Reality

BoGoWo, Is our experience for real?

0 Replies

mine is; but you are just a figment of my imagination! Very Happy

0 Replies

truth
Joe, your characterization of the realization of the identity of observer and observed as "trivial and inconsequential, much as [is] the embracing of Buddhism...". Is striking. It poo poos the great Hindu principle, Tat Tvm Asi (Thou art that), without understanding it. I'm no buddhist in the sense of being the follower of a religion, or worse, a "guru", as most "buddhists" (and Hindus) appear to be. I see buddhism as a secular discipline that is more psychological than theological (if fact I do not see it--its meditative sects--as theological at all). But "trivial and inconsequential"? Too bad for you. And I don't mean to be condescending. You and Frank accuse Fresco of being condescending. I grant that his style might appear to be so to Americans at times. But it's only style, perhaps British style. I don't know. But you guys retaliate with typical Amercian gruffness which is no more attractive that condescension: "That's pure nonsence," and "That's bullshit."

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, your characterization of the realization of the identity of observer and observed as "trivial and inconsequential, much as [is] the embracing of Buddhism...". Is striking. It poo poos the great Hindu principle, Tat Tvm Asi (Thou art that), without understanding it.

Well, you're right to suggest that I don't understand Tat Tvm Asi, but you're wrong to say that I'm poo-pooing it. I make it a firm policy never to poo-poo anything of whose existence I am unaware, and I am blissfully ignorant of Tat Tvm Asi (except for your reference thereto). As such, any poo-pooing to be done will be done by someone other than me.

JLNobody wrote:

I'm no buddhist in the sense of being the follower of a religion, or worse, a "guru", as most "buddhists" (and Hindus) appear to be. I see buddhism as a secular discipline that is more psychological than theological (if fact I do not see it--its meditative sects--as theological at all). But "trivial and inconsequential"? Too bad for you.

Yes, too bad. Sometimes, in the quiet seclusion of my profoundest reverie, I grieve for my lack of faith.

JLNobody wrote:

And I don't mean to be condescending. You and Frank accuse Fresco of being condescending. I grant that his style might appear to be so to Americans at times. But it's only style, perhaps British style. I don't know. But you guys retaliate with typical Amercian gruffness which is no more attractive that condescension: "That's pure nonsence," and "That's bullshit."

We are indeed two peoples divided by a common language.

0 Replies

Having just had my tea (=dinner) I concur on the language front !

Stylistically of course we Brits play academic cricket - often an enigma to our transatlantic cousins - with many subtleties of "gentlemanly gamesmanship", and like the celebrated English butler, we tend to turn a diplomatic blind eye to some of the more extreme behaviour of party guests. The American "go for it syndrome" does tend to "work" at Wimbledon at least, despite the Kipling quotation on the wall which urges players to:

?'... meet with Triumph and Disaster,
And treat those two imposters just the same.

.......ah, but maybe Kipling was a non-dualist!

0 Replies

I'm still waiting for this grand Zen revelation that I'm supposed to be getting from JLN about how we no longer understand everything about the world after we've resorted to duality. Or, perhaps a better way of saying it would be to say that we no longer think we know everything about the world when we've discovered that uncertainty exists.

0 Replies

If someone throws a rock at you at 27 MPH, it then bounces off your forehead, it will really hurt. THAT is reality.

0 Replies

truth
McGentrix, That's one way of looking at it.

Rufio, what are you saying? What's all this about a zen revelation"; and why ask me? You'll "get" nothing from me. And even if I did have the nondualist perspective, I couldn't give it to you even if it were my greatest desire in life. YOU have to try to attain it. And it is obvious that you have no such intention. That's O.K., it's your mind. Do with it as you will."

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Their behavior may ?'demonstrate' or indicate that awareness is present Terry, but that demonstration or indication of awareness is "not" awareness. There is a significant distinction here. And a determination based on their behavior that they ?'are' aware is a guess. For all we know they could be an automaton.

Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese, and their bodies could have been taken over by aliens ... C'mon, twyvel, that is a pretty poor argument even for you.

