What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4414 - 4433 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Mar 13, 2015 - 01:49pm PT
Interesting posts that I want to respond to; but have some deadlines to work on . Will post later
Rick A

climber
Boulder, Colorado
Mar 13, 2015 - 03:07pm PT
Regarding meditation and its effect on the brain, I heartily recommend Michael Pollan's New Yorker article last month on recent research into using psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms) to treat terminally ill patients for "existential despair" in the face of imminent death.

Fascinating reading here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment


When, in 2010, Carhart-Harris first began studying the brains of volunteers on psychedelics, neuroscientists assumed that the drugs somehow excited brain activity—hence the vivid hallucinations and powerful emotions that people report. But when Carhart-Harris looked at the results of the first set of fMRI scans—which pinpoint areas of brain activity by mapping local blood flow and oxygen consumption—he discovered that the drug appeared to substantially reduce brain activity in one particular region: the “default-mode network.”

The default-mode network was first described in 2001, in a landmark paper by Marcus Raichle, a neurologist at Washington University, in St. Louis, and it has since become the focus of much discussion in neuroscience. The network comprises a critical and centrally situated hub of brain activity that links parts of the cerebral cortex to deeper, older structures in the brain, such as the limbic system and the hippocampus.

The network, which consumes a significant portion of the brain’s energy, appears to be most active when we are least engaged in attending to the world or to a task. It lights up when we are daydreaming, removed from sensory processing, and engaging in higher-level “meta-cognitive” processes such as self-reflection, mental time travel, rumination, and “theory of mind”—the ability to attribute mental states to others. Carhart-Harris describes the default-mode network variously as the brain’s “orchestra conductor” or “corporate executive” or “capital city,” charged with managing and “holding the entire system together.” It is thought to be the physical counterpart of the autobiographical self, or ego.

“The brain is a hierarchical system,” Carhart-Harris said. “The highest-level parts”—such as the default-mode network—“have an inhibitory influence on the lower-level parts, like emotion and memory.” He discovered that blood flow and electrical activity in the default-mode network dropped off precipitously under the influence of psychedelics, a finding that may help to explain the loss of the sense of self that volunteers reported. (The biggest dropoffs in default-mode-network activity correlated with volunteers’ reports of ego dissolution.) Just before Carhart-Harris published his results, in a 2012 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a researcher at Yale named Judson Brewer, who was using fMRI to study the brains of experienced meditators, noticed that their default-mode networks had also been quieted relative to those of novice meditators. It appears that, with the ego temporarily out of commission, the boundaries between self and world, subject and object, all dissolve. These are hallmarks of the mystical experience.

If the default-mode network functions as the conductor of the symphony of brain activity, we might expect its temporary disappearance from the stage to lead to an increase in dissonance and mental disorder—as appears to happen during the psychedelic journey. Carhart-Harris has found evidence in scans of brain waves that, when the default-mode network shuts down, other brain regions “are let off the leash.” Mental contents hidden from view (or suppressed) during normal waking consciousness come to the fore: emotions, memories, wishes and fears. Regions that don’t ordinarily communicate directly with one another strike up conversations (neuroscientists sometimes call this “crosstalk”), often with bizarre results. Carhart-Harris thinks that hallucinations occur when the visual-processing centers of the brain, left to their own devices, become more susceptible to the influence of our beliefs and emotions.

Carhart-Harris doesn’t romanticize psychedelics, and he has little patience for the sort of “magical thinking” and “metaphysics” they promote. In his view, the forms of consciousness that psychedelics unleash are regressions to a more “primitive style of cognition.” Following Freud, he says that the mystical experience—whatever its source—returns us to the psychological condition of the infant, who has yet to develop a sense of himself as a bounded individual. The pinnacle of human development is the achievement of the ego, which imposes order on the anarchy of a primitive mind buffeted by magical thinking. (The developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik has speculated that the way young children perceive the world has much in common with the psychedelic experience. As she puts it, “They’re basically tripping all the time.”) The psychoanalytic value of psychedelics, in his view, is that they allow us to bring the workings of the unconscious mind “into an observable space.”
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 13, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
put paid to (third-person singular simple present "puts paid to," present participle "putting paid to," simple past and past participle "put paid to").
(chiefly UK, idiomatic) to terminate; to cancel (plans or expectations); to stop something once and for all.

