Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 03:54pm PT
|
Tickling apart awareness from content is a task that perhaps is only made clear though introspection, though not introspection in the way people normally imagine it - basically looking INSIDE in the same way we would look OUTSIDE, at external physical reality
OK, this is what I expected. In order to investigate whether awareness is a fundamental property one must go into a Zen trance and believe what one experiences. That's probably true of my Art of Dreaming experiences as well. I will try once again to walk through a solid wall, but that may only happen if it occurs in one of my trance states.
Apparently, Zen teaches its devotees to avoid lingering at the lucid dreaming platform, and move on to true reality. I.e., nothingness. But at my age I'll be at nothingness soon enough.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 05:38pm PT
|
I chuckle to myself when I hear people ramble on about my lack of knowledge about the scientific method.
It isn't about your knowledge of the scientific method. It's about what you say in a post. If you appreciate the aspects of science that go beyond measurement, take a moment to say so when you say something like,
if you take measurements away, at best, what is left for you?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2017 - 05:43pm PT
|
one must go into a Zen trance...
John, I would say that trance, as you use it (a half-conscious state characterized by an absence of response to external stimuli, typically as induced by hypnosis or entered by a medium), is pretty much the opposite of the elimination contemplative techniques I mentioned, none of which are the exclusive domain of Zen or any other outfit. In a trance, there is a fog or numbing or a state you can label by way of some content - the very stuff you detach from. You also are instructed to detach from any ideas about "reality," since we will invariably grab onto some thing/stuff/phenomenon/state we can evaluate. This is NOT that. Here, whatever arises that you can get hold of and evaluate, let it go. What's left?
Think of what I am talking about as a stateless state, which will make no sense to your discursive mind, but may sound curious enough to investigate yourself. You do have a lot to lose here, namely evaluating for a small period of time. And conceiving the exercise as attaining a mental state.
If this was an equation I'd pass it on if I knew it but it ain't so I can't.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 08:22pm PT
|
I was just pushing your buttons, John.
;>)
I realize the condition you advocate is not really a trance. But the fact remains that one cannot use the faculties of the mind to confirm the notion that awareness is a fundamental property, so the entire western notion of science evaporates and you are left with an epiphany, a vision. That can only be convincing to another who has had that vision.
On another topic, is anyone here watching the Natl Geographic Channel production of "Genius", a dramatization of Einstein's life and ideas? It's splendid. Their "Mars" was excellent, too.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 08:51am PT
|
Sycorax:
Yes, I had forgotten the arc about Gloucester in Lear. Stupid me. It’s a very important part of the play, I’d say. Again, madness. Bloom I read and like. And you are right about Nothing. I had, perhaps, misinterpreted your writing, and that’s how it goes, doesn’t it? :-D
Dingus,
Thanks for the explanations. I now have more of a context for your posts. Cheers.
DMT,
We’ll disagree about reusing words and phrases and whether or not they are unique experiences or repeats.
Speaking or writing is like jazz—completely improvisational. When artists become masters, it’s said that while they may face the same situations or project tasks, they perform (in) them uniquely each and every time.
I contend it is a process of development that one first learns about something / domain from simple and naive observations and then to modeling and abstractions (like, typical scientific processes). It is there that we say that a performer is competent according to the current level of consensual understanding in a field.
However, competence then starts to leave an almost purely technical orientation to one that seems more artistic. The performer (analyst, climber, project manager) begins to put their personal imprimatur on the technical work. Their work is recognized by regular competent performers as “Bob’s or Mary’s work.”
The last development in competence is that of a Master. A master goes beyond artistry to uniqueness: each and every time they perform given tasks or in situations, their performance is uniquely different. This might suggest that the tasks themselves actually *are* different each and every time.
Just like language, just like talking, just like being who and what you are. You are different every moment. Sameness is an illusion created by the mind’s wont to serve a highly personalized identity some call the ego. The creations and interpretations of memory seem to be responsible for that.
Now that we’ve developed into a specie of beings with a seeming full-functioning will / autonomy, we think we are that will / autonomy and eschew all the rest of what we are. Viola—everything in “us” serves that sense of who and what we *think* we are.
