Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 07:21am PT
|
Thank you.
I mean to everyone who spends moments re thinking the perceptions & then comes here knowing that there are levels of consciousness but still tries to delve into an all encompassing
Definition /answer that carries the water of as many of those levels as possible. This thread has yielded one of the . . . no, the most thought provoking outlet that I have access to,
So thank you.
Maybe I should have said 'carries the weight of see-able, examples. . .
Anyway for the iota of recognition if nothing else, again thank you.
MikeL has so broadened my view as have many of you with your posts, the very existence of deep thought , climbing archetypes & fools like me joining in together in civil repartee
Is the Super in this Mexican food truck
This is the best hot sauce, on the far side of the food truck, take as much as you have a taste for and enjoy your burrito, enchiladas or tacos,
CMac,/Spurier
" El mejor alimento para la mente se vende aquí "
in that I lurk here without comment till
At random, I spew forth.& post some drivel like this
THANKS again!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 08:00am PT
|
when an infant comes into the world, he or she differentiates nothing
So let us not despair for the poor machine.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:30am PT
|
Sure, evolution answers everything, doesn’t it?
Nosce te ipsum
I suppose that one could appeal to Delphic oracles in these matters. When was the last time that worked for you, MikeL?
Evolution is a very powerful concept, and probably the most influential scientific theories, basically providing an explanation of how humans (and everything else) evolved. It also provides a guide to what the future might be, the future of life on the planet.
For someone looking for a physical explanation of the development of life on the planet, evolution provides the framework for the explanation.
As far as the brain is concerned, it is an energy hungry organ that requires very large resources to maintain. For that to be evolutionarily viable, it must return an equally large advantage in acquiring resources. For the most part, these brains are not necessary for life...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 09:33am PT
|
The business about knowing how someone else has an internal life is an old philosophical argument called "the problem with other minds."
Dan Perry said this about it:
The problem with "other minds."
The philosophical problem of other minds goes like this. I know that I have a mind, that is, feelings, sensations, thoughts and the like, in a very direct way. I am directly aware ("privileged access") of what goes on in my own mind. But how do I know that something like this goes on in other people?
I am not directly aware (no privileged access) of your thoughts and sensations. So how do I now that anything is going on in you, like what I know is going on in me, which I call “consciouisness” or “mind." And, just to be polite and assume you do have a mind, vice versa?
One thing is clear: this is not a practical problem. No sane person doubts that others have minds.
In fact our ability to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling, “mind-reading” as it’s sometimes called in cognitive science, is a deep-seated ability humans have, apparently wired in.
The problem isn’t whether we believe other people have minds. It is the basis for the belief. Is the belief rational? Is it really knowledge?
The traditional answer was formulated by J. S. Mill: The argument from analogy. You are a human like me, you behave a lot like me, you use language like me. I have a mind; isn’t it rational to suppose that you have one too?
But it's based on a pretty small sample, isn’t it? One case. Imagine two hundred cars on the freeway. They all are very similar: four wheels, moving in response to the way the drivers steer, accelerate and brake. I notice that one has a box of Kleenex on the front seat. So I infer the others do too. Very weak inference.
More promising is inference to the best explanation. The box of kleenex I see in one car doesn't explain anything interesting about it, or about the similarities we observe between in and the other cars. But suppose we look under the hood and find an engine in the car. We see that this explains why the car moves. Pretty good inference that the others have engines too. A much stronger inference, than one based merely on analogy.
That seems to be what we are doing with other minds. I know my own mind explains a lot of my behavior, and also that it is affected by the external world, and that the way it causes me to behave is responsive to the information it picks up about the world. Isn’t it overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?
Still, suppose we grant that this is a pretty good inference. It isn't the worth of inference that provides certainty. After all, we might find that some cars have electric motors rather than gasoline engines. We might find some of them were just rolling downhill, or being towed. That wouldn’t be amazing. Our inference was probable, but not certain. But we seem extremely confident that other people have minds, basically similar to ours.
For the lack of any external, 3rd person material proof of mind, some have ventured into jackass land and speculated that mind, and subjective experience, are perforce simply a workable concept we employ and they are part of reality only as a concept. This is the quagmire you swim in when you are fixated on objects, and what the mind does, or all the stuff that is sourced by consciousness.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:39am PT
|
That seems to be what we are doing with other minds. I know my own mind explains a lot of my behavior, and also that it is affected by the external world, and that the way it causes me to behave is responsive to the information it picks up about the world. Isn’t it overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?
If minds are only "first person" then how is it that it is "overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?"
a simple explanation is that brains are all very similar in detail and that the behavior of the brain is the source of mind...