Quote:

We can observe behavior in another person but we cannot observe >that which is looking<. We cannot observe >the looking< of someone else, because >the looking< is immaterial and un-objectified.

Yes, we've already agreed that we cannot experience someone else's consciousness, but so what? We can measure the physiological changes in the brain in someone who we "observe" to be conscious, and compare it to our own personal experience of conscious self.

Quote:

But I think material dualism is flawed belief system, and one of the major flaws is that it cannot account for or explain how, physical/physiological brain processes or functions give rise to consciousness and thought.

Science cannot completely explain the process - yet. So you would dump the system that gives a partial accounting and holds the promise of a full one, for one which gives absolutely no explanation at all? If non-dualism CAN explain where consciousness comes from, please enlighten us.

Quote:

I don't think there are ?'different' kinds of consciousness. It is the "content" that is different not consciousness. (dualistically speaking). If consciousness uses the brain as a tool to work through, then the condition of that tool/brain will effects what that consciousness observes ?'not' what that consciousness IS.

It is too bad that your pre-conceived notions of consciousness require you to ignore the findings of neuroscience on the distinctly different states of consciousness that depend on which areas of the brain are activated.

Quote:

Cats, mice, lions, bugs, humans, and all the animals on Noah's Ark may all have the ?'same' consciousness observing through their sense organs. Same consciousness (as entity) different, brains, different sense organs hence different content.

Nice myth, but absolutely no scientific justisfication for it. We know that human (extended) consciousness requires brain structures that are completely lacking in insects and reptiles.

Quote:

Terry wrote:
Once again, there are several kinds of consciousness that we can clearly identify and describe: the proto-self, the core self, and the autobiographical self or extended consciousness. The only "problem" here is that you refuse to recognize their existence.

I think you might be talking about psychological character identities or egos. However I don't see that as the issue.

The issue is that there are several levels of consciousness, and I am NOT talking about "character identities." [sigh] By suppressing the neurological stimulaton that produces extended consciousness (through meditation or whatever), you CAN make the "self" seem to disappear. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist!

Quote:

And in that regard any ?'self' that can be observed is an object. It is an object to another ?'self that is observing it ad infinitum; the ?'self' is the observer, so the buck never stops, because no matter what ?'self' is being observed, it is ""being"" observed, by another ?'observer/self'.

No-self, as an unobserved observer, stops the infinite regress, right.... >here<....right ....>now<....

Your "no-self" is actually the proto-self produced by the brainstem nuclei in conjunction with the hypothalmus and somatosensory cortices. That's where the buck stops, or more correctly where it starts. One of the basic flaws in your argument is that assumption that every observer needs to be observed.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Terry wrote:
if non-dualism is correct, how can anyone be wrong

Sometimes a lot can be said in a few words,

Yes, and sometimes very little can be said in a lot of words. Very Happy

Perhaps you could explain to us how, if All is One, "we" got separated into contradictory schools of thought regarding reality?

Quote:

There has been an attempt made to indicate the illusory nature of this "split" of nondualism into dualism by pointing out the infinite regress of the subject in the subject?-object relation, something that Terry, Frank and surprisingly joefromchicago fail to grasp, or refuse to consider, or have resistance to doing so perhaps because of the perceived consequences.

You invented the alleged infinite regress. It was never a real problem.

Exactly what "consequences" might prevent us from believing as you do? I have heard almost the same thing from Christians who claim that we are afraid to accept Christ because we would have to give up our wicked ways. :wink:

Quote:

To me it seems it would be blatantly obvious to anyone who spends a short time in reflection and/or personal observation that the subject in the subject?-object relation is in a constant state of disappearing. Meaning there is no subject (as observer), except a subject/object subject, i.e. as an object of observation

And it seems blatently obvious to me that anyone who spends a short time in personal observation would realize that there must be a source for our perceptions of the physical world. If you do not believe that there is an objective universe, then who do you think makes up the illusions that we perceive? And most importantly WHY would it delude us into seeing a world that isn't there?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

But MY knowledge of MY portion of whatever the total reality is is nothing other than EXPERIENCE. Outside of that experience the world does not exist FOR ME. This is my understanding of the meaning of Schopenhauer's dictum: The world is my idea (meaning that it is for me my representations of it). How could it be otherwise? How can there be an unrepresented world for me? This idealism/subjectivism/mentalism stands opposed to the philosophical naivete of the epistemology of positivism.

