Guest guest Posted October 25, 1999 Report Share Posted October 25, 1999 Greetings Robert: Thanks for your excellent question and the excellent answer from Frankji. Your reply indicates that you need more explanation. The reason Consciousness is fundamental is because, according to the Scriptures that Consciousness alone exists and that the universe is nothing but the self-expression of consciouness. (Yoga Vashitha from MahaRamayana by Sage Valmiki Rishi). In addition, the Scriptures also state that Consciousness is non-comprehensible! The bottom line of this statement is the following - I know that SELF is responsible for everything, but I don't aware about the "SELF" and I have to wait until then. What we understand is only the puzzle without the solution - Puzzles such as seed & tree, chicken & egg will remain unresolved until we understand the TRUTH. It appears that you are expecting an intellectually satisfactory answer and I have to admit that I do not have one for you. The question is fundamental, the answer is also fundamental and we don't know the fundamental. Consequently, we have to Quotations and more information about Yoga Vasishtha are available at the Web Site: http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/Hindu/Vasishtha/index.html The Home Page with the site address: http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/ discusses mysticism behind major religions. Book Information: "Return To Shiva. From The Yoga Vasishtha Maharamayana, Valmiki, Rishi. Price: $16.00 Paperback - First Edition Publisher: New York, NY Concord Grove 1983. Check at: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/index. "Parisi & Watson" <niche writes I would like to pose a question that will probably seem simplistic, or even stupid. But I think on reflection it can be seen to have some substance, since it's often the most fundamental concerns and issues that escape our immediate notice. I apologize in advance for the overtly secular philosophical nature of the question, but it's typical of the issues that bother me, and that I would like to get straight................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 1999 Report Share Posted October 25, 1999 At 11:07 PM 10/24/99 , Parisi & Watson wrote: >"Parisi & Watson" <niche > > >"f. maiello" <egodust > > > >this appears to be a compelling question. however, > >upon closer examination, the 'answerless answer' > >emerges: from the egoic (vyavaharika) perspective, the > >3 phases of the Mind (waking, dreaming, sleeping) are > >operable. destroy the central nervous system and the > >[egoic] obliteration of awareness results. however, > >the state beyond these 3 phases, being the so-called > >Fourth State (turiya), is a continuum of suddha chit > >or pure consciousness. however again, any attempt to > >understand this state--until it itself is achieved > >(via the elimination of the philosophical Mind)-- > >is consistently met with failure, simply because the > >relative Mind is attempting to behold an absolute > >condition. ><snip> > >I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response. Let's stipulate >that there is a fourth state of consciousness, and that it can never be >understood by one who has not experienced it. Many commonplace experiences >also fall into this category, such as color vision, or even more so vision >itself. But what does that have to do with the commonly experienced fact >that consciousness itself can be obliterated by physical injury? There are two senses of the word 'consciousness' at play here. It seems that what you are referring to as "consciousness" is what Frank, in the advaita tradition, would call the waking state consciousness or jagarita-sthana. This is the consciousness that appears upon waking up in the morning, and disappears upon falling asleep (at which point the svapna-sthana or dream consciousness arises). Both the waking and dream states would perish in the same person in whom brain function ceases. But the other sense of consciousness, pure consciousness is different. It is not a state, but rather that which is aware of the coming and going of the waking dreaming and deep sleep states; it is that "background" to which the mind, the brain, and any functioning and non-functioning appear. It is not any kind of object so can't be pointed to or described. It doesn't look like anything; yet everything is nothing other than it. Medical science can't prove or disprove it, but rather appears in it. Don't know if this is helpful. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 1999 Report Share Posted October 25, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > > [...] ... It just seems to me that a balanced and careful > examination of the vast body of facts that are available to us strongly > suggests that consciousness, of whatever type, is directly dependent on a > functioning nervous system, and that physical existence precedes > consciousness rather than the other way around. Consciousness is a late > arrival on the scene in biological terms, and its existence seems fragile > and precarious rather than fundamental. > let me preface my response to your question with the following. _________ O Universal Mind, product of maya, that cranks this awesome infliction of mara, thy power is indeed nothing meagre to reckon! _________ firstly, nothing of what can ever be spoken or thought has, in of itself, any ultimate value. the best of it can only point to the way that leads to the Real, simply because the Real is absolute, whereas language/ideas are inherently confined to the relative. the whole mission of the path of wisdom is to release the stubborn clutches of the inquiring/judgmental Mind. to reduce the role of Mind to simple, practical function. because the philosophic quest is a vicious