...no need to require some extra-natural property like "intrinsic consciousness" to the explanation.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 10:08am PT
|
There is no way to externally prove to a third-party that you are conscious, be the subject a machine or Fruitcake.
This statement assumes something about consciousness, that it is only a phenomenon that occurs to an individual and that it cannot be described.
I didn't see this, Ed.
My statement does not assume that consciousness "occurs" (like rain occurs to a cloud) to an individual. An individual occurs from, and so do objects, from consciouness. No, consciousness does not create the quantum field, but that's another discussion.
My point is a very simple one we all experience all the time: We only have direct or "privileged access" (first person) to our own consciousness. Consciousness can be an object of thought by others, but that doesn't make consciousness itself a 3rd person object or pehnomenon. It just means we are taking a theoretical 3rd person (objective) look at a 1st person phenomenon. But this is where it gets tricky.
What we are seeing in another person is not consciousness, but the content of consciousness by way of stuff related through language, body movements and actions. All the stuff that arises from consciousness, especially the actions. And on that we want to formulate a predictive theory.
Of course our theory won't be about consciousness because we can't see it or know it in the third person. We CAN see and know what arises, and we go after that. Just know that these are two different phenomenons. Conflating consciousness with what a person does or thinks or feels is different that you or me or the host person being conscious of something we can predict.
This underscores the principal challenge of studying consciousness itself. We cannot witness it directly in another host. We only have "privileged access" to own awareness. And since consciousness itself only manifests in the first person, the first person, if they want to study consciousness as opposed to the never ending geyser of stuff bursting FROM consciousness, we are left to use observation itself to observe observation - an impossible task since we cannot exit 1st person observation to observe it from the outside because there is no escaping it. That leaves us to witness consciousness from the inside - tricky work.
So I think much of the confusion in this discussion derives from confusing the content of consciousness (intelligence, thoughts, actions, and so forth) with sentience. In this regards, the stuff of consciousness could, metaphorically be called the contents of a cave, including the cave, while consciousness is the lamp that lets us see and experience both the cave and what's in it.
But wait, there's more...
Who is seeing and what IS this seeing/experiencing? This, in my experience, is where your mention of a provisional model is used, a concept that allows us to work with this consciousness. That model is the small "self" or the idea of a host or subject that IS aware.
When one works on objectless consciousness, and the small self drops away, what is left is the ungraspable "no-thing" that confounds both the materialist and the contemplative.
Working with the stuff or content of consciousness is what both psychologists (meta level) and neuroscientists (micro level) do, among others.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
For the lack of any external, 3rd person material proof of mind, some have ventured into jackass land and speculated that mind, and subjective experience, are perforce simply a workable concept we employ and they are part of reality only as a concept.
Straighten out that pretzel.
edit:
Or stay within your bends.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
Thank you for your reply, PSP. That brought clarity to a lengthy conversation that too often lacks that quality. And MikeL's post was very thoughtful and interesting as well.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
Ed: [ to my comment of:] Sure, evolution answers everything, doesn’t it? Nosce te ipsum
I didn’t mean those lines unkindly, Ed. It’s just that the notion of evolution, in this particular instance, might be a bit vague and over-arching.
Delphi oracle? Well, it’s a narrative (and a metaphor) that used people long ago.
Metaphors can be instructive and provide some insight to us. As a young man, I loved my mother dearly, but there was a time when I needed to get away from her. There were all sorts of psychological things going on there with her (and still goes on). She taught me to be a confident, independent young man. She was warm and nurturing to me. It was not easy for me to pull away from her magnetism. But I did, and that was painful for both of us.
When I did, I next found myself coming to terms with my father. We used to battle mightily. I’m sorry to say that I conquered him intellectually, psychologically, and spiritually. I defeated him; I laid him low. It was not until I did that we started to be with each other and express our respect and love for each other. It’s been said that no man comes into his own until he has conquered his father, especially when he has passed.
Metaphors. Narratives. Myths. You may look at those things as play toys of children. I don’t. They tell me much about myself on levels that are not at all physical or material. They give me understanding.
(Props, Gnome.)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 01:13pm PT
|
Ed said.
Evolution is a very powerful concept, and probably the most influential scientific theories, basically providing an explanation of how humans (and everything else) evolved. It also provides a guide to what the future might be, the future of life on the planet.
Ed, I'm sure that you are familiar with the physicist, Lee Smolin. In his book, Life of the Cosmos, he takes the concept of evolution another step and postulates that the fundamental physical constants in the universe -- the mass of an electron, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, etc., are the way they are because the universe itself evolved from ancestral universes. He argues that evolution is one way in which these seemingly arbitrary values could become what they are in our universe. Without something akin to biological evolution, physicists do not have a good explanation of why these constants are what they are.