(One of the reasons that I prefer to quote people is that the original text is retained in the quote even if they edit their post after I have responded.)

I agree that there is a subject difference between what we personally experience of the world, and what we learn from others. But I can take the reports of other people and construct a mental representation of a universe as big as my imagination. This representation will be fairly accurate in my areas of expertise, although in other areas it may be as naïve as the drawings of unicorns and other legendary beasts based on the tales of explorers.

Quote:

But what about Terry's notion that (the physical) brain produces (mental) consciousness while (mental) consciousness does not produce (physical) brain ? My answer is simply that consciousness DOES produce "brain." The phenomenon of "physical brain" IS an idea, an experience of consciousness.

Quote:

When I said that mind produces brain, I was not, of course, saying that by thinking the thought, "brain", that brain comes into existence as YOU, or any positivist, would think of it, i.e., as a palpable solid thing that exists without being perceived. I was talking about the EXPERIENCE of "brain." Even the "palpability" of a physical brain, the touching of the sqwishy thing, is itself NOTHING more than an experience, for me, for you, for anyone, and any indirect indications of it, say a weighing machine registering its "weight" is also an experience, as we READ the scale and THINK of the meaning of units of weight measurement.

Well, of course the consciousness can produce the idea of a physical brain, and everything we know is based on our mental experience of the physical stimuli detected by our senses. But my statement still stands that consciousness cannot produce a physical brain. It can choose actions that will exercise the brain, but it cannot magically will gray matter into existence.

So where do you suppose that the physical universe (or the illusion thereof) perceived by our senses comes from?

0 Replies

Terry,

Here's an example of a direct repudiation of your view's about consciousness. I do not subscribe to the theistic stance taken as an alternative, only to the "scientific issues" from which the views on consciousness arise.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm

The sub references, especially to Bohm are well worth investigating.

0 Replies

Ahhh, Terry.

SO MANY BELIEF SYSTEMS...so little time to challenge them all.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Terry,

Here's an example of a direct repudiation of your view's about consciousness. I do not subscribe to the theistic stance taken as an alternative, only to the "scientific issues" from which the views on consciousness arise.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm

The sub references, especially to Bohm are well worth investigating.

This was more original when Bishop Berkeley said the same thing almost three hundred years ago.

0 Replies

rarely does one see a more poorly misrepresented concept of a theory they most oviously do not understand;

the 'observer theory' refers not to the construct of the observed by the observer, but merely the 'effecting' of the observation during the phenominon.

and i would like to add here that the human brain is a chemical 'cesspool' (cesswho?), filled with hormonal activity which modifies what one 'thinks' one sees, grasps, or understands, and modifying the very 'states of consciousness in which we (think we) find ourselves from time to time - it is well documented (i thought you might ask me that) that the extreme state of trance, in which reality dissolves into 'Nirvana"(?) is the result of hormones initiated by the severe concentration/lack of concentration-intense/relaxed physical load on the body.

it is frightening to realize that, from the outside, we are all, more or less, 'Ozzy Osbourn' clones! Shocked

0 Replies

BoGoWo

I agree the main reference is highly simplified, but I now quote part of a sub-reference to Bohm which I feel has more substance:

<<David Bohm's most significant contribution to science is his interpretation of the nature of physical reality, which is rooted in his theoretical investigations, especially quantum theory and relativity theory. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts "merge and unite in one totality." This undivided whole is not static but rather in a constant state of flow and change, a kind of invisible ether from which all things arise and into which all things eventually dissolve. Indeed, even mind and matter are united: "In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement" (in Hayward 1987, 25). Similarly, living and nonliving entities are not separate. As Bohm puts it, "The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron." Thus, matter does not exist independently from so-called empty space; matter and space are each part of the wholeness.>>

0 Replies

truth
Frank, you might as well have ALSO said:
Ahhh Terry, SO MANY BELIEF SYSTEMS...so little time to RESIST/MISUNDERSTAND them all.

