Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 02:52pm PT
|
Lately things, they don't seem the same.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 03:48pm PT
|
MH2:
Raymond Smullyan, . . . a mathematician writing about mysticism.
What do you think “realistic mystic” refers to? (Whitman with a physics degree? Hawkins after a stroke?)
I’m also not sure why an idealist would ever refer to “evidence.” Evidence is a philosophical concept used in materialists’ arguments. To see how things really are, one need only look. Then there are no arguments, so there is no need for evidence.
As this thread might attest, people who go looking for evidence, for data, for proof of this argument versus that argument, aren’t really getting the gist of experience—of consciousness (crazy as that might sound). There is just here and now, and here and now is always shining full force.
There’s no reason to look for anything. There’s no reason to alter one’s thoughts. There is no reason to look for vision. There is no reason to meditate. There is no reason to perform any action. There is no reason to accomplish any goal. Instead look for the viewer, the meditator, the actor, for what you are as the point of any achievement.
Experience can show up as anything . . . anything, at all. And a person can make anything at all what they want of it (an interpretation). As one does so, one will finally come see that every one of those interpretations are inaccurate, incomplete, partial, simply a perspective. (No one has to be enlightened or liberated to see that much.)
As for highly reasoned people writing books on mysticism, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone take any of it too seriously. Those books are meant to be fun to read, right?
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 04:09pm PT
|
"In humans and other vertebrates (animals with a backbone and/or spinal column) there is good evidence that the midbrain is responsible for the basic capacity for subjective experience," said Dr Klein.
"The cortex determines much about what we are aware of, but the midbrain is what makes us capable of being aware in the first place. It does so, very crudely, by forming a single integrated picture of the world from a single point of view."
Portions of insect brains work in a similar way to the midbrain in humans, performing the same sort of modelling of the world, said the authors.
Not all living things are thought to have consciousness, though. Plants, for example, do not have the necessary structures for it. Jellyfish and nematodes (certain unsegmented worms, such as roundworms) do not have such hardwiring either.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-19/insects-may-have-evolved-consciousness-during-cambrian-period/7338032
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 04:27pm PT
|
Not all living things are thought to have consciousness, though.
Plants, for example, do not have the necessary structures for it.
This proves once again 100% the author and those that subscribe to this nonsense are totally clueless to what consciousness really is.
First thing the fool said; "Not all living things"
The absolute standard of consciousness is life itself.
"Not all living things" contradicts.
All living things have consciousness other wise there would be no life at all.
Without consciousness there is absolutely zero life.
There is a degree of developed of consciousness of every living thing.
Not all living things consciousness are developed at the same level.
Even a blade of grass has consciousness.
Consciousness = life .... life = consciousness
and life always comes from life ......
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 05:11pm PT
|
What you are missing here, I believe, is that data and experience are not self-same (JL)
Energy is produced by mitochondria in cells (just to pick one biologic example). The process by which this occurs in living cells is well understood. It can be described as data. Without this flow of data life itself is not possible . This data undergirds human experience. Therefore the above statement is false.
I’m also not sure why an idealist would ever refer to “evidence.” Evidence is a philosophical concept used in materialists’ arguments. To see how things really are, one need only look. Then there are no arguments, so there is no need for evidence.
This comment conveys the same thinking as the quote at the top of this post, only in a different guise, perhaps even more insufferable.( Conditioned as it is by an overabundance of navel orange gazing)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 05:35pm PT
|
This data undergirds human experience.
Unergrid it may but experience it is not. Therefore....
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 05:42pm PT
|
If the process of energy production in cells does not occur therefore the experience does not occur. How much more " selfsame" do you want to get at this point?
The fact that your daily experience does not include tunneling electrons is yet another example of the beauty of nature. You don't have to worry about it at all and can go on with survival --which is your end of life's bargain. We are like the little kid who only knows parents get up at 5am and trudge off somewhere. The last thing we can comprehend is that they do this so that there is food on the table.
Why do we even know about ATP and electrons at cytochrome 1?
Answer: because science in general ignores MikeL tortured and exhausted view of "evidence" and instead is motivated by curiosity above all -- and perhaps even a bit of passion and wonder when confronted with the mysteries of life and the universe.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 06:56pm PT
|
experience it is not
If you are curious about what experience is, how are you going to find out? You could come to the conclusion that you already have experiences and that therefore you know what it is. Your curiosity may not go beyond that.
Beyond that, though, is there any way in which the processes that underlie experience could be discovered?
Can experience be influenced in an experimental setting and the results interpreted to advance our understanding of how the human mind works?