Weaken or allow that illusion to vanish, and one gets a sense of what one really is . . . which is something that can’t be defined. Seeing that everything (to include that which you call “you”) is different or unique seems to provide the greatest sense of liberty there is. That’s why they call it liberation.
To those who are reading Damasio, I would add that his studies are based upon anomalies (defective brains), which makes it difficult to generalize across entire populations (of minds / brains). Studying somewhat unusual situations (whether successful one or failures) generally only allows one to conclude about others in the same category, but not across categories. The studies are certainly suggestive, but studying (for example) *only* great companies, or horrible failures, doesn’t help one to figure out what distinguishes between the two.
Jgill: I realize the condition you advocate is not really a trance.
Hmmmm, there may be some disagreement about that, technically that is. From my experience, anything that one claims is a state, is a kind of trance—some thing or object that one thinks one has. To use the parlance of the Tibetans, it is not ground, rigpa, or what others have called Clear Light or base awareness. Those people go so far as to say that consciousness itself is a state of mind. That, in turn, takes us to the OP’s question “what is mind” in full flavor, especially when those very folk (the Tibetans and others) claim no mind can be found at all. (Well, then what?) Even *thinking* about these very issues amounts to “a non-starter” on the path of a seeker. It’s an onion, metaphorically. One peels away everything, but everything—to include the peeler and the onion itself. What is left, is what one IS.
Some psychologists have also claimed that every mind state is simply just another trance.
Whatever one’s definition of trance, one would instead probably best be served to come to the definition of what would *not* be trance. That would simply be: to see what is really happening, going on at any and every moment. That would require stripping-out all that is personally, psychologically, socially, and institutionally constructed—and then some.
Well, you can see the difficulty with any of that.
Cheers.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 09:19am PT
|
And this; Ward Trotter expressed how he as scientist
Not correct. I made reference to a point I elucidated on a prior post about the subject under discussion.
I am not a scientist.
At one time I considered the biological sciences/pre-med and did get college level training , including numerous lecture/lab courses in Zoology, Botany, Anatomy/Physiology, Anthropology, etc.
I also had basic Physics lecture/lab, Chem lec/lab, and such courses as oceanography, geology, astronomy, and of course the numerous but unavoidable math requirements.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2017 - 09:23am PT
|
I realize the condition you advocate is not really a trance. But the fact remains that one cannot use the faculties of the mind to confirm the notion that awareness is a fundamental property, so the entire western notion of science evaporates and you are left with an epiphany, a vision. That can only be convincing to another who has had that vision.
-
The tricky thing here, as hinted at by Mike, is that "epiphany," "vision" and so on are all content to which a person and can right or wrong. The fact is, no-mind meditation works in the other direction. You don't "achieve" an epiphany that gives you an insight (cognitive content) that is "right." You end up with what's left after all the visions and epiphanies fall away. What's left is what you ARE, which is empty of all evaluations and discursive takes, the "groundless ground" in which all of our thoughts and feelings and brain artifact arise. For the sake of convenience, some of us call this empty awareness. Call it Cocoa Joe if you want. It's just a label, a map. And as we all know by now, the map ain't the territory.
I think I understand this well enough to actually explain it (somewhat) but I have to get long winded again so maybe later.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 11:08am PT
|
I like short-winded better.
What's left is what you ARE
In words, perhaps. But in words couldn't you also call it, "part of what you are?"
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 04:18pm PT
|
I'm certainly on board with awareness (or empty awareness) being a fundamental property of mind. As such it has physical origins, no matter how mysterious. That is to say, no brain implies no awareness.
If, on the other hand you are declaring that awareness is a fundamental property of the universe, vaguely comparable to electromagnetism, and that as the brain starts percolating it pulls in awareness like a radio signal, then you have an interesting and perhaps unique idea for a science fiction story and with your skill as a writer I suspect you could pull it off and provide us with an entertaining respite.
;>)
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 04:54pm PT
|
I've been following this thread from the start, but I have refrained from posting because when I get the time to look in things have moved on.
