The eye and the mind

Gosh, people. You're arguing about our senses and what we observe by our eyes and the mind. Without our minds, (our biological being) we wouldn't have the ability to "see." One works in concert with the other. When we die, it's all gone. No sight, no mind, no impulses.

I will respond to Fresco's and Twyvel's most recent posts when I get back from a funeral, but for the moment let me give my slant on Harding's refrain:
If you cease overlooking
the Nothing at your center
it will explode into Everything

If you realize the
Nothing at your center
you will also recognize
you're Everything.

Twyvel, there's so much to respond to (in posts by you, Fresco, Cyracuz and Val). But I'll have to do so in bits, or in some cases construct arguments stimulated by specific commentss. for now let me just respond to your response to my statement that:
"I've made the argument many times that consciousness "of the world" depends on an infinite set of circumstances. To have visual consciousness, or awareness, of some "object", there must exist, eyes, brain, heart, skin, etc., and there must exist air, gravity, oxygen, air pressure, temperature within a certain range, etc. There must be a planet to stand on; it must have a sun; there must be a solar system, with galaxies, ad infinitum."

You responded as follows: "I completely disagree,
Consciousness is not dependent on anything, i.e. it's not an emergent property."

My comment was intended to suggest, not a series of causal links, i.e., of the conditions that "lead to" (or give rise to) the experience or consciousness or sight; I was suggesting the holistic or monistic thesis that experience (e.g. consciousness and all sensorial experiences) are EMBEDDED, or perhaps intrinsic to its infinite context. Everything in that sense is simultaneously cosmic and local--depending on one's frame of reference.

fresco

I see what you mean.
That's the same problem we were discussing in another topic.
The observer "I" can be an object in the world if "I" think about myself. I see myself doing something yesterday: but is it still "ME" that I am seeing? Or an "It"? I project my reality as a thing between things.
But still remains the "I" that observes.
Like the eye. I can look at my eye in the mirror: then, we have two different situations: the eye reflected in the mirror, an object, a thing, and the eye that sees it and is not an object.

I see this problem in the quest of the "Being" in Heidegger's "Sein und Zeit".

twyvel

Good to "see" you again, since the last discussion - that I enjoyed so much!

This said, I cannot accept your solipcism. And, if you want to be coherent you must also exclude all human beings.

The human eye sees the world as viewed by an human eye. That I can accept - and (this is adressed to Cyracuz) that has nothing to do with Plato, in fact it is the opposite of his theory of Forms.

As Fresco suggested - and in fact, Heidegger - there is always an eye behind an eye. There is always a Ciracuz behind a Ciracuz. The Ciracuz that said Val made her remember of Plato's myth of cavern, and the Ciracuz that has an identity - and because of that she is Ciracuz and not Val.

But, twyvel:
There are causes, as relations we make between the external stimulus. If you don't accept external stimulus, you don't accept anything, except your mind.
But then you say that "all is one". All? All is, in that case, you.
So, please explain better that last part of your thread.

As usual, I have no idea what anyone here is discussing, but I thought that I would watch anyway.

"...and oft when on my couch I lie, in vacant or in pensive mood, they flash upon that inward eye which is the bliss of solitude..."

That's my contribution!

I'm with you Letty; not sure what's being said. But it reminds me of getting really stoned, contemplating the Universe, realizing the *big thought* and then waking up the next day going... *what* was I thinking?

Well, Ros. Funny that you mentioned "stoned", cause twyvel is the moss that gathers none.

Did learn something, however. Cyracuz is a woman.

Hey, I know something about REM sleep. Does that require air?

Val, well put, but it seems to me that you are guided here by a grammatical (subject-predicate) imperative rather than an empirical ("ah, I see it!) datum when you insist that there "still remains the "I" that observes." Do you SEE the "I" or do you THINK, as a presupposition, that "it" exists as something more substantial than a function?

Letty and rosborne, Glad to see others are not understanding a damn thing these people are discussing. I thought I was go'n bonkers. LOL

Letty, Rosborne and C.I., me either.

Well, C.I. It's just not our bag. Everyone on this thread is great, however. I just wish that things could be more simplistic.

UhOh! When the esteemed JL admits being fogged over, we know we got a follower.

If I read through the posts slowly enough I sometimes start to get a glimmer of a what's being discussed, it's at that point where I get scared and have to go splash cold water on my face.

Cyracuz, and all. I hope none of you is offended. We're just trying to be up front. Actually, I've said this before, so I'm certain no one is surprised.

Cold water time now.

Yes. Truth be told, I do understand some of what is being said, it's just that it's so esoteric that it takes a real effort for me to follow, and I have a hard time relating it to reality. But I *do* admire the level of concentration and abstraction you display in dealing with such concepts. Very impressive.

My ability at philosophical discussions has a very low limit. This one exceeds my level by a yard and six feet.

Okay you guys, what we're talking about here is the "the transcendental unity of apperception" () which was first raised by Kant.

Take some pills....read this.....and see you later !

http://bert.debruijn.be/kgp/

First I have to look up apperception. Then I have to double check my definitions of transcendantal in relation to apperception, and then google "Kant".

The only pills I have these days are aspirin, and it sounds like I'm gonna need a lot of 'em

Best Regards,

Kant do use a lot of fancy words. I half understand them when I read part of his works.

Can somebody please translate that link into "simple" English?