Independent existence of the world.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Allan,

 

>Greg said:

>Where does this marker reside? You are not allowing anyplace for there to

>be a marker. Neither in the past thought, nor in the interval between

>thoughts, nor in the next thought. If consciousness ceases, so does the

>marker. So you are not allowing yourself any evidence to claim that there

>was an interval. Fine. Let it be said that there is no interval, but

>rather a very subtle object such as deep sleep or a trance that is

>witnessed. Then you end up no intervals at all, but rather an unbroken

>consciousness, which is what advaitins say.

 

 

Allan said:

>I'd say it is likely the marker is stored in the same place as memory and

>modern science says that place is the brain. Why should the marker cease

>if consciousness does? It may be just like a computer program which lies

>in a dormant potential state until the machine is restarted.

 

Yes, the marker idea is clever, and reminded me of cybernetics, computers,

etc. It seems you are saying that the marker, the brain and the world were

existing during the gap in consciousness. That consciousness wasn't

operating, but all these other things were there. Is this an accurate

paraphrase of your position?

 

The things you say support consciousness during the gap (marker, brain,

etc.) are not experienced during the gap, and the best evidence of them is

the marker. What is the evidence that the marker is pointing to something

that exists. Even if the marker were experienced, it would be a marker

only. The claim that the brain and world existed during the gap is

inferential only. This is 180-degrees from the advaitin position, as you

well know! Not only do advaitins say that there are no objects during gaps

between mentations, but that there are no objects *ever*, even *during*

mentations.

 

To me it seems much more in conformity to Occam's Razor not to presume the

existence of anything that is not experienced. What other kind of evidence

is there other than experience of some kind or another?

>The only reason why the marker should cease because consciousness

>does is if "esse est percipi" is true, but that is what is in dispute.

>You really can't just keep throwing it up as if it were an established

>fact because it's not. It's your religious belief.

 

I don't think of it as religious, though it does conform nicely to Advaita.

It's a way of thinking and non-thinking, which for me has been the case

for almost 20 years, and quite some time before I learned about Advaita.

(Started in grad school, a seminar on Berkeley.) It's not a belief either.

Between the two following statements below, for me it is more like (B)

than (A):

 

(A) I believe that an un-experienced X does not exist.

(B) I do not believe that an un-experienced X exists.

 

Since it's like (B), it is not a belief. But belief or not, both (A) and

(B) seem epistemically more solid than believing in objects that are not

experienced.

>Greg says:

>Maybe Advaitins aren't such good sociologists. But when they ask most

>people if they were there through the dream and sleep states, most people

>will say, "Yes, I slept happily, didn't know anything, or, I had a

>nightmare." So they are saying that they were there. People say "I had

>that trance, I blanked out." They don't say, "Someone else blanked out,

>and I woke up." This points to the continuity adviatins speak of.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Allan said:

>What people are referring to when they say "I slept happily" is the

>retroactive judgement I mentioned which is based on how they now feel after

>having awoken.

>If they now feel fine, they say "I slept happily". The

>real proof is to ask them explicitly, "did you have direct knowledge of how

>you were sleeping during every minute of the night or were there gaps in

>your knowledge of how you slept?"

 

Good point! This is true! This takes the conversation to a deeper level!

As Sri Atmananda says, there is no evidence from one state that another

state ever took place. Deep sleep is experienced, as Atmananda says, as

one's true nature, a non-dual experience. But the waking state can never

prove that deep sleep happened. Similarly, during the dream, "the dream"

is a waking state. And in the waking state, the dream is nothing but an

appearance "that experience was a dream." No proof it ever happened.

 

Sri Atmananda argues profoundly for consciousness being all there is, by

saying that all supposed things, whether they be physical objects, percepts

or thoughts, are only thoughts. All thoughts, including the thought of

another thought, are thoughts, and none can point to or prove the existence

of another. They all point to Consciousness. If thoughts can't prove

other thoughts, then thoughts can't be proven to exist at all. So there is

only pure consciousness.

>I suggest you read "Paradox Lost" by Prof. Emeritus Wallace for an

>extremely well presented realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. It

>holds much more water in my opinion.

 

I'd like to read that book.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>See again my refutation of your frequently repeated opinion that something

>must be aware of the gap during the time of the gap in order to know there

>was a gap. This opinion of yours is based (as far as I can see) entirely

>on your own presupposition that for something to be, it must be perceived.

>Think of it as a "time-stamp".

 

See my paragraphs above on what a marker or time-stamp can't prove -- it

takes more faith to regard something as existing if it is *not* experienced

than it does if it *is* experienced. Also, ultimately, I may have given

the mistaken idea that I am arguing for esse est percipi in an ultimate

way. It's a great intermediate theory. But I'm not arguing for it,

because I'm not saying that anything really exists or is actually

perceived. To exist, something has to be an entity at the gross or subtle

level. And there are no such things. Or like Buddhism says, they neither

exist nor not-exist, because either one must apply to an entity. Like Hui

Neng said, "In the Beginning, Nothing Is." But the Consciousness spoken of

by the Advaitins is not an object about which one would say "it exists."

 

You have Atmananda's books on these topics. He explains these things in a

magnificent way. My comments here are paltry in comparison.

 

Sri Allan, I continue to be grateful for the fundamental issues you have

inspired discussion on!!

 

--Greg