I just want to throw out an observation becoming accepted among today's neurologists. There is more to mind than just the brain and its role in our awareness. The concept of brain as harbor of the mind, as a central control unit, comes into question as we find that much of our awareness is threaded throughout our body. For example our gut is the largest concentration of enervated tissue outside of the brain, probably much more than is needed for the basic functions. Let's say we are surprised by a sudden noise or nearly taking an unexpected fall. In such an event I feel a shock of energy throughout my body, and it comes from my center. The mind of my brain experiences it after the fact.
Neurologists are concluding that many aspects of memory and awareness are indeed harbored in the plentiful neural tissues in our gut and spread throughout the body.
The concept of the seven Chakra's (among many others) might find more acceptance in western thought as science catches up.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 08:05pm PT
|
Good observations, Ksolem.
The brain's purpose in brief is to keep the body happy and healthy and as such it must know what is going on down there and treat the messages with respect.
I don't see any new or surprising finding, although the picture we have continues to grow and evolve. The careers of scientists can benefit when they suggest that the previous generation was wrong about or overlooked such and such. Scientists are not at all above astute self-promotion.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 08:08pm PT
|
The significance of the gut microbiome has garnered a wealth of attention in recent years. The interesting aspect about their functioning has a lot to do with circadian biology. These organisms are highly attuned to the environment and collectively operate in a sort of crowd sourcing , quorum sensing manner.
These bacteria emit light themselves and absorb various spectra of light from the sun and communicate via light emission and reception; as well as harvesting electrons from food.
Remember , mitochondria in animals and chloroplasts in plants were once independent bacteria which were captured and put to work supplying energy for multicellular organisms.( A switch from linear to non-linear optics)
Over the last dozen years or so the on-going majority of experimental study in cellular biology has switched from the nucleus in cells to the mitochondria. This is beginning to result in the recognition that many disease conditions are directly due to mitochondrial dysfunction. Mitochondria become thought of as dysfunctional when their %heteroplasmy rate ( mutations) dips below the bio-energetic demands of that particular tissue type.
The good news is that you can do things to keep your mitochondria happy and their heteroplasmy rates down.
Bad news is that all of us do things that are not good for our mitochondria. Most of those things we our totally ignorant of. This ignorance rivals the unknowing we once had about infectious diseases.
mitochondriac
a biochemist with a chronic and unusually intense interest in mitochondria. ...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 09:16pm PT
|
The brain's purpose in brief is to ......
But what is your purpose?
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2017 - 09:47pm PT
|
Trotter, you mention quorum behavior among bacteria. I found this Ted lecture on how_bacteria_communicate to be very informative for a lay-person.
But my point was less about the microbiome, more about things like "muscle memory," and instinct, which I will argue are profound forms of awareness.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
Break on Through to the Other Side? Largo was a Doors fan and so am I.
Back in 70's a climber told me huffing glue would Fucxk up your brain and doing acid would ruin your mind.
MikeL says
I would add that his [Dimasio] studies are based upon anomalies (defective brains),
Now Largo hopes to Break on Through to Other side, but is his mind a defective mind from doing acid?
And that leaves the question: How can a 3 legged cow possibly produce good beef with a Fucxded up Body?
Now, I must concede that Damasio could be using defective brains (as MikeL says) and comparing them to normal brains?
MikeL, I think your point of Damasio's use defective brains is a superficial assessment without much merit other than to conclude that MikeL does not know how we do science?
There has been and still is a lot of science going on that compares the defective to the normal.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Dingus:
Don’t get me wrong. I like Damasio’s work. But if one wants to distinguish the characteristics and causes of successful and unsuccessful outcomes, it must emerge from / in the very same study. It is barely suggestive to look at two different (independent) studies and conclude what is different between them because the same factors are not being equally controlled for (measured or present), nor is it likely that the instances are from the same sample of the overall population.
First, ensure the sample for study comes from the same population in an unbiased set of choices (usually randomly chosen): here, that would be both healthy and defective brains. Damasio has only only chosen individual defective brains for his study. Second, test hypotheses on that sample only: measure the same variables or observations from the one sample of both healthy and defective brains. Three, conclude how the same variables (but perhaps with different coefficients or combinations or sequences) lead to the different outcomes (healthy or defective brains). This Damasio did not do.
