Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 08:46pm PT
|
The assumption that you have an inner life is based on an intuition from personal experience that is again based on a human sensitivity for understanding that has a practical validity.
Are you talking about the assumption that people other than yourself have an inner life, or the assumption that you yourself have an inner life?
Are you aware of the Hogan twins, who share parts of their brains? The Hogan twins show that one brain can communicate directly to another. They raise the possibility, at least for twins, of a range from one brain to two separate brains with varying degrees of connectedness in between.
Your left brain hemisphere communicates with its right side counterpart through a narrow strip of axons called the corpus callosum. If we were looking for a way to connect the brains of different people, the corpus callosum would make a good place to start. You would need a recording/sending device and a receiving/stimulating device, and they could be the same, and would not be hard to make. The risks of surgery would outweigh any benefit I can think of, but this sort of approach is of interest in cases of lengthy coma where there is a question of whether the coma patient still has a working brain. In such cases, fMRI has been used with occasional success.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/headtrauma/40947
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147439/
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 08:37am PT
|
Ed: [T]he thing you take to be the monolithic mind might be, very different in reality, but your perception pieces it together, smoothing over the gaps and bumps and even giving it capabilities that do not exist...
This seems to be my experience and my understanding from the literature in cognition. There would seem to be plenty of evidence that anyone could observe that supports the notion that there is not one, monolithic mind that belongs to a person. Or if there is, it can’t be described; it seems to be beyond our grasp.
The spiritual notion that there is experience qua experience (without content) seems apparent as a baseline (“alaya” in Tibetan terms). One can experience it with practice, but focusing on that alone may bring a single perspective that is unbalanced and incomplete—and for those reasons, false.
My understanding of experience is becoming more complex than I can see and articulate. There’s science (yay!), there’s religion, there’s spirituality, there’s aesthetics, there’s ethics, there is everyday work, there are emotions and feelings, there are relationships that I seem to have with all that appears around me, there is the unconscious and subconscious, there is my ego, there is an overall flow of mindstream (which seems to be out of my direct control), and so on. Spirituality points up, soulfulness points down to mundacity, the body is a compilation of sensing and activity (much of which we don’t seem to be conscious of), we live in a material world (we think) but much of it if not all of it is constructed and understood through the assistance by an innumerable set of processes psychologically sociologically anthropologically, and there is what we refer to as interiority (thinking, feeling, emotions, sense of identity, etc.).
Piecing all of these different dimensions and ideas together appears to be beyond us. The pieces (as conceptualized and articulated) don’t fit together; they are incommensurate. They use different terms, concepts, metrics, base philosophies, etc. (Ed and maybe Jgill think, however, that there could be universal languages that can unite all views, but . . . .)
Depth psychologists argue that there is nothing but imagination. It generates myths everywhere in everything. Archetypes from the collective unconsciousness structure our worlds, especially our interiorities. Their advice psychologically is to get in touch with all of the archetypes, to see them as imaginative templates and frameworks, rather than to fight them, avoid them, or “fix” them. Those interior templates and frameworks (complexes, archetypes) are symbolic and cannot be interpreted; rather they should be recognized, met, lived in, and lived with.
Put all together, it seems inadvisable to argue for any one point of view alone . . . not spirituality, not just materialism, not just science, not just aesthetics, not just the body, not just thoughts, not just feelings, not just myths, not just physical narratives, not just historical fact, not just ethics, etc. Not just one view seems to describe all that we experience, all that we are, all that we imagine, not even all that we can see—or not see.
I’ve written this post this morning as an exercise to expose and clarify my experiences and understandings these days. I’ve been reading James Hillman’s writings. I’m seeing limitations of all views.