You and Largo can have your own ideas about what experience IS, but what implication if any do those ideas have for people doing research in the area?
Those books are meant to be fun to read, right?
Whether meant to or not, they are, and the one I referred to addresses issues we debate, here.
Another good Smullyan book is, The Tao is Silent.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 08:34pm PT
|
Cintinue:
The article in Science presents an after-research abstract of neuroimaging structural comparisons between insects and more advanced beings, and then presents a large number of conclusions about the development and functioning of experiences. I'd argue that structure answers little. Looking at structure is the easiest thing to do in an investigation. Structural comparison is basically a call for an analogy. Analogies always leave important things out. Analogies are good for suggestions and pointers. A solar system is not an atom, although structurally both arguably share some structural similarities.
Do you actually read those articles and consider the arguments and their bases?
As for arguing that an insect’s consciousness is indicative of human-like consciousness, I’ll echo what we would call for in research presentations at UIUC: “show me the data.”
MH2: Another good Smullyan book is, The Tao is Silent.
The author might have followed that lead. Instead, he writes an entire book of words trying to express a cleverness of what he thinks the Tao is about philosophically. The Tao has nothing to do with philosophy.
Ward:
Do you know what idealism refers to and what realism refers to? Could you tell me what constitutes evidence?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 08:43pm PT
|
As for arguing that an insect’s consciousness is indicative of human-like consciousness, I’ll echo what we would call for in research presentations at UIUC: “show me the data.”
The general symptoms are that the insect eats, you eat; the insect sleeps, you sleep; the insect mates, you mate; the insect defends, and you defend.
Where is the difference? :-)
The only difference in humans, their consciousness is developed much greater with the capacity to transcend the material limitations .......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 08:43pm PT
|
"The present essay highlights the uniqueness of biological systems that offers a considerable challenge to the mainstream materialism in biology and proposes the Vedāntic philosophical view as a viable alternative for development of a biological theory worthy of life"
Interesting reference, Duck. Just as Georg Cantor's ideas about infinities drew the cruelest of ridicule from the mathematical leaders of the time, but decades later became the accepted foundations of the subject, investigations like these may bear fruit eventually.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 09:56pm PT
|
Beyond that, though, is there any way in which the processes that underlie experience could be discovered?
The problem is that the processes and the chemistry and the flesh are not the experience. Discover all the neurons and chemistry you like and there is still a mysterious leap into the realm of individual awareness and experience. Presenting an image is so much different than comprehending that image. The chemistry of the taste of chocolate is so much different than the comprehension of its taste.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 10:28pm PT
|
Werner, thanks for the reference. What strikes me about yours and mine from MIT is how appropo of the topics we discuss here. We may not have any answers, but we're asking all the same questions as the best people in the field.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 10:36pm PT
|
but we're asking all the same questions as the best people in the field.
their merely the best questions in the field, that is all.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2016 - 10:42pm PT
|
Jan:
First of all for the classicists, but especially jstan.
Athens in the Age of Pericles
I seem to be unable to unzip the lecture notes. I'll have to update my software to a version dating after 400 BC. As I understand it Pericles came a-cropper when he ran into Donald Trump's grandfather. Something about Greek debt being out of control.
So much for the Acropolis imperative.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 07:04am PT
|
Duck: Where is the difference? :-)
Hey, Werner.
I think the difference might be the capacity for self-reflection. I’m obviously biased, but it is from that capacity that all sorts of humanistic expressions show up—even science. Knowing as the crudest of forms could well be explained by mechanistic stimulus-response reactivity. But knowing that you know, . . . well that seems to be what development or unfoldment (e.g., evolution) so far has been largely about. It’s then that Man falls out of the Garden of Eden, because with self-reflexivity comes doubt . . . and wonder, mystery, and the awe in “seeing.”
“Behead yourself! . . . . Dissolve your whole body into Vision: become seeing, seeing, seeing.” (Rumi)
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 07:53am PT
|
Do you actually read those articles and consider the arguments and their bases?
What kind of question is that? I'm just sharing pertinent stuff here, your analysis is always welcome. They obviously don't dig down to the "what is" part of the question here, but baby steps are better than no steps. Unless no-steps is actually the better thing, of course.
As for arguing that an insect’s consciousness is indicative of human-like consciousness, I’ll echo what we would call for in research presentations at UIUC: “show me the data.”
Guess we'l have to wait for them to publish that. And then see how many times it's cited. (Because that means everything)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 08:13am PT
|
Presenting an image is so much different than comprehending that image. The chemistry of the taste of chocolate is so much different than the comprehension of its taste.
Yes, but both can be studied.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|