As if.

MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Mar 14, 2015 - 11:14pm PT
Jgill: . . . the marvelous tricks played by the mind under various regimens.

Ha-ha. With all due respect, I don’t think you have an idea of the extent to which comment could be applied. I mean if you’re right, why stop at all with just “regimens?” (You do, . . . you know.) You stop at a place called “mental / idea world,” which is the result of a process you laud called materialism, empiricism, science, mathematics . . . which are all pretty much reliant upon the same thing.

IF there were other dimensions, or options, or alternatives, how could you know about them, John?

If you only know things through your mind, then please recognize or admit that “mind” is not just "mental-rational."

It seems to me that “mind” points to knowing. “How do you know?” cannot only be answered only with “rationality,” “logic,” “analysis.” Instead, think “consciousness” or “awareness" or "digestion" or "instinct"--none of which are simply the effect of a mental-rational way of being.

Do not make raw experience into “things.” Recognize that none of your senses communicate “forms” to you. YOU do that: forms are projected, inferred, imputed by mind. For the moment, at least—distinguish between what you know (your experience as raw experience) from what you conceive. If you can do that, then you will be able to hear Largo more clearly.


. . . sitting and moving meditations share "being in the moment" without internal discourse initiated by "I" . . .


There is no difference. Any referent point whatsoever is an error or glitch in the system. Give up achievements, intentions, goals, and objects.

Initially people get instructions to help them find their way to awareness or samadhi or shamatha or vipassna. You practice in the climbing gym, then on After Six, then Lunatic Fringe, then. . . . You finally might learn to the point of "no-point-at-all." What finally matters is not even the doing of it or even the experience or bliss of it. You do it because that is what and who you are.

There is nothing wrong with thinking or talking or discursiveness. What presents an obscuration are the reifications. “Things" are sandcastles in the air. They are empty, which means they arise into an empty field--there, there is nothing concrete or specific. Even "there" presents an obscuration. If anything is contrived, it is conceptual.

Whether there is anything wrong with anything from anyone’s point of view at any time in any way, is itself just another reification. It challenges the mind to think about not thinking or conceiving, doesn't it? :-)


Everyone's natural perfection is: a wide open mind that perceives directly and nakedly every instant of experience. Certain scriptures have been known to generate that on-the-spot. THAT very insight cannot be turned into a religion. Why? There are no tenants of belief, nor devotion or faith conditions of its revelation, and no ritual interprets or structures it. It is simply an existential understanding of the here and now. It's that simple--and that difficult.

You read or hear what some “teacher” has said. Please do not take the teacher’s words literally. Reality is not concrete or attained through techniques or methods. Words point to doors into reality. They transcend themselves into the here and now. Fascination with any structure is deviation. Doctrines are never true or correct. It’s an error on everyone’s part to make them that way.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 14, 2015 - 11:22pm PT
i wonder what a dinosaur might say about a cat?

but since the dog and cat out survived the dinosaur, who cares what he's gotta say anyway! Right?
WBraun

climber
Mar 14, 2015 - 11:25pm PT
jgill is now preaching to himself and simultaneously against himself until he becomes void ......
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Mar 14, 2015 - 11:25pm PT
From RickA: The pinnacle of human development is the achievement of the ego, which imposes order on the anarchy of a primitive mind buffeted by magical thinking. (The developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik has speculated that the way young children perceive the world has much in common with the psychedelic experience. As she puts it, “They’re basically tripping all the time.”) The psychoanalytic value of psychedelics, in his view, is that they allow us to bring the workings of the unconscious mind “into an observable space.”

Ha-ha. How in the heck could they know?

You should review a few research studies on the question. Here's an important one.

"Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes."
RE Nisbett, TD Wilson - Psychological review, 1977 - psycnet.apa.org
Abstract: Reviews evidence which suggests that there may be little or no direct
introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of
the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response,(b) unaware of the ...
(Cited by 8849 articles)

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 14, 2015 - 11:28pm PT
all the while MikeL gets jiggy wid it. Nice!
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Mar 15, 2015 - 07:24am PT
“Things" are sandcastles in the air. They are empty, which means they arise into an empty field--there, there is nothing concrete or specific. Even "there" presents an obscuration. If anything is contrived, it is conceptual.