I prefer to ignore them if I do not take them seriously. I take your belief (tacit as it may be) in the fragmented nature of reality (i.e., dualism) very seriously because of what people miss (IN THIS LIFE, NOW) because of it.

0 Replies

truth
Terry, you argue that we have "invented" the "infinite regress" and that we have unjustifiably assigned it the status of a problem, whereas you say it is not. Why do you think we have raised it in the first place? To me it was a response to the general tendency to accept as axiomatic the notion that every action entails some agency, some subject or "self". Now you may argue that you are not referring just to a subjective sensation of "self" but to a publically verifiable nervous system, to an empirically experienced body of a person who is objectively acting. I do not deny the reality of bodies doing things. I deny only the realilty of a "self" within the bodies carrying out its will by means of its body. It seems so much like the science fiction "alien being" that invades human bodies and takes them over, taking on the function of, not just brains, but subjects/minds. The "infinite regress" reference was to reveal the impossibility of empirically confirming the existence of this "self." Looking for it as anobjective entity, means having a subject to look at it, to recognize it as an "object" of a subject's experience. But, as you know, when we look for this subject we can only see it--which is to make it an object of perception--by means of an experienced subject, which now becomes by definition an object. This can go on 'infinitely" or, more likely, until you give up. It demonstrates that the "self", together with its extensions (I, me, my, and mine) is no more than an implicit theoretical construct. I grant that it is an essential construct--indeed, a functional prerequisite of society. You and I could not relate, as we are doing now, without it. But it is no more than a reflection of the tyranny of our grammar: Objects and predicates cannot operate without subjects. But this grammatical model FOR talking and thinking makes for very poor ontological and epistemological paradigm OF reality. Almost every statement you have made manifests this unquestioning addiction to grammar, to your projection of grammatical structures onto the Cosmos. We do the same with logic. This is a virtual addiction that one can barely hope to get through. Yet we continue, not for your sake, admittedly, but for ours. You, with your obvious intelligence, force us to examine our own non-dualist perspective more carefully. And to "defend" it to intelligent sceptics is almost as useful as the private meditation and reflection that brings us to it originally.

0 Replies

JLN

Perhaps an alternative way illustrating hidden linguistic restriction is provided by Bohm's observation that all is in flux. So there are really no nouns like e.g. "paper" because this is a "state" whose relative stability is defined by observer/definer of such "stability" . Bohm argues that there are only verbs, e.g. papering not paper, and "papering" is the interaction of observer and observed within a papering mode.
(Extrapolation follows to "treeing" as in "a tree falls in a forest...)

For the skeptics it is useful to cite the fact that frogs who live on insects will die of starvation (cease to exist) if surrounded by (only) dead flies. For a frog there are no "flies" only "flying" or in this case "fooding" where the state of the food must be animate.

It also follows that "self" should perhaps be "selfing" where that illusion of constancy is reinforced by continuity of "naming" or "I-ing".

0 Replies

truth
Terry, I'm going through your copious comments to isolate things to respond to. It's virtually impossible to do so in one post. You responded to Twyvel's notion that material dualism cannot account for how physical brain processes give rise to consciousness and thought with the accusation that he would dump the scientific investigation of the brain's functioning because it cannot explain where consciousness comes from. And then you invite him to show how non-dualism might do so. I think your challenge is appropriate, but, unfortunately I think that Twyvel did not phrase the issue correctly (I suspect on re-reading it he might agree). Non-dualism does not purport to explain how the brain works. The nondual perspective is not a scientific instrument (but I might possibly modify this if I knew something about the most current theoretical work in physics). It is a phenomenological one. We are talking about the nature of experience, of a perspective that is more "healthy" when it comes to the way we relate to our experience and our most fundamental existential issues. It is epistemological phenomenology insofar as it describes the nature of mental experience as it is, how it generates illusions and how it may avoid doing so. This has nothing to do with either religion or science. It is, as Fresco notes, a "transcendental" affair. I only tell you this to inform you that, from our perpsective, your scientific references are irrelevant, i.e., they refer to something else.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know