There is nothing wrong with qualitative studies. I like them. They provide opportunity for what’s called “grounded theory” (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory);. It’s my experience, however, that grounded or qualitative research studies are not seen as robust and legitimate as quantitative research, they are not as well-published, and they are more difficult to pull-off because they rely upon better (more persuasive) writing skills. Some might argue that writing skills should not be relevant in research, but I’d say that’s naive. As has been stated here often, measurement is pretty much de rigueur in published scientific research studies today, and I would say they are easier (more formulaic) to write.
Additionally, one may make a complaint about normal research methodologies. If one is particularly interested in anomalies only, then of course one may research those anomolies in depth, but it will be very difficult to say what made them anomalies. Various authors / researchers have done just that, and their studies play well with a wide (and popular) audience—but not with highly trained specialists who are often considered experts in those fields.
Academic research is an arcane ballet of sorts.
The contribution that Damasio has made to his field, IMO, is that he’s shown evidence that suggests that feelings / emotions are necessary for normal, everyday functioning. He’s not the only one who has done that, but he’s the only one who’s done that neurobiologically. Others have done so philosophically and economically. All together, these research studies and writings should suggest to us that we are more than simply rational calculating processors of data. IME, Damasio is one of the good guys.
Hiya, Ksolem.
Our conversation about trances, reminded me of that one scene in “The Matrix”:
Bald-Headed Buddhist Boy: “Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.”
Neo: “What truth?”
Bald-Headed Buddhist Boy: “There is no spoon.”
Neo: “There is no spoon?”
Bald-Headed Buddhist Boy: “Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”
. . . or, as Magritte said: “This is not a spoon.”
Be well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Bald-Headed Buddhist Boy: “There is no spoon.”
This is incomplete knowledge.
The spoon actually exists as a spoon itself although temporarily it is a very real reality .......
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
MikeL,
you say,
Three, conclude how the same variables (but perhaps with different coefficients or combinations or sequences) lead to the different outcomes (healthy or defective brains). This Damasio did not do.
So it is not the case of using defective brains [as you suggest] and comparing to normal brains but he just has not done enough correlates of the variables for the various outcomes of comparing these two?
And do the same variables exist for both types of brains? In some instances they certainly do not.
Most of your criticism of Damasio's method then is a matter of degree? He could have done more of this or that than he did to bolster his conclusion. You criticism seems at least lip service but you could demonstrate far more rigor with a directed criticism if you would point out the specific errors of his ways by using of one his studies. We need more details to claim and accuse him of gross faults.
The height of bar for him is simply did he support his conclusions and not exactly what you make of him not doing.
The contribution that Damasio has made to his field, IMO, is that he’s shown evidence that suggests that feelings / emotions are necessary for normal, everyday functioning. He’s not the only one who has done that, but he’s the only one who’s done that neurobiologically. Others have done so philosophically and economically.
I am curious. How does one show that feelings / emotions are necessary for normal, everyday functioning using philosophical means? No data, so science?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2017 - 01:11pm PT
|
Short course on Demasio: He's done a masterful job on building a model of WHAT we are aware of, and how the layers and feedback loops of objective functioning bolster each other though levels of complexity he calls Protoself, Core Consciousness, and Extended Consciousness.
Problem is, he's basically talking about brain generated qualia, or content, NOT consciousness per se, which is our simple awareness of said content. Consciousness, in my view, arises with Demasio's layers of qualia interface with awareness.
Problem is, as is, Demasio posits both emergence (leaving him with the Hard Problem to explain away) and a Cartsian Theater set up where an observer experiences qualia. Both of those are fraught with problems.
Anyhow, to close on Demasio - as Stephan Pecho recently wrote - every year there are published new books about consciousness. Actually, they are not written about consciousness at all, rather about new achievements in scanning/recording/measurements of material /subtle-material structures, channels, connections, correlates, and activities of whatever kind ACCOMPANYING the phenomenon of consciousness. The problem is that these investigations are vital in shedding light on WHAT we are aware of, and the generation of that content, but go no distance in explaining WHY or HOW we are aware of any of it.
As mentioned, so long as people search for a mechanism to explain sentience, the Hard Problem will always be there to bedevil them.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!