A good description of many productions of the food industry.
WBraun

climber
Mar 15, 2015 - 09:41am PT
The closer one comes to the absolute truth the more monkeys show up jumping up and down with their own know it all egotistical spew.

The monkeys always claim "NO ONE KNOWS!!!!"

If one claims they know something the hypocrite monkeys immediately scream it's "THE HEIGHT of all EGO" !!!

Thus these hypocrite egotistical jumping monkeys are the only knowers of all truths, since they always claim "NO ONE KNOWS".

Stupid egotistical hypocrite monkeys ......
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 15, 2015 - 11:46am PT
of course, this is a subjective experience, no energy is produced and the energy used is not far beyond the nominal metabolic activity.


A better word would be "shifted." And "energy" here is used to denote the increasing capacity of your awareness to abide in itself, as opposed to being dragged off and fused with the various forms, sensations and impulses that spring up into your Q field. It's also instructive to see where Ed ois stuck - that is, note how he was quick to quality this as merely a "subjective experience." Is there an "objective experience" out there somewhere? If so, where, and by who? What is the fundamental nature of this objective experience? Isn't Ed simply reverting back to dragging every phenomenon back into material terms ("real" and "objective") where his measurements hold sway, wheras the subjective is a separate affair. But again, this is missing the point. While we can clearly see people desperately clinbing onto that "I," which here is like a god of sorts, what is the nature of that "I."

And poor Tvash. He always has things almost entirely backwards, and instead of taking the time to expand his understanding and see what is perhaps true in what is being said, he refutes it based on no new exploration or no empirical evidence save what he has already decided is so. To these kinds of people, we usually give them the forgetting exercise. Convinced that what we are really taking about is the process of discursively "knowing" somethign "I," experience, and so forth (not so), we tell Tvash to meditate on forgetting and remembering nothing that happens while at the same time remaininig totally present.

Tryinng to get people past looking at their lives as something they can easily sum up as the product of brain function, or God, or some strage wu source, is slow work. But one thing is for sure - if they stay with the process long enough, they all will find that at bottom there is not a discursive "knowing" of some thing or some formula or POV they can grasp and say, "This is true." They will find no thing at all, and it will be NOT be a subjective experience and it will be discursively ungraspable.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 15, 2015 - 12:03pm PT
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Mar 15, 2015 - 12:28pm PT
Randisi: So how exactly have you guys benefited from all this "work"?

Must there be a benefit? (You could be an economist.) What’s “work” about consciousness or awareness? (I think the “work” that Largo is referring to is a reference to experimentation, observation, insight, experience.)

To listen to you, philosophy is over. You've figured it all out. . . . The height of ego.

I think you're being emotional about this.

I’d suggest that “height of ego” is the “I” assuming it’s in-control and that what it conceives, it knows. Seems to me that would qualify as an appropriate definition.

Hey, . . . ego is great: it provides will, opens the door for intentions, provides a sense of autonomy or independence to go looking around on one’s own, and most importantly, it allows for self-reflection to emerge—which is what’s being suggested time and time again around here.

Instead of looking outside for truth and reality, you can (believe it or not) look in your awareness, too. Self-reflection might look like a reversion back to more primitive modes of awareness (magic, myth, instinct, emotions, etc.). It’s not. Being can be aware that it is aware and see wisdom of other modes of awareness and understanding. Rather than going backwards into more primitive modes of understanding, one moves with self-reflection into yet another mode of awareness that now admits all of the previous modes simultaneously along with self-reflective awareness. (Really, it’s not complicated.) In many fields of study, using different lenses to see and understand is a useful practice.

“Ego” is simply conventional self. Consider what “selflessness” might entail.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Mar 15, 2015 - 03:43pm PT
Consider what “selflessness” might entail.


Not posting to SuperTopo
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Mar 15, 2015 - 05:51pm PT
. . . "energy" here is used to denote the increasing capacity of your awareness to abide in itself, as opposed to being dragged off and fused with the various forms, sensations and impulses that spring up into your Q field (JL)

Perhaps the intersection of physics and metaphysics? I wonder if qualia-fields can be mathematically modeled.

