Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 - 11:46am PT
|
Jgill: I think you are correct on the nature of the "self", but not on the nature of solid objects.
Neither can be proven. In any event, one is left with one’s own perceptions. (I include thoughts in that.)
Your attempts to draw parallels with math or physics is not convincing, and shows your lack of depth in these subjects. Maybe try another tack.
This, too, is a problem for everyone who is not an expert in one field or another. It points up perhaps the nice thing about investigations into “mind.” Everyone appears to have one, and there would seem to be hardly any better approach than to look at one’s own mind directly, without elaborations, without filters, without theories, without definitions. To avoid doing so will constitute a lack of depth in the subject.
PSP:
While undertaking some electrical work this morning here in my home, I listened to the Harris and Goldstein dialogue. I agree with the point you made about it. I think more could be said from my side.
Harris is still searching. In so doing, he seems to get caught up in concepts, delineations, and discriminations. He seems quite conceptual to me. It seems important to him that he gets a map made of the territory called, “mind.” In my experience, that will get in his way.
Listening to Goldstein talk was somewhat of another matter to me. His experiences might show that no matter where one goes, right there one is. Buddhism, dzogchen, theravada vipassanna, concentration techniques versus metta meditation, and the many teachers he’s attended to are all part of the same thing. One can call this stuff anything they want to.
It might have been noticed that Goldstein finally arrived at a point where he had to relax and come under his own lights, and leave a teacher or two behind. No matter what seems to get said, whatever said appears to be about the same thing . . . whether if we’re talking about religion, science, psychology, quantum mechanics, climbing, whatever. I appreciated Goldstein’s experiences, and the fact that he hesitated at almost every point in talking or responding to Harris’ incessant questions and disagreements, suggesting to me that (i) articulation is artful when (ii) descriptions elude final determinations.
Cheers.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 - 02:52pm PT
|
This, too, is a problem for everyone who is not an expert in one field or another
This is where Dean Radin of the Noetic Institute gets into a bit of trouble, even though he has an MS in EE and a PhD in psychology. He wanders into a quantum world somewhere between these two disciplines and finds it's slippery stuff, difficult to wrangle down. But his writings are interesting and thought-provoking.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
|
there would seem to be hardly any better approach than to look at one’s own mind directly, without elaborations, without filters, without theories, without definitions.
Take another look. Things are often not what they seem.
"Everyone thinks they are an expert on consciousness because they have one."
 Daniel Dennett
Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.
blurb for one of Dennett's TED talks
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 - 09:25pm PT
|
^^^
Our brains try to be loyal subjects and provide us with what we wish for. I found this to be astoundingly the case in lucid dreaming, where one thinks about the goal of the experience before slipping into the state, and the brain attempts to satisfy one's desires.
I suspect this is the case with Zen meditation as well, even though practitioners might argue otherwise. I'll bet most westerners read up on Zen before they begin their practices, and that information lurks in the subconscious, influencing the eventual outcomes such as "empty awareness".
It's all slight of mind.
And what a mind!!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 09:11am PT
|
MH2 relying upon Dennett: "Everyone thinks they are an expert on consciousness because they have one."
You’re not reading very well. Try reading a bit more closely what I wrote. No one needs to be an expert to look for themselves.
BTW, it’s arguable that no one knows your own consciousness as well as you do, psychiatrists and scientists notwithstanding. This is the OP’s point that you just can’t quite seem to understand.
Jgill: Our brains try to be loyal subjects and provide us with what we wish for.
How can you possibly really know this if you don’t know your own mind?
How can anyone know anything except through their minds?
Jim: Presenting Sam Harris' meditative mentor as a source of facts because he mentors Sam Harris, is philosophical thinking at it's best.
Ok. Sure. I would say that it’s all philosophical thinking. It seems to be the very nature of “thinking”: conceptualizations, abstractions, ratiocinations, models, definitions, frameworks, etc. Other valid and effective ways of knowing (e.g., hot cognition, emotional intelligence, trances, alternative states of consciousness, dreaming, wu wei, symbolism from the unconscious, narratives / myth, etc.) are perhaps less philosophical, maybe. However, we still talk about them or try to point at them, as Harris and Goldstein did.
“Facts” might not be quite the right word as you've used it.