I wonder what one calls it when one has gone beyond nihilism and solipsism?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
The mind is usually associated with thinking and not necessarily with instinctive reacting. Therein lies the possibility of a distinction between awareness and consciousness. But that's a trifle. The mind as assembler or organizer might be more appropriate. So many things happening in the brain in so little time, there must be a controller of sorts. In everyday affairs we put together so many sensations that the mind as organizer, sorter and planner is paramount, then when we move into a stronger contemplative thought mode the input from the senses is pushed further from our consciousness and what we think of as mind becomes focused on internal dialogue and perhaps, at the time, more abstract problem solving.
All this has been said before and philosophized ad nauseam. But as MikeL as pointed out there are so many things going on simultaneously within and around us that there must be a Chief of Staff in our Oval Offices, ready for the allocation of our time and effort.
I wonder what one calls it when one has gone beyond nihilism and solipsism?
Unemotional scientific inquiry?
Probably not. Maybe just normal, everyday existence.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 05:07pm PT
|
An enjoyable, informative, thought-provoking read on AI...
In two parts:
Part I: The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
Part II: The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
"Before the prospect of an intelligence explosion, we humans are like small children playing with a bomb. Such is the mismatch between the power of our plaything and the immaturity of our conduct. Superintelligence is a challenge for which we are not ready now and will not be ready for a long time. We have little idea when the detonation will occur, though if we hold the device to our ear we can hear a faint ticking sound." -Nick Bostrom
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
|
There would seem to be plenty of evidence that anyone could observe that supports the notion that there is not one, monolithic mind that belongs to a person. Or if there is, it can’t be described; it seems to be beyond our grasp.
Or it could arise from the sort of simple interactions that likely operate in a school of fish, a flight of birds, or a herd of zebra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
But if you prefer deeper thinking:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kandmind/
For the moment, I will follow Alan Thicke:
"...his platform, his philosophy, is really all about self interest, selfishness; if you do what’s right for you, it’ll end up being right for other people."
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&mediaIds=828018243600
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 10:13pm PT
|
Jgill: So many things happening in the brain in so little time, there must be a controller of sorts.
“The Big Guy?”
Just kidding. Oh, what the hell, who knows? (Sorry. Wrong thread.)
HFCS:
Nick Bostrom has a point of view he’s trying to push forward. He’s written a controversial article, and now he’s invested in the idea.
There are so many papers we wrote in the past that were just ideas that flowered and took life of their own. We didn’t necessarily want to stake our careers on them, but we got pubs out of them, and for some strange reason, we got known for those little ideas. That made us committed to them. Beliefs have a way of becoming us. We didn’t mean for that to happen, but that’s one of those mysterious processes that start to control and steer our lives. I think that most of us hold dear one particular paper or effort that hardly ever got its head above water. They ended up wasting away. But even today, we think back on them fondly and wonder whether we were too early with the idea, whether we articulated and sold it adroitly (some call it “positioning”), or whether our views of it are just weird. Once you get an idea that takes hold of you, it tends to become you. (It’s a comment on beliefs.)
MH2: Or it could arise from the sort of simple interactions that likely operate in a school of fish, a flight of birds, or a herd of zebra.
This I like, although rather than a kind of synchronicity among others of my ilk, I’d say that the “others” that I am synchronizing myself with is this soup of activity all around me: flow.
I’m not synchronized with it all that often, but at times I feel “drawn into” a flow rather than helping to generate it.
There is so much beyond my apparent control. I feel helpless and wonderful for it. It’s not even worth the effort anymore to ask myself WTF is going on.
I like that metaphor. . . birds, zebras, wildebeests, flights of birds, school of fish (like sardines). When I see those in motion, I get mesmerized. Erickson said we are in some kind of trance or another all the time. It’s more of a question of what kind of trance one is in at the moment. To this, the depth psychologists might say that “trance” = mythology / archetype / complex. As Werner might say,. . . a delusion or projection.