IF there were other dimensions, or options, or alternatives, how could you know about them, John? (MikeL)

Indeed, how could any of us know them? This is a point I've made on several occasions: There is a limit to our ability to acquire knowledge of the "world." On the other hand, when a meditator claims that what they witnessed is the "true nature" of a person, and talk of everything reducing to "no-thingness with no physical extent", I speculate that the mind may be offering up "results" that we wish for and which have little to do with reality. But I could be wrong. Either way the capabilities of the mind are awesome.

If you only know things through your mind, then please recognize or admit that “mind” is not just "mental-rational." (MikeL)

I agree.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 16, 2015 - 02:56pm PT
"You'll want to keep your eyes closed extra tight on this one."

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 16, 2015 - 03:24pm PT
This author repeatedly refers to his subject as the mind being in a state - a mental state.

Which is what I've been saying all along, in direct contradiction to Largo's insistence that it is not a mental state, but an underlying physical reality.

I think you folks should get together and figure out which idea you're going to go with, there.

It's an important distinction.

I can see lovegasoline's going on one of his cut and pasting binges again. I'm only good for a couple of paragraphs of that 'bury them with wisdom' crap.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 16, 2015 - 03:38pm PT
BTW, John, I appreciate your false empathy for what it is, but rest assured, I'm doing just fine up here, with or without nothingness.

I don't have any plans to sit on my ass for a week straight any time soon...and that's OK. If it's any consolation, I do have plans to sit on my ass for about 60 or so hours rowing a 14' Whitehall for no particularly good reason at all over the next 3 months. Perhaps I'll gain some wisdom, or perhaps just a sore ass - it's own lesson.

Spring has sprung, and there are trees to prune and asparagus starts to plant.

Lgas, I'll give your advice all the consideration it deserves.

Such caring folk....

"but really there are just utterly transient mental sensations"

This is news to anyone?

We call that the mind...both science and the author included, apparently.

I can see why you'd prefer I skip over this stuff.

Unfortunately for you, I can't make any promises. You never know where my mind will want to explore.



BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 16, 2015 - 04:57pm PT
Hey Love,

are all those writings you posted supposedly aimed to help me, myself become clearer in understanding myself?

Or it knowledge of understanding oneself in accordance of their environment?

At what age do you think children should start meditating?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 16, 2015 - 04:58pm PT
The imagined teacher/student relationship the meditationalists (and yes, that was tongue in cheek for the humor challenged) is both amusing and bemusing.

One wonders how much they grok the writings of their teachers and - BLASPHEMY ALERT - how much their teachers grok their own writings. The definition of 'mind', for example.

Another example, from Largo:

"we tell Tvash to meditate on forgetting and remembering nothing that happens while at the same time remaininig totally present."

This, presumably, is a response to my comment that everything must be processed through memory or we cannot, by definition, report on it. If, in fact, it were possible for me, or anyone, to truly not remember anything - we would not be able to report on the experience, given that report must reference memory of the experience to happen - even if that experience is supposedly turning your memory off, as it were. We would not be able to report that we had any experience - no thing included - it would be as if it never happened at all. It would be as if you were never there.

But you were, weren't you? After all, we get copious reports of such experiences. How can this make sense?

As several of us have pointed out - it can't.

When this relatively simple logical conundrum is pointed out - we get a patronizing lecture that 'we just don't understand'. Really? How about a simple answer to a simple question - if, in fact, the simple question was understood at all?

That would require entertaining the possibility that the original statement simply didn't make sense - a possibility never seriously considered by the meditationalists.

Such behavior may well be way the meditationalists aren't being taken as seriously as they would apparently like to be - or demand to be, more accurately. To me, it seems like just another case of hairless monkey personalities clashing - evolved human traits doing their thing. Hardly a high level discussion at all.

So I'll rephrase what Largo was trying to say for him. The mental state he refers to is one in which past memories are suppressed below the conscious level (after all, they're still in there), and one is left with being in the present without forming new thoughts (in as much as that is possible) or memories - save the memory of not forming new thoughts or memories, of course.

Capice?

That makes one.



Messages 4414 - 4433 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta