Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
We are climbers, right?
I like the use of the present tense. We can look forward to remaining playful.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
DMT,
By any means . . . ask the flatworm, lizard, dog, chimp, or human what mind is.
The questions seem to be koans. There is no apparent answer, which might imply that either the question is an inappropriate question or that the answer is simply the question itself. (Mu.)
“What is art?” (Why ask the question?)
“What is the most fundamental element in the universe?” (Why ask the question?)
“What makes a good person?” (Why ask the question?)
“What is mind?” (Why ask the question?)
Is it the answers that make it worthwhile to ask these questions, or the analytical processes, or the intrinsic rewards of simply asking them, reading, and talking about them? (Or, something else?)
We’re trying to talk about consciousness (aka, “mind”) here, and it seems to be a self-rewarding experience for a number of people. Everyone seems to have one, no one knows more about their consciousness than they, yet apparently no one can really say what it is. What more could anyone want for an interesting conversation?
Jgill,
Yes, we are.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
My academic career was at a small state university which prioritized teaching (mostly undergraduates) over research. Since I enjoyed exploration I played around with a number of mathematical ideas, publishing most of them. Then in retirement (2000) I have avoided journals and have written many short notes on elementary ideas (and posted them for what it's worth). That's the ultimate pleasure when one has put aside competitive inclinations. The play is the thing. We are climbers, right?
jgill: you're a bit of a philosopher, after all!
Edit to add (from Wikipedia):
In the classical sense, a philosopher was someone who lived according to a certain way of life, focusing on resolving existential questions about the human condition, and not someone who discourses upon theories or comments upon authors.[3] Typically, these particular brands of philosophy are Hellenistic ones and those who most arduously commit themselves to this lifestyle may be considered philosophers.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
Mike L,
BTW, did you note how both writers from the NYT’s and The Guardian focused on Damasio’s claims on the relationship between consciousness of self and consciousness of phenomena? (And as a climber, did you note the slight reference to “flow,” or being consumed in-the-moment as one can in climbing? Does one have to be aware of oneself to be aware?) Could you perhaps see how conversations about base or pristine awareness (awareness that supports or gives rise to phenomena) could be entangled in with consciousness of self and consciousness of phenomena?
It seems if you hold the view of the brain system as the brain and body are in a very tight resonance loop - Damasio signals could spill a little here and there into other neural network configurations and lead to entanglements or be so wired.
If adults can grow new neurons many new kinds of connections seem possible except where there may be boundaries not allowing new neural hookups between zones. Isn't there thought to be a chemical in Broccoli that aids in new neural connections?
When we are quite focused as in flow there would typically be little need for self awareness & awareness feelings except maybe when one is intensely focus on talking about themselves? What do stream-of-consciousness talking people feel? Do they have the notion I am now aware of this and next this or are they in flow and simply doing selfless reporting?
I do not have a problem with conscious phenomena or subjectivity after thinking about the Damasio's findings that the brain and body are in a very tight resonance loop. That feedback loop would make for one hell of a lot of variety in how something appears. Hence the redness of red and the feeling of cloth.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
jgill,
This is truly nonsense. Particularly regarding lucid dreaming or the Art of Dreaming, where one is pure consciousness and intent.
I do not know much about dreaming but as Damasio has found the brain and body are in a very tight resonance loop and when I am in a dream and I try to run my legs do not move but sometime they jerk and I awaken from the dream.
When one is pure consciousness does that mean no association with actuators? And is it that when one is pure consciousness they are dreaming?
The case then is that pure intent while dreaming does not lead to the legs moving. So is pure intent without manifestation to others? Is pure intent an idea in the mind not sent through the resonance loop?
It seems that when dreaming we are not fully aware that we not in the world of hard knox. When we are fully aware we know we are not dreaming.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Dingus,
1. What do you think creates boundaries among neurons that would not allow for denser sets of connections? Furthermore, what would your imagination say it would create?
It’s estimated that the brain has more than 100 billion neurons (brain cells), which is about the number of stars in the Milky Way. Supposedly, each neuron is connected to other neurons by up to 40,000 individual connections (synapses). The “second brain”—the gut—contains an additional 100 million neurons, more than the spinal cord or the peripheral nervous system contains (claims Gershon).
Add the connections up, it seems almost ludicrous to say what such a basis for mind creates. It would seem to create the largest matrix one could come up with. It’s difficult to imagine what would be impossible in mind. I can’t imagine a limitation or a boundary in a matrix of the correlations of *every thing* with everything else.
2. What would be your personal report of “flow” in climbing? Forget Damasio and “tight resonances” for the moment. What is your experience?
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
What would be your personal report of “flow” in climbing? Forget Damasio and “tight resonances” for the moment. What is your experience?
