Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 30, 2011 - 12:15am PT
|
JSTAN WROTE:
"Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way."
MAKES SENSE. IF SOME THING CANNOT BE SHOWN OR INTUITED AS HAVING SOME LINK IN THE CAUSAL CHAIN, SOMEWHERE IN TIME AND SPACE, PER THINGS PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE, THEN THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IS MORE FOR GHOSTBUSTERS THAN CURIOUS MINDS.
At first blush this sounds restricted in a Newtonian sense to physical objects. On further thought, I think it extends even to ideas or models.
SO DO I, THOUGH I'M NOT CERTAIN QUITE HOW AT THIS POINT.
If a consideration of the concept for "experience" can by a logical process lead to an effect on another concept, say "qualia," then we might say the two exist. They can support an interaction.
But before we can construct this logical process describing the interaction, we need a commonly shared meaning for the two words.
THIS IS TRICKY BUT NECESSARY IF NOT CRUCIAL IMO. AND SAID DEFINITIONS NEEDS TO BE "NEAT," NOT WATERED DOWN WITH BELIEFS, ONCE REMOVED FROM EXPERIENCE ITSELF, ABOUT HOW SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS MECHANICALLY "CREATED."
SO FAR IN ALL MY SCATTERSHOT READING AND PERSONAL WRANGLING WITH "MIND" I AM UNSATISFIED WITH THE LANGUAGE AND ASCRIBED MEANINGS, BY AND LARGE. PERHAPS THIS IS INEVITABLE BECAUSE ANY EFFORT TO FRAME EXPERIENCE AS A CONCEPT FACES THE CONFOUNDING TASK OF TRYING TO CAST SOMETHING SUBJECTIVE AND DECIDEDLY FIRST PERSON INTO SOMETHING "OBJECTIVE" (QUANTIFIABLE BY NORMAL MEANS) AND THIRD PERSON.
TRYING TO CAST A PROCESS AS A THING IS A LITTLE LIKE CALLING A BASEBALL CARD A BALLGAME AT THE POLO GROUNDS. PERHAPS THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE, 3RD PERSON ASPECT AND A SUBJECTIVE FIRST PERSON DIMENSION TO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT CALLING THEM THE SELFSAME THINGS SEEMS TO ONLY MUDDY THE WATERS. TO TRY AND DO SO ALWAYS FEELS INAUTHENTIC TO ME - LIKE SAYING ED IS OFF WIDTH CLIMBING, SINCE THAT'S WHAT ED DOES. OR ED IS PHOTOGRAPHY OR PHYSICS, BECAUSE ED DOES THAT TOO.
EVEN IF WE COULD PERFECTLY DESCRIBE EXPERIENCE BY AN EQUATION WITH A GOOGLEPLEX OF FIGURES, SAID EQUATION WOULD BE TO EXPERIENCE WHAT THE SHEET MUSIC FOR RHAPSODY IN BLUE IS TO THE PHILHARMONIC SONG ITSELF. BUT NOT REALLY. EVEN METAPHORS ARE NO GOOD HERE. AT LEAST MINE.
IMO we don't have these commonly agreed upon meanings, so I feel justified in challenging whether these undefined entities exist.
AS WELL YOU SHOULD.
I SAID EARLIER THAT TO ME, CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS LIKE A PROCESS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, INVOLVING A NET OF AWARENESS - THAT SUBJECTIVELY FEELS LIKE IT HAS NO BORDERS/LIMITS - AND THAT THROUGH THIS NET FLOWS THE STUFF OR CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE.
THIS STUFF IS VARIOUSLY CALLED MANY THNGS, INCLUDING QUAL.
QUALIA REFERS TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE ITSELF, AS IT UNFOLDS IN THE LIFE I ACTUALLY LEAD.
IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME THAT ANYONE CONSCIOUS AND PROPERLY FORMED COULD FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE (POINT 1), THAT THEIR AWARENESS FIELD CAN STRETCH TO THE EDGES OF IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOP (POINT 2), THAT THEY NATURALLY ARE AWARE OF TAXES AND LOVE AND BULLFROGS AND THOUGHTS (POINT 3 = QUAL), AND THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS IS NOT A STATIC THING BUT RATHER IT UNFOLDS AND ACCRUES AND EXTENDS THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
OF COURSE THIS GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE PRECEPTS OF SCIENTISM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT "ELIMINATE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF EXPERIENCE" AND DEFALT OUT OUT INTO A PLACE ONCE REMOVED FROM THE FIRST PERSON WHERE ONCE MORE WE CAN START IN WITH THE STANDARD MEASURING. AND ONCE THIS STARTS THEN COMES ALL THE RHUMBA ABOUT PRIESTCRAFT AND BULLSH#T, JUSTIFYING RETURNING BACK TO THE SAFETY OF THE PURELY MECHANICAL AND MATERIAL SHORES, AND HOW WE ARE LOST AND DOOMED TO SHIPWRECK IF WE DO SO. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, IF WE CAN CONCOCT AND AGREE UPON SOME SIMPLE DEFINITIONS OF FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVITY (CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE), AND NOT IMMEDIATELY FLEE TO MORE FREAKING MODELS/REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
WE CAN COVER SOME GROUND.
All of my objections are overcome if one does not insist upon discussion being useful,i.e. showing promise of leading to a result. In that case, philosophical discussion becomes functionally equivalent to a dance. Two people engaging in an activity that does not actually go any place. Done only in the hopes of affecting the other person.
WELL, IF YOU ASKED SERIOUS DANCERS, THEY ARE NOT REALLY TRYING TO GET ANYWHERE, BUT RATHER ARE TRYING TO FATHOM WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT WHERE THEY MOVE, MOMENT TO MOMENT. BUT IN PRINCIPAL I COULDN 'T AGREE MORE BECAUSE THE PATH THESE THREADS ARE TAKING IS PAINFULLY CIRCULAR AND GOES NOWHERE AT ALL. ONE CAMP INSISTS THAT IF WE AREN'T MEASURING WE'RE SIMPLY AND ONLY WANKING, AND THE OTHER CAMP IS LACKING THE CONCRETE AND IRREVOCABLE TERMS AND CONCEPTS THAT MAKE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, WHICH WE ALL HAVE FIRST AND FOREMOST, A STRANGELY DISTANT AND EPHEMERAL CONCEPT.
THAT MUCH SAID, I BELIEVE IF WE STAY OBSESSED WITH A MECHANICAL TAKE ON HOW MIND IS "CREATED," WE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE STUDYING THE TOPO INSTEAD OF CLIMBING THE WALL. PAUL TILLICH ONCE SAID THAT THE LOGICIANS SHARPENED THE KNIFE, BUT NEVER BOTHERED CUTTING THE LOAF. TO ME, TRYING TO HANG IN THE PROCESS ITSELF, IMBEDDED IN RAW EXPERIENCE, BOUNCING WHAT WE FIND OFF EACH OTHER TO REALITY CHECK AND ARRIVING AT A COMMON LANGUAGE PER WHAT WE FIND ON THAT OVERHANGING FACE, AND GOING FROM THERE, A MOVE AT A TIME, SEEMS LIKE A FANTASTIC ADVENTURE SMACKING NOTHING OF PRIESTCRAFT OR WU WU OR "God."
All aboard . . .
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:39am PT
|
Largo writes regarding 4 observations:
1) ANYONE CONSCIOUS AND PROPERLY FORMED COULD NOT FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE;
2) THAT THEIR AWARENESS FIELD CAN STRETCH TO THE EDGES OF IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOP;
3) THAT THEY NATURALLY ARE AWARE OF TAXES AND LOVE AND BULLFROGS AND THOUGHTS (QUAL),
4) THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS IS NOT A STATIC THING BUT RATHER IT UNFOLDS AND ACCRUES AND EXTENDS THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
is that a correct restatement of what you wrote?
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:45am PT
|
I know this sounds like corny yin/yang bullsh*t, but you can't have understanding without misunderstanding. Otherwise, how would you know the difference?
Being settled with the pursuit brings energy, joy and purpose. Some days are freaking hard, some days are beautiful, some days are neither. You have to be there every day to know which it will be.
There is no continual bliss. You have to be there every day to find out which it will be.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:52am PT
|
Mind is what my dog thinks is going on in your head.. My dog barks therefore he likes you...ARRFF!
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 12:54am PT
|
Chief,
Good question, but I don't know if it is a "who" or a "what". Not sure it matters. What matters is what you do with it.