When someone reports a subjective state, would that be a fact? I might suppose that some of the objectivists here would avoid that distinction and merely say that it may not present the Truth (with a capital “T”) as you seem to imply. Subjectivity does not seem to be something that the notion of “the Truth” properly applies to. Instead, we might want to consider using the word, “truthfulness” instead.
There's no exclusive profession or professional in this field of wonder.
Er, this is something that one can apply to a great many seemingly important endeavors, like motherhood, manager, a salesperson, student, coder, etc. Generally a professional field of endeavor is defined (at least by sociologists) as something that takes a formal credential and a code of honor that serves the field of study itself rather than a specific organization . . . like accountants, doctors, lawyers, military personnel, the clergy. Just because one gets paid a high salary to do something doesn’t make them a professional, nor does education alone. Furthermore, the whole notion of professionalism tends to suggest to me a bit narrow-minded, singular view of purpose and value.
Be well.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 01:22pm PT
|
How can you possibly really know this if you don’t know your own mind? How can anyone know anything except through their minds?
The evidence seemed clear enough. You wrangle too much with this slippery stuff. Relax and go with the flow.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 04:10pm PT
|
Try reading a bit more closely what I wrote.
Good advice.
Going back to what you wrote:
This, too, is a problem for everyone who is not an expert in one field or another. It points up perhaps the nice thing about investigations into “mind.” Everyone appears to have one, and there would seem to be hardly any better approach than to look at one’s own mind directly, without elaborations, without filters, without theories, without definitions. To avoid doing so will constitute a lack of depth in the subject.
Sounds good.
What can you tell us about your own mind as viewed directly, without elaborations, without filters, without theories, and without definitions?
BTW, it’s arguable that no one knows your own consciousness as well as you do, psychiatrists and scientists notwithstanding. This is the OP’s point that you just can’t quite seem to understand.
It could be similarly arguable that no one knows your own body as well as you do, but if you need your appendix out, you probably couldn’t even find it yourself.
You know some things about your own consciousness that others probably cannot know in the same way that you do. However, if you do not test and evaluate your mind through encounters with objects in the world around you, including social interaction with other minds, your knowledge of your own mind will be incomplete and unreliable. Psychiatrists and scientists have learned things about your mind that you could not learn from introspection alone. That was the point Dennett was making.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 06:42pm PT
|
Jill said "I'll bet most westerners read up on Zen before they begin their practices, and that information lurks in the subconscious, influencing the eventual outcomes such as "empty awareness".
It's all slight of mind.
And what a mind!!"
Yes many do;but when you are a few days or even 15 minutes into a sitting session or upset about not getting a raise the readings fall short. There is the beta and then there is the actual doing it.
Mike L It took me several days to have the time to listen through the harris /goldstein interview. I also noticed how patient he was with Harris but was interested how much meditation Harris has done .
What most people don't get about meditation or legitimate teachers is it is largely about experiencing the shift in perception from dualistic POV to non- dualistic view. It is not all or nothing but the experience needs to take place personally to actual know Non-dual view is a real view. IMO Since we build a dual view to become an adult it is a quite a shocker to experience a non-dual view (hence the LSD attraction). Once you know the non-dual experience exists it is a new landscape; even if you are in a dualistic view at least you know that is the case. got to make dinner.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 07:07pm PT
|
. . . to actually know Non-dual view is a real view
I appreciate the "a". Some around here might say "the".
So much of this lengthy discussion turns on the simplest word choices.
Slippery stuff.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 - 09:08pm PT
|
jgill, I like "I AM" & "is"!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 07:47am PT
|
to actually know Non-dual view is a real view
Yes, but then one needs to go even deeper since that is still only impersonalism .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 07:56am PT
|
Perhaps jgill, healyje or others have already seen it?
We watched "The Man Who Knew Infinity" (2015) last night... The story of the life and academic career of the pioneer Indian mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and his friendship with his mentor, Professor G.H. Hardy.
It was really terrific... on many levels. For a certain ilk, highly recommend.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0787524/?ref_=nv_sr_1
(1) During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations). Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.
(2) His original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime and the Ramanujan theta function, have inspired a vast amount of further research. (wiki)
(3) The Ramanujan Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, was established to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by Ramanujan.
(4) He received a scholarship to study at Government Arts College, Kumbakonam,[24][25] but was so intent on mathematics that he could not focus on any other subjects and failed most of them, losing his scholarship in the process.
(5)Ramanujan failed his Fellow of Arts exam in December 1906 and again a year later. Without a FA degree, he left college and continued to pursue independent research in mathematics, living in extreme poverty and often on the brink of starvation.
EXTRA
Ramanujan married Srimathi Janaki (Janakiammal) (21 March 1899 – 13 April 1994), then a nine year old girl who his mother had selected for him a year earlier. It was not unusual for marriages to be arranged with young girls. As was common at that time, Janakiammal continued to stay at her maternal home for three years after marriage till she attained puberty.
Google honored Ramanujan on his 125th birth anniversary by replacing its logo with a doodle on its home page.
Interesting man and story.
...
To fear or not to fear... AI?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-is-not-out-to-get-us/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_TECH_NEWS
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 08:17am PT
|
From the duck crossing "since that is still only impersonalism ....."
This has not been my experience. I think the impersonalism is a myth by speculators. The non-dual view is one of union; no more separation between you and others. No small craving I, only big curious I.
The typical problem is the non-dual view is so energizing that when first encountered the small I immediately coop's it as a wonderful state to possess to pursue. so in practice you are always back to letting things go and noticing when you have attached (possessed).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 08:35am PT
|
I brought up Srinivasa Ramanujan months and months ago here.
There were others in the past even far far more advanced ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 10:09am PT
|
MH2: What can you tell us about your own mind as viewed directly, without elaborations, without filters, without theories, and without definitions?
Not “a thing.”
It could be similarly arguable that no one knows your own body as well as you do, . . . . Psychiatrists and scientists have learned things about your mind that you could not learn from introspection alone. That was the point Dennett was making.
Dennett would *like* to make that point clear and unassailable, but it seems as though it can’t be done.
Both scientists and psychiatrists are using models and frameworks and abstractions to talk to each other about “things” they want to talk about. We continue to come back to “things.” Find a thing. Say what it is completely, accurately, and finally.
What is mind? Apparently, the only things that can be said are said via negativa.
Taste sugar. Say what that taste is directly, without elaboration, without filters, without theories, without definitions (or comparisons).
Try the same thing for any sensation. Describe a plain sensation completely, accurately, and finally.
Jgill: It’s all slight of mind.
You can say that about anything. What does logic then imply?
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 10:20am PT
|
Colossians 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Matthew 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
It's personal...You and I, one sky, here and now, under God from whom all blessings flow, through Jesus Christ reconciled, belong glory, power, light, and majesty forever and always!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 01:56pm PT
|
Find a thing.
Easy. I bump into them often.
Say what it is completely, accurately, and finally.
Solid.
Taste sugar. Say what that taste is directly, without elaboration, without filters, without theories, without definitions (or comparisons).
Sweet.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 08:05pm PT
|
HFCS, I haven't seen the film, but I am somewhat familiar with Ramanujan. His notebooks were filled with elaborate formulae and very little else. Usually, proofs were lacking, but that's no surprise for his approach to mathematics was highly intuitive and he wasn't concerned with explaining his reasoning.
There have been any number of PhD theses that, basically, amount to proofs of one or more of his "conjectures". I have a colleague in Norway who has worked on some of his expansions and written them up in the Ramanujan Journal. He made interesting contributions to continued fraction theory that bewildered experts at the time. I got started in CF theory in the analytic, not number-theoretic, variety, but never got into Ramanujan stuff.
The Imitation Game is a pretty good film about another math prodigy, Alan Turing.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 08:27pm PT
|
Taste sugar. Say what that taste is directly, without elaboration, without filters, without theories, without definitions (or comparisons)
For a person whose idea of perception of reality is "IT", you certainly enjoy baiting science-types with these irrational queries. Science is far from perfect and I know of no result enshrined and immutable for all eternity. Life is a sequence of approximations and rational thought and experimentation, sparked by intuition, have brought society to high technical levels - but the process is ongoing and corrections and revisions are always waiting in the wings.
What is the purpose of these "problems" you pose? You accuse math of "front-loading" conjectures and theorems, but when you exclude definitions and comparisons you set in place obstacles that cannot be overcome. Much of what you say are simply koans that I suppose could culminate in epiphanies that are themselves nonsensical and the result of our obedient brains trying to reduce anxiety.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 - 09:01pm PT
|
jgill
Sorry .... you just fell victim to your own mind, exactly as these guys have been trying point out in this "mind thread" for so long .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!