I read this a couple of times years ago and always thought that it was a concept with merit (from my armchair).
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 01:54pm PT
|
a simple explanation is that brains are all very similar in detail and that the behavior of the brain is the source of mind...
...no need to require some extra-natural property like "intrinsic consciousness" to the explanation.
-----
The problem is that this take is derived on output, what the mind is doing. So quite naturally you are going to look at A) the material source of that doing, and B) attribute that doing/behavior to an external object.
The very reason to study mind as object independent is to gain another perspective from that mode of inquiry that seems to explain "things" as mind independent. Using that mode, is it any wonder that you come to the conclusion that there is "no need to require" a mind at all. It's all a machine, right, or else it is a 'property' of the brain, some bewildering non-object that is extra-natural. Where did you ever get the idea that mind was something un or extra natural?
The advantage of studying mind as object-independent is that you come to see that all "properties" are merely mental or mind content, not mind itself. I trust you could start to get a grasp of this if you ever tried it. Right now, mired in objects and functions and so on, we haven't even gotten past forms.
Look at a comment like MH2 said about subjectivity being internal. "Inside of what?" he asks.
This is awareness fusion to objects. Quite naturally he posits mind as a thing that must exist as a thing inside of some other thing. He's running in a circle.
Give up the object (you can honest-to-God go right back to it, no need to worry) for a brief time and see what is there.
And Ed, I didn't see this:
You said; But more interestingly, you predict that "if you closed your eyes and let the data stream fade to the background" I would have a particular type of experience.
How do you know that?
----
The challenge of getting at this is that I believe (but don't know) that when you use "experience" in this regards, you are talking about some state, or mode of thinking, or angle or insight. In this regard, "experience" is NOT what occurs. What occurs is that all states and
experience itself is acknowledged as content and content is NOT mind.
You are entirely correct in mentioning that by suggesting that if you did the contemplative experiment you likely and predictably would arrive at the same place, but with one crucial wrinkle: The exercise would not predict what you are going to do or the state that you would experience, rather you would gain awareness to what the mind IS, sans-objects, sans states, sans experience. That is, as is stated in countless texts and traditions, the mind, itself, is empty. No qualities, no borders, no efficient cause. Mind (a muddled word to be sure) is not output or some supra-normal or intrinsic thing or quality or some other thing. There are no qualities.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:05pm PT
|
I like the idea of this universe being the result of the evolution of previous universes. It fits well with the idea of multiverses also.
Meanwhile, I'm confused. If Ed is saying that there is no mind without a brain and Largo is saying there is no mind even with a brain, it seems they both agree that the mind is ephemeral, in which case, why does it intrigue us so?
I would argue it is because we identify it with the body and ourselves (ego) regardless of where in the body we think it lies (head versus heart as Werner argues from his tradition). The evolutionists are impressed that such a phenomenon has arisen in a meat brain thanks to known and many more unknown connections. Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose?
To me it makes no sense to go back to a previous prelinguistic state unless it is for hedonistic bliss of a specific type (jihanas, samadhis etc.) just for the sake of enjoyment, or in case it makes us better humans than what we have so far evolved to be. Ed is always emphasizing the social aspects in the evolution of the mind, but so far I don't hear much about that in discussions of the meditator's minds.
My question is at what point do the meditators anticipate going beyond the perfection of their own minds and on to helping other minds? Surely we don't have to wait for full enlightenment to set ourselves on the Boddhisattva path? Or has the secularization of Zen meant that it has also only become an individual pursuit?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:17pm PT
|
DMT. I didn't forget about you, I just had to think about my answer a little bit.
The following are examples of pattern:
I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself. I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself. I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself.
AGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCA
Here's an example of recursion.
My point is that the fundamental processes are so fundamental that we might as well be talking about a computer program. There is one word I am missing, however, and I'm glad you made me rethink my position. I was trying to have recursion do double-duty as recursion AND replication. I can see now that this isn't quite right. Replication, definitely introduces something new. So -- Pattern - Recursion - Replication - Random.
By the way, Random introduces competition. Without it, a comprehensive stable state would occur and evolution would grind to a near-halt.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:23pm PT
|
The exercise would not predict what you are going to do or the state that you would experience, rather you would gain awareness to what the mind IS, sans-objects, sans states, sans experience. That is, as is stated in countless texts and traditions, the mind, itself, is empty (JL)
Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose? (Jan)
I agree. Apart from an existential thrill, what earthly purpose would be fulfilled by doing so? Well over 10,000 posts and we still are subject to arguments for getting into a certain mental state and emptying the mind. Just because a meditative chore is difficult is no reason it should be done, unless this is simply an initiation rite into an exclusive fraternity whose defining characteristic is nothing.
