)

2. The true world which is unattainable for the moment, is promised to the sage, to the pious man and to the man of virtue (“to the sinner who repents”).(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, more insidious, more evasive. It ... becomes Christian.)

3. The true world is unattainable, it cannot be proved, it cannot promise anything; but even as a thought, alone, it is a comfort, an obligation, a command.......

4. The true world—is it unattainable? At all events it is unattained. And as unattained it is also unknown. Consequently it no longer comforts, nor saves, nor constrains: what could something unknown constrain us to? (The grey of dawn. Reason stretches itself and yawns for the first time. The cock-crow of positivism.)

5. The “true world”—an idea that no longer serves any purpose, that no longer constrains one to anything,—a useless idea that has become quite superfluous, consequently an exploded idea: let us abolish it! (Bright daylight; breakfast; the return of common sense and of cheerfulness; Plato blushes for shame and all free-spirits kick up a shindy.)

6. We have suppressed the true world: what world survives? the apparent world perhaps?... Certainly not! In abolishing the true world we have also abolished the world of appearance!

 THE TWILIGHT OF THE IDOL BY FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE Or, How to Philosophise with the Hammer TRANSLATED BY ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Life no Argument. We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by the postulating of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith no one could manage to live at present! But for all that they are still unproved. Life is no argument; error might be among the conditions of life.

Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science Book III - Aphorism # 121

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a postscript to previous post, I have attached two quotes from Nietzsche. The first quote fairly clearly demonstrates what could be considered his anti-realist position. The second quote shows that he acknowledges that we have to live in the world and have to accept conventional 'postulations' if we want to live. In many respects therefore, the anti-realist lives his life similarly to the regular naive realist except perhaps he doesn't have that dogmatic belief or certainty. There is a saying in Zen: Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water: After Enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

I'm not sure of his anti-realist position on 'consciousness. Nietzsche doesn't eliminate it as I think to do so might be to claim some kind of knowledge of it. I think when he is in discussion on consciousness, he is 'postulating' like with cause and effects etc as he mentions in Gay Science quote above, so this does not commit him to saying whether consciousness is real or not . But then again, he does not have to eliminate consciousness anyway as he has already eliminated everything when he says 'In abolishing the true world we have also abolished the world of appearance!

The mind boggles.......

PS. Below is book with some essays that I think might help to possibly support some of your position or at least might give you food for thought. Some of the individual essays are available on line.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/nietzsche-on-consciousness-and-the-embodied-mind/

Table of Contents

Nietzsche on the Superficiality of Consciousness