I can't force it to happen, though persistence seems to help (Never surrender! Never give up!). Some days it's better to take your losses and go home. It's related to training, being in shape, sufficient rest, etc. but the relationship is not directly proportional. It's beyond my mere conscious will. When it happens it's a wonderful thing.
I was a Jazz fan when I lived in Salt Lake City and followed them with enthusiasm. There were times the team played phenomenally. In the zone. They could (it seemed) dominate any other team in the world. Then there were days when they were sucking bad. They looked so weak and disorganized they could hardly run up and down the court. Why does that happen? Take Argentina's National Soccer Team right now. Some very capable players capped off by the best player in the world, and they may not even classify for the next World Cup. Nobody seems to understand what's going on there.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Nobody seems to understand what's going on there.
While at Chicago I attended a talk by Alan Selverston. He had chosen to study a group of 30 neurons that control the movements of one of the stomachs of a lobster. He could record from each neuron and from each pair of neurons to see how they interacted with each other. He said that, after learning all the connections, their strengths, and whether they were excitatory or inhibitory, they still could not predict the behavior of the system.
That was in the 70s.
Additional layers of complexity have since been added:
Detailed studies of identified stomatogastric neurons have shown that each has a unique combination of channels and receptors so that each cell will respond differently but consistently to various modulators.
from
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stomatogastric_ganglion
But the work goes on.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781475758603
And new knowledge and questions come from it.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
We’re trying to talk about consciousness (aka, “mind”) here, and it seems to be a self-rewarding experience for a number of people. Everyone seems to have one, no one knows more about their consciousness than they, yet apparently no one can really say what it is.
I'll try this again.
There is survival value if a creature has some sense of time. Threats evolve over time. Look at Jeff Hawkins' work on how the brain is layered so as to provide temporal resolution of stimuli.
This was made really clear to me while still a useful person. I worked on night vision systems used in DOD platforms, helicopters, and satellites. The company's software was putting too much current through the detectors I had made and this increased the random noise at low frequencies. If you are looking at a display your attention will focus on low frequency events. You can't help it.
If you want to discover the source of some human phenomenon, start by looking at how survival value is increased. Really. That's a no-brainer.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Me: By any means . . . ask the flatworm, lizard, dog, chimp, or human what mind is.
DMT: Glib, haha!
What makes anyone think that any other being other than themselves has consciousness (as each appears to, to him or herself)? How about MikeL? Does MikeL seem to have consciousness? (Did anyone run a Turing test?)
(Now, . . . to those flatworms.)
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
MikeL,
Dingus,
1. What do you think creates boundaries among neurons that would not allow for denser sets of connections? Furthermore, what would your imagination say it would create?
1.
There is one very obvious boundary. The volume of the cranial cavity is bound by bone [finite] and when the blood vessels expand due the increased blood pressure of increased activity there is less room for the current amount of brain cells and neurons. When more neurons and brain cells are added the same amount of nutrient supply will take more blood pressure because there is less free volume for the tubes to expand to carry the extra. Also the brain needs a safety volume so that during swelling situations[concussions & various edemas] the increased volume does not suffocate the brains by pressing too hard in the zone of where the arteries enter the brain cavity and reduce blood flow. I learned this volume problem from the neurosurgeon [Dr Guidry] that removed a hematoma from within my fractured skull.
Solution: get a bigger head.
Other boundaries & zones would prevent mixing of signals & connections that are likely to interfere with a good working module. We already know the brain has division of labor. Signals are not just going everywhere.
2. 2. What would be your personal report of “flow” in climbing? Forget Damasio and “tight resonances” for the moment. What is your experience?
About 20 years ago I did some remodeling for 2 psychology profs [man & wife] that did depression research at the University. They helped me with the remodeling sometimes and ask me if they could question my recreation methods in relation to their research. After a week of various questions they were sure I had read Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as I knew quite a bit about maintaining flow. Well, I had not yet read Flow but since then I have read the book and I see they were somewhat correct in their assessment that I knew [reputed] techniques for staying in flow [stay between boredom and anxiety or get more skill].
The techniques were self discovered and likely were without being self conscious or having the feeling self awareness.
So does this type of experience put me in phenomenal consciousness?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Dingus McGee, I got involved with what Castaneda called The Art of Dreaming about forty years ago. When one captures this state one awakens fully while still in a dream mode. You can get out of bed and walk around with all the sensations of reality, while looking back on your inert body - or so it seems. You seemingly have the ability to move through space and time without being subject to the usual physical laws. Your I-consciousness is supreme and in control, even more so than normal reality. It's a powerful experience, but Zenites consider it a stumbling block on the way to the Truth. Go figure.
;>)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
If you want to discover the source of some human phenomenon, start by looking at how survival value is increased. Really. That's a no-brainer.
Begs the question: where do those unsuccessful phenomena come from? Evolutionary process is simply the crucible in which a near infinite number of both successful and failed phenomena find themselves tested but that doesn't explain the mystery of their origin.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
without being self-conscious
Never ever been done nor will it ever be done ever.
Without being self-conscious you would never exist and be dead stone.
You people pull sh!t out of yer azzes because you really don't even have the slightest clue what consciousness is itself.
Instead, you waste 5 billion dollars blasting a st00pid particle around an accelerator and still remain clueless to who you really are and why you really are here.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
jgill,
Dingus McGee, I got involved ....
but Zenites consider it a stumbling block on the way to the Truth. Go figure.
BITD my peers and I talked about Castaneda quite a bit. I still think of some of his ideas. But congrats on achieving that state.
As for stumbling blocks I suppose Zenites want no self awareness just things happening. You say Go figure: My take is that any time you can greatly increase or decrease forms of the mind's doings you have achieved a skill. Zen is not the only skill in town.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
MikeL:
It’s difficult to imagine what would be impossible in mind.
I happily concur. If the human mind could imagine that which would be impossible for it to conceive of, we might see the Universe come tumbling down around our ears.
paul roehl:
Evolutionary process is simply the crucible in which a near infinite number of both successful and failed phenomena find themselves tested but that doesn't explain the mystery of their origin.
But you earlier answered this one for us. Thanks to the vast potential of the Cosmos even such a mysterious event as a post from paul becomes inevitable.
The universe by its nature is a construct out of which consciousness must be inevitable, the proof of which is its present existence and the inevitable and nearly infinite repetition of suitable contexts for same throughout the universe.
paul roehl
12 may 2017
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Dingus,
I’m not sure that physical characteristics will limit what the mind is or can be. Analogically, “Moore’s Law” (the ability to pile transistors on top of each other in smaller spaces) was supposed to be reaching a theoretical limit, but that’s been poorly predicted for more than a decade. Substances that provide the bases of transistors is shifting.
Your tack above on mind seems to be completely physical. Of course, maybe that’s the core concept in your view: mind = brain.
As to flow, when I asked what your report of flow was, I was wondering what your personal experience is or has been while in a state of flow (when climbing) . . . not modeling, but subjectively how would you describe it? Where would your description fit between consciousness of phenomena and consciousness of self? (Jgill said where he was at with it.)
DMT,
I think I am focused . . . just not on what you think is important about mind.
I have no idea of anyone else’s consciousness. That includes flatworms.
I think I’ve presented my view of consciousness time and time again. I don’t know what it or mind is (and I can’t think of how anyone will be able to say what either are). Why? It’s a complete mystery to me, and I say that experientially from my own observations (behaviorally, 35 years of daily meditation and “contemplation” {objectless sitting}) and from my own formal education and readings over almost the same period of time. Scientifically, philosophically, and spiritually, mind appears to be evanescent, a manifestation without substantiality. If I can’t say (or find) what my own mind is, how could I possibly say what other beings’ minds are?
In my view (again), this apparent fact that I can’t say what mind is (or find or get a grasp on my own mind) seems to be the most defining (negatively, that is) characteristic of “mind.”
I would say that the three findings from my personal and professional research on mind suggests a most fantastic conclusion: that all awareness (to include self and objects) is mind, Q.E.D. My three findings are, once again: Everyone claims to have a mind / consciousness; no one knows more about their own than they do; no one has been able to get any handle on what it is. As I put those three findings together, I am compelled to come to a view that I am not some little thing in an observable universe but that the observable universe is some little thing in me.
I don’t know where to start with you if you don’t suspect or say that Mind is consciousness. In my view, consciousness is all I got.
As for flatworms’ minds, how in the f*ck should I know? That’s not a question that I can substantiate *in any form.” Mu.
Be well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
MikeL -- "As for flatworms’ minds, how in the f*ck should I know?"
LOL !!!! good one Mike
You're starting to sound like me, LOL :-)
There are a lot of times and circumstances when that response is warranted to some of the insane ridiculous posts people make here.
Still laughing my asz off ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...was supposed to be reaching a theoretical limit, but that’s been poorly predicted for more than a decade.
Actually, the predictions are pretty solid, and have been around a bit longer than a decade, see Feynman's APS address from 1959.
Bringing this up makes a point, that we may well be susceptible to arguments that are purely empirically based (such as Moore's Law, Gordon would say he had no reason for proposing it, it was just how things were going at the time) while those arguments based on scientific fact are a much better predictor of what will happen.
I'm sure MikeL will be less than enthused by this... but it just points out how we all can assume the mantle of expertise far from what our actual expertise (if we have any) would provide.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!