When I did, I next found myself coming to terms with my father. We used to battle mightily. I’m sorry to say that I conquered him intellectually, psychologically, and spiritually. I defeated him; I laid him low. It was not until I did that we started to be with each other and express our respect and love for each other (MikeL)
Different families have different dynamics. My father and I became good friends after I reached a certain level of maturity. He wasn't terribly good with children, having lost his father when he was two and raised by older half-brothers and his mother. I can't imagine doing what you describe.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:38pm PT
|
Jan said.
The question is to what purpose?
If I may answer for the science-minded. There is no purpose. There is none. We have evolved the way we have evolved, and that's the end of it. Jan, in my opinion, you keep conflating our ultimate origins (metaphysics) with what we "should do" to live in harmony as social animals on this planet (ethics and sociology or socio-biology or something). There is absolutely no reason to believe that there are any a priori rules that exist in the universe about these matters.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
|
he posits mind as a thing that must exist as a thing inside of some other thing
No, I don't.
You said that consciousness is not external, it is internal.
My question about what consciousness is internal to followed simply and naturally from that. You are the one talking about consciousness and mind and you should explain yourself better.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
|
Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose? (Jan)
Jgill said " I agree. Apart from an existential thrill, what earthly purpose would be fulfilled by doing so? Well over 10,000 posts and we still are subject to arguments for getting into a certain mental state and emptying the mind. Just because a meditative chore is difficult is no reason it should be done, unless this is simply an initiation rite into an exclusive fraternity whose defining characteristic is nothing."
I think I have bitten this emptiness hook five times or so. American Buddhism would do itself a huge favor if they banished the word emptiness which Jgill has latched onto and won't let go like that Corgi. Remember when ever you see the word emptiness on this thread it really means union no differentiation between you and any thing else and when you experience that union to hurt someone else is to hurt yourself which exposes the purpose of why practice meditation/Zen.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:17pm PT
|
American Buddhism would do itself a huge favor if they banished the word emptiness which Jgill has latched onto and won't let go like that Corgi
Sadly, that Corgi is gone, but we have a new tail-wagger that is Corgi/Jack Russel/Fox. She is smarter than me and is patiently teaching me tricks.
It sounds like you and JL focus on different experiential adventures. His approach is far more metaphysical and has ties to a mysterious endeavor called the Meta Mind Project.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:30pm PT
|
Jgill "It sounds like you and JL focus on different experiential adventures. His approach is far more metaphysical and has ties to a mysterious endeavor called the Meta Mind Project."
Not likely; formal practice is basically the same, sitting down and making an effort to get out of the way of what is. A process of repetitive attaching and letting go of conceptual constructions.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 07:10pm PT
|
eyonkee, I wasn't asking the scientists what they think the purpose of it all is as they have long since made clear their answer.
As usual, PSP then stepped in and provided a Zen answer we can understand.
As for my own experience, in my particular schools of meditation (Yogananda's version of Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism), there is such a strong emphasis on compassion and donating any fruits of meditation to the benefit of others, that I am surprised Zen does not seem to mention this. I think it has to do with different methodology. Zen thinks you can get there quickly in one lifetime so just get on with it, you'll know the results soon enough, while Tibetan Buddhism is a slower path taking they feel, more than one life time usually, so they don't wait to demonstrate results as they go along. At least that is the current state of my understanding.
As for how this meshes with evolution, I think in one sense it is anti evolutionary if you think evolution is only about successful reproduction. However, if you think that evolution is also about making progress in other areas than reproducing and making ever more clever technology (ostensibly to enhance survival though that is sometimes doubtful), then you can look at meditation as a method to enhance both mind and brain development. The goal is not just to survive and reproduce like other animals, but to go beyond survival needs and endless aggression in a struggle for resources. Personally, I would call that social and spiritual evolution.
It is as Paul reminds us, what sets humans apart from other animals at least as far as we know most of the time. The more we study animals, the more we see some of them seem (usually those with larger brains and a more developed social life) to have also evolved beyond just survival needs and that some of them also demonstrate altruism from time to time. If our universe is evolved from others, then it seems to me that all life is evolving as well and the direction is away from just survival of one's own small group.
Since humans have rather overdone the reproduction bit to the point that it actually threatens our survival, we can well afford to put some energy into experimenting with mind evolution instead.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!