Well, . . . anyway, “swarm intelligence” may be a metaphor for being here and now if seen globally.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
re: the mental life
"Humans can do something amazing that no other creature on Earth can do—they can imagine. If you show an animal a tree, they see a tree. Only a human can imagine the acorn that sunk into the ground 40 years earlier, the small flimsy stalk it was at three years old, how stark the tree must look when it’s winter, and the eventual dead tree lying horizontally in that same place." -Tim Urban
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html
"The major institutions in the spiritual arena—religions—tend to focus on divinity over people, making salvation the end goal instead of self-improvement. The industries that do often focus on the human condition—philosophy, psychology, art, literature, self-help, etc.—lie more on the periphery, with their work often fragmented from each other. All of this sets up a world that makes it hard to treat internal growth as anything other than a hobby, an extra-curricular, icing on the life cake."
...
Would you make yourself smarter if it would also mean happiness would be harder to come by?
http://waitbutwhy.com/table/iq-dial
"Asking a human to internalize the vastness of space or the eternity of time or the tininess of atoms is like asking a dog to stand up on its hind legs—you can do it if you focus, but it’s a strain and you can’t hold it for very long." -Tim Urban
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 01:29pm PT
|
Mike L said I wonder what one calls it when one has gone beyond nihilism and solipsism?
Unconditional Love.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 05:08pm PT
|
Yeah, that's good. I wish I were so enamored with everything.
(Yeah, but, ya know. . . . .)
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 05:08pm PT
|
Unconditional love takes many forms.
For some people it's unemotional science and the quest to know the material universe. For other people it is momentary heroism and for yet others, normal everyday existence.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 05:10pm PT
|
And I might imagine that's you, Jan.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 05:11pm PT
|
Sorry I'm not that evolved but I've met people who were.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 07:20pm PT
|
Is it possible that unconditional love may occur before nihilism or solipsism? It's comforting to think it might.
Back to the mind as Organizer:
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 08:07pm PT
|
Truly. That is a good diagram of Mind as Pink Route Achiever.
Oh, wait a minute. Reduce carbon footprint? Maybe I'm on a different program.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 09:40pm PT
|
I'm concerned that meditation is such a small part of Mind (as Organizer). The Wizard led me to believe it was over 70%. What gives? Where's the quantum flux???
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 - 10:31pm PT
|
Jill said Is it possible that unconditional love may occur before nihilism or solipsism? It's comforting to think it might.
From a buddhist POV Unconditional love is your original self; you just have to be able to let go of your conditional self and then you are the unconditional original self who relates to others unconditionally by natural process. Easier said than done conditioning is very strong. Hence practice.
As far as nihilism and solipsism IMO I think they are constructs created by speculators that are inaccurate definitions of something they have not experienced..
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2016 - 04:18pm PT
|
Mind seems to be more than just a kind of janitor for the ego, an organizer.
As I look at Jgill’s whirly diagram (Strategies for Taking Action), it all seems oriented to do achievement and doing, not so much to being. Even “Positive,” “meditate,” “knowing that you are doing your best,” “watching your thinking” all seem to be instrumentally oriented, so that one becomes, gets somewhere, or becomes something.
I get why you might see mind as organizer.
Where or what is living without achievement, analysis, strategies, plans, projects, etc.?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2016 - 04:39pm PT
|
PSP: As far as nihilism and solipsism IMO I think they are constructs created by speculators that are inaccurate definitions of something they have not experienced..
It seems to me, at least in my limited experience, that one finds nihilism and solipsism in the space of emptiness in a middle phase of one’s practice. Things no longer are quite real. Objects are merely conceptual and evanescent. However, it seems to me *that spiritualism* is ungrounded. That spiritualism seems too ascetic, pure, masculine, unitary, refined, clear, firey, sharp, and straight—even intellectual. What seemed to be missing was all the mundane muddy messiness that my life appears to be. It's life in everyday living found in chopping wood and carrying water.
At first there is the mountain. With practice, the mountain disappears in emptiness. After a while, the mountain shows up again. Every object seemingly returns as it was initially. Nothing is special. There’s just living, without all the sureties and interpretations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!