Peace
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 01:24am PT
|
are you a slave to your mind, or can you witness it?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 30, 2011 - 01:49am PT
|
Largo writes regarding 4 observations:
1) ANYONE CONSCIOUS AND PROPERLY FORMED COULD NOT FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE;
2) THAT THEIR AWARENESS FIELD CAN STRETCH TO THE EDGES OF IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOP;
3) THAT THEY NATURALLY ARE AWARE OF TAXES AND LOVE AND BULLFROGS AND THOUGHTS (QUAL),
4) THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS IS NOT A STATIC THING BUT RATHER IT UNFOLDS AND ACCRUES AND EXTENDS THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
is that a correct restatement of what you wrote?
--
That would look like this, Ed:
1) IF I AM CONSCIOUS AND SOBEER THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL THING I TAKE FOR GRANTED IS THAT I AM ACTUALLY ALIVE AND AWARE OF BEING ALIVE;
2) THAT in terms of my experience, or what I sense and believe is self evident is that my aWARENESS FIELD STRETCHes TO THE EDGES OF my IMAGINATION AND NEVER STOPs. I don't get any experience that my awareness has an edge beyond which my mind cannot travel. I might no understand everythng but my awareness will not perforce exclude things (yes, the brains unconsciously selects shite) no matter how far out.
3) THAT I am naturally aware of content or things (QUAL) moving through my awareness, including thoughts about this thread (more qual).
4) THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS does not strike me as A STATIC THING, BUT RATHER, experientially, it seems to UNFOLD AND ACCRUE AND EXTEND THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
Now that's what I sense in my subjective experience. I think the challenge for you, Ed, in this regard, is to forego for the moment trying to quantify or define how this all works and leave off with my experience and drop into your direct subjective experience and try and describe what you find there. Trying to do so in the most simple terms is a task, for the mind revolts dealing with raw experience straight up.
and fortmental, just note how your mind did just what I said it would - you defaulted out of experience and into a memorized explanation of how you believe mind works. That's not the exercise here - you probably do that all day long. Just for the moment, just once, try not to jump out into secondary or tertiary exposition and stay with your subjective experience and report back what you find. You are obviously honed in on this and I'm curious WHAT you see going on, NOT how or why it works. That's another discussion.
JL
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 02:27am PT
|
electromagnetic energy body (generated by neural network) resonating in harmony to the "quantum foam" of the universe (expounded upon in physics)- are we not still missing important discoveries regarding this interface between energy body and quantum foam that will someday soon put the missing piece into the explanation of consciousness?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 03:08am PT
|
[ Note: the fourth button from the left above the ST text editor with the double quote symbol on it is the quote function; please try giving it a whirl when quoting others' posts... ]
For awhile today I sat and watched hummingbirds and honeybees in the backyard which is planted to encourage both.
We planted 'Fuchsia dependens' for the hummingbirds and it's quite clear they have to have an acute sense of both a flower's and their own location in three dimensional space and a precise sense of time in order to feed on the fushsias' narrow bell-shaped flowers. Ditto for the bees which have to not only navigate and select flowers by visual clues - they also have to communicate that knowledge to other bees for the hive to be successful.
Largo: 2) ...I don't get any experience that my awareness has an edge beyond which my mind cannot travel. I might no understand everythng but my awareness will not perforce exclude things (yes, the brains unconsciously selects shite) no matter how far out..
Both the birds and bees are clearly conscious and self-aware with respect to location and time and both the hummingbirds and bees share the ability to see in the UV range. This latter ability to experience 'color' in the UV range may be a "subjective experience" for each individual bee or bird, but the ability of numerous individuals of both species to feed on the same plants speaks heavily to a strong 'shared' (objective) experience of external 'references' in the process.
One way or another, that ability to self-locate within an external (objective) frame of reference requires recursive framing and therein lies the biological roots of [an emergent] consciousness without edges or boundaries.
Largo: 4) THAT THE FIRST PERSON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF BEING CONSCIOUS does not strike me as A STATIC THING, BUT RATHER, experientially, it seems to UNFOLD AND ACCRUE AND EXTEND THROUGH TIME AND SPACE (QUALIA).
Well, for about tenth time I'd say that might be because it's not about a collection of nouns, but an explosion of verbs - i.e. the firing of a hierarchy of networks which are constantly self-/re-organizing moment to moment and always striving for an equilibrium which is only achieved in death. Did you read this abstract?
The neural substrates of conscious color perception demonstrated using fMRI
I'm quessing qualia associated with the perception of an orange butterfly don't exist as 'things' in your consciousness, but rather only as a electrochemical 'brain storm' which rises with the perception. That is qualia, as the concept you keep pushing, is an act [of processing] not a result of processing.
P.S. This phrase is extraordinary if not breathtaking in its irony...
Largo: ...IF I AM CONSCIOUS AND SOBER...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 03:25am PT
|
maybe you should expand on this:
Trying to do so in the most simple terms is a task, for the mind revolts dealing with raw experience straight up.
|
|
FredC
Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 09:44am PT
|
It seems to me that awareness is pretty centralized "here". My imagination might extend pretty far depending on what I am reading right now but the sense of "I" seems to be tied up with this meat unit.
Even the meat unit concept is pretty slippery. Our cells don't even stay around for long. They have been replaced many times. We are more like a place in a river, pick your favorite spot on the Merced in the Valley. The spot seems the same year after year, the ripples and shapes of the water's surface change with water level but the place seems to have a continuous identity. The water itself however is changing every second. Just like us.
It seems like there is something constant in "I" though.
FC
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 10:01am PT
|
the mind is the attic of the physical being;
it is the basement of our consciousness.
our physical and spiritual foundation is
the pond(er) scum on the wonderpool.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 10:29am PT
|
----------------
It seems like there is something constant in "I" though.
FC
----------------
Now that is an interesting observation. One I tend to share at first impression. While the world around me seems to change a lot.
Then as I think about it I realize that I too am not always the same. At least my actions are not. Some days for example i am stoked to jump on a route, Other days i may feel a bit lazy another day a bit unusually fearful. Each of these states affects my words thoughts observations and deeds.
Yet these observations are always contrasting a remembered "I" to the actual "I" experiencing the now.
-
The feeling of a constant "I" persists. Perhaps the it is the experiencing of NOW that never changes.
Is the I experiencing Now the constant we sense??
|
|
FredC
Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 10:37am PT
|
I actually don't trust the apparent constancy of the I. It sure seems obvious and true but there is something fishy about it.
I think the whole thing about heaven, rebirth, etc. is our reaction to the incomprehensible notion that we vanish entirely when we die. That is a hard thought to swallow.
|
|
FredC
Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 10:45am PT
|
I guess as you lose friends and as you get older and you begin to lose your youthful physical prowess this question becomes more interesting.
I'm not sure we will answer it here but it seems worthwhile to do your own personal exploration. If you find that the answer is unreachable then at least you found that.
The Buddhists don't exactly say you can answer this but they do say you can "wake up" somehow and I think at that point the question drops away.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 10:48am PT
|
There certainly seem to be limitations to the constancy in a way.
I go to sleep and at times upon waking recognize a significant change from the last moment I remember. I don't remember before age 3 for example. Yet that is memory based. None of these gaps seem to be experienced.
For example If we die and there is no afterlife or reincarnation or whatever, then i don't see how we could know it. We wouldn't seem to be able to experience "nothing". Based on memory gaps i appear to have been through "nothing" many times in my life, but it has no significant effect on the basic "I experiencing" later or before.
Thus it seems the persistence of the feeling of a constant "I".
This basic impression of constancy is interesting to consider. Not so much as to matters of life after or before this lifetime (bleh a whole nother set of issues i am beginning to find boring in my inability to get anywhere substantial with)
just in and of itself.
Thanks for bringing it up :)
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 11:13am PT
|
I guess another way of putting this is that the only experience I actually HAVE is of always being aware.
I can suppose and extrapolate "unawareness". In the same way I can deduce that El-Capitan persists and exists when I am not there.
However in either case I can not experience it so it does not "exist" for me at those times.
What is this impression of "constancy" in "I"?
An interesting observation.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 01:12pm PT
|
Tell me your view and I will respect it. Assume your view applies to me and I will reject it.
My view is that if I lose contact with the rock I will fall. I assume my view applies to you as well but I would love to be shown wrong.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 02:19pm PT
|
For some here, it is a rather hard thought to swallow that the one's soul/spirit is infinite and on a journey that never ends.
Chief... I asked you in another thread, but you failed to answer, so I'll ask again...
So, tell me, at what point does does the human get it's soul:
And, can you tell if the zygote below is human, fish, or worm...
Now... To use your words in another perspective to give food for thought:
For some here, it is a rather hard thought to swallow that life after death is the same as life before birth.
Or... More relevant to this thread:
For some here, it is a rather hard thought to swallow that mind/consciousness/awareness after death is the same as mind/consciousness/awareness before birth.
Think about it. =]
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 04:28pm PT
|
i dont care much for what most people seem to be doing with their dna, either.
heh
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!