circular trap. it's safe to say that it leads ultimately nowhere. however, it isn't necessarily a matter of destroying such thinking...rather it's more like becoming its impersonal witness, instead of its victim. the lethal aspect of our latent mental tendencies (vasanas) have to do with their control on our awareness, causing us to believe in this pet idea or that. this is the nature of bondage, and it really comes out of the dictates and demands of ego. we have to bear in mind that any spiritual philosophy (as well as incidentally what is *believed* to be pure science), amounts to being really nothing more than an attempt at understanding our ineffable nature of Being. nevertheless, we're compelled to make such attempts, simply because the Mind is restless and won't leave us alone. therefore it has to be appeased. but we have to also understand, that such appeasement (satisfying what amounts to being its inquenchable curiousity) can only go so far. there's a point where we have to realize that not all of the Mind's *unending* questions can be answered. that point starts formulating itself in the endgame journey of the soul... having said that, here's a further attempt to appease and thus provide another opportunity for us to defuse and transcend our awesome Mind. in response to your question: what Greg said re the contrast between consciousness and pure consciousness, is the essence of the matter. in this regard i like to refer to these terms as 'awareness' and 'consciousness' respectively. in trying to grasp the dynamic of the Fourth State, the term suddha chit is applied, which translates as pure consciousness. when this suddha chit [in/of the atman] casts itself into manifestation, it fabricates buddhi-manas, which is the intuitive/analytical Mind, comprising relative awareness. so we have absolute pure consciousness birthing gross relative awareness. according to the theory of reincarnation, the soul periodically develops a gross physical body, enabling it to work out its karma. so it would seem that, yes, the existence of the brain precludes the advent of *relative* awareness, which is also subject to birth and death. on the other hand, pure consciousness is its causal and *permanent* substratum, being also its creative seed essence. this latter concept gives a hint re the potentiality of the existence of such permanent consciousness: that which is created and objectified must have a subjective source that has given it life. it should be recognized that this 'explanation' is in fact itself rooted in the relative domain, and is afterall only a way of *alluding* to an existential property of the Ineffable Absolute (brahman). even this latter reference [suggesting] a definition of or within the Absolute, is *grossly* misleading. thus, as Ramji mentioned, "It appears that you are expecting an intellectually satisfactory answer...", yet there can really be no such answer--at least not according to relative logic [which by definition has to be severely limited in the face of the Absolute]. thus the Absolute absorbs and sublates the Relative. never the reverse, though. and here lies the importance of the application of viveka and then vairagya (viz. first discriminating between the Real and unreal and then filtering out and becoming dispassionate to the unreal). namaskaar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1999 Report Share Posted October 26, 1999 On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Parisi & Watson wrote: > [...] > > or qualities of its own. But my question was, What about unconsciousness, > during which it seems that no witnessing occurs, even in the vague sense of > dreamless sleep? If the very continuation of witnessing (if I may put it > that way) is dependent on a functioning nervous system, then could not that > fact cast in doubt the whole notion of the Self? If I can intrude for a minute into this discussion No. Witnessing does not depend on the functioning nervous system. Witness is still there for the entity with the non-functioning nervous system. If that entity (with the non-functioning nervous system) requires proof of that witness, that entity has to have the awareness (using Frank's terminology). The Consciousness is always there. That Consciousness should not be confused with the consciousness or awareness. Thanks for letting me express this, and sorry for the intrusion. > Robert. > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1999 Report Share Posted October 26, 1999 First let me say that my goal here is not to refute or disprove anything, but more the opposite. I hope to look at Avaita in a new light, and get a clarification of some of the basic issues in the process. So please bear with me a little longer as I try to press the hard questions. >"f. maiello" <egodust <snip> >what Greg said re the contrast between consciousness >and pure consciousness, is the essence of the matter. >in this regard i like to refer to these terms as >'awareness' and 'consciousness' respectively. <snip> >on the other hand, pure consciousness is its causal >and *permanent* substratum, being also its creative >seed essence. this latter concept gives a hint re >the potentiality of the existence of such permanent >consciousness: that which is created and objectified >must have a subjective source that has given it life. <snip> Do we not have to start from where we are, with the idea that I am already That, but obscured by delusion and false identification? If so, I can see in principle that the Self could be that which witnesses the three states of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep, but which is without any attributes or qualities of its own. But my question was, What about unconsciousness, during which it seems that no witnessing occurs, even in the vague sense of dreamless sleep? If the very continuation of witnessing (if I may put it that way) is dependent on a functioning nervous system, then could not that fact cast in doubt the whole notion of the Self? How can these holes or lapses be accounted for? Do we maintain simply on the basis of scripture and dogma that witnessing continues, even though we lack any awareness of it? If so, it seems that at this point we have abandoned the approach of starting from where we are, and have ventured out into philosophical doctrines that are no longer rooted in experience. We are no longer just paring away the layers of confusion from the immediate present reality of the Self (neti, neti), but instead we are postulating something beyond experience. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1999 Report Share Posted October 26, 1999 At 08:47 PM 10/26/99 -0230, you wrote: >Hello to everybody on the list...I am Patricia....I am a divorced gal in my early forties and have always been drawn to reading about Advaita Vendanta since I first came upon it awhile back....and I had spotted this list while surfin' the net one day and voila!!...While many things come together to make up that which is foundational to my thoughts of Spirit, Vedanta is something that I have come to this list to expand my exposure to its concepts...likely you won't find me expressing that much about my views...atleast at this point....Peace to you all.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1999 Report Share Posted October 27, 1999 Greetings Robert: Thanks for raising an important question and we have no doubt in our mind that you are sincere in your inquiry. A wealth of information on consciousness is already available in list archives. Go to the mirror site of archives located at eScribe.com and type "Consciouness" to collect all discussions on this subject. Shri Sadanandaji has posted extensively on this topic. Currently he is on travel and apparantly his hard drive became unconscious and his computer became mechanically dead. I am quite confident that he will be able to give you a more satisfactory answer to your question than any of us. I have enclosed here below, a previous posting of an article by Sadanandaji which partially answers your question. The fundamental question is not whether someone is conscious or unconscious - but the question is - who is the enquirer? All that you are describing are related to the physical function of the body and Vedanta wants to address the cause of all causes! regards, Ram Chandran ========================================== Sadanandaji's previous posting on this list ========================================== I bumped into an article: "Can Science Explain Consciousness? - by John Horgan, senior writer of Scientific American, July 1994, pp- 88-94. "Emboldened by these achievements ( referring to neurons etc.) a growing number of scientists have dared to address what is simultaneously the most elusive and inescapable of all phenomena: consciousness, our immediate, subjective awareness of the world and of ourselves. Francis Crick should receive much credit - or blame - for the trend. Crick, who shared Noble Prize for the discovery of DNA' structure in 1953 ........1n 1990 Crick and Christof Koch, .... rejected the belief of many of their colleagues that consciousness cannot be defined, let alone studied. Consciousness, they argued, is really synonymous with awareness and all forms of awareness-whether involving objects in the external world or highly abstract, internal concepts - seems to involve the same underlying mechanism, one that combines attention with short memory. (I did not understand the sentence! -how attention operates? ) Contrary to the assumption of cognitive scientists, philosophers, and others, Crick and Koch asserted, one cannot hope to achieve true understanding of consciousness or any other mental phenomenon by treating the brain as a black box - that is, an object whose internal structure is unknown an even irrelevant. Only by examining neurons and the interactions between them could scientists accumulate the kind of empirical, unambiguous knowledge that is required to create truly analogous to those that explain transmission of genetic information by means of DNA" "Crick elaborates on these ideas in the THE ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS" a book published this year(1994) and dedicated to Koch." The article elaborates the activities in Neuroscience - the new journals that are propping up - "psyche - an e-mail journal from Australia, Journal of Consciousness - a British quarterly journal scheduled for launching (1994) ------------------------- The arguments sound like the one presented by Allen Curry. Are they mixing up the mechanisms that make the brain to be conscious of objects - the structural models for the mechanism of the cognition and recognition process with the stored memory similar to how a computer recognizes the patterns and models - matching, contrast and comparisons etc. - with the consciousness - because of which one is conscious of these cognitions and recognitions as well. An interesting article - does not say much - all about consciousness but does not say what that is being referred to as consciousness. It is like Allen's description of some complex interactions of brain cells and nervous system with the universal fields - leading to birth of consciousness? But the beauty is there is a scientific inquiry to find out the truth by objectifying the subject - I am not sure when they will come to the conclusion it is the residue after neti - neti etc. Any description of consciousness is not consciousness but an object of consciousness! Hari Om! Sadananda =================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1999 Report Share Posted October 27, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > [...] .... my question was, What about unconsciousness, > during which it seems that no witnessing occurs, even in the vague sense of > dreamless sleep? If the very continuation of witnessing (if I may put it > that way) is dependent on a functioning nervous system, then could not that > fact cast in doubt the whole notion of the Self? How can these holes or > lapses be accounted for? Do we maintain simply on the basis of scripture and > dogma that witnessing continues, even though we lack any awareness of it? If > so, it seems that at this point we have abandoned the approach of starting > from where we are, and have ventured out into philosophical doctrines that > are no longer rooted in experience. We are no longer just paring away the > layers of confusion from the immediate present reality of the Self (neti, > neti), but instead we are postulating something beyond experience. > actually there are no philosophical doctrines being postulated at all. the Fourth State [of pure consciousness] is nowhere clearly defined. the proof is in 'neti, neti, etc' itself. it's the classic apples and oranges dilemma here. according to the 3 phases of the relative Mind, the contention that unconsciousness ensues post death, sleep or swoon, is quite correct. however, vedanta (and metaphysics) postulates another realm of possibility, causal and primal to the Relative: the Absolute 'Stateless State,' where pure consciousness exists. *however*, it cannot be in any way apprehended from the relative perspective! that it is even referred to as 'pure consciousness' is grossly misleading! nothing whatsoever can be reported about this free state. if one requires empirical evidence, none can be forthcoming, because such evidence is hopelessly confined and defined to and by Relativity. in Ramji's post this morning, quoting from the archive: where Sadanandaji stated: "But the beauty is there is a scientific inquiry to find out the truth by objectifying the subject - I am not sure when they will come to the conclusion it is the residue after neti - neti etc. "Any description of consciousness is not consciousness but an object of consciousness!" ....hones in on the core of the matter. the method of 'neti, neti, etc' results in the neutralization finally of the relative dominion [comprising the three phases of Mind], leaving the primal state of pure consciousness or suddha chit [being thus the turiya or Fourth State] in its wake. so we have relative awareness and absolute consciousness. the former is subject to birth and death; the latter can't even be talked about. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1999 Report Share Posted October 27, 1999 At 06:56 PM 10/26/99 , Parisi & Watson wrote: Do we not have to start from where we are, with the idea that I am already That, but obscured by delusion and false identification? If so, I can see in principle that the Self could be that which witnesses the three states of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep, but which is without any attributes or qualities of its own. But my question was, What about unconsciousness, during which it seems that no witnessing occurs, even in the vague sense of dreamless sleep? Greg: In formal advaita, as no doubt others will clarify in detail, the locus of the unconscious is explained as the causal body. This is equivalent to the deep sleep state, which is featureless and identical for all jivas. It is therefore because of Ishwara's omniscience that the continuity of one person's vasanas is kept separate from the continuity of another's vasanas. That is, because of Ishwara's omniscience, you wake up being the same person who went to bed the night before, the vasanas didn't get mixed up in the ocean of the unconscious. Robert: If the very continuation of witnessing (if I may put it that way) is dependent on a functioning nervous system, then could not that fact cast in doubt the whole notion of the Self? Greg: Advaita wouldn't say that the continuity of witnessing IS dependent on the nervous system. Rather it would say that the knowledge and perception of the nervous system are dependent upon that witnessing consciousness (background consciousness, not waking-state consciousness). What is it that knows the nervous system? Can there the awareness of the nervous system apart from awareness itself? It is everyone's experience (whether we talk about the nervous system or anything else) that the answer to the latter is NO. Robert: How can these holes or lapses be accounted for? Do we maintain simply on the basis of scripture and dogma that witnessing continues, even though we lack any awareness of it? Greg: This is a very good point. There are other teachings of non-dualism, such as that coming from Kirshna Menon, that do not depend theoretically on any continuity of the waking-state witnessing. And of course there are Buddhist teachings that do not posit any continuities of states at all. You might wish to explore these. As far as I know, the formal Advaita-Vedanta a la Shankara likes to retain the notion of a continuity of both the bearer of the waking state, and the unbroken, timeless continuity of the background witnessing consciousness. All who speak about the background witnessing consciousness agree that it is never experienced as an object - rather, experience is IT. While asking that Advaita account for continuity, you might ask yourself. Is continuity *really* your experience? --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1999 Report Share Posted October 27, 1999 >Greg Goode <goode <snip> >While asking that Advaita account for continuity, you might ask >yourself. Is continuity *really* your experience? Now _there's_ an interesting way to turn the tables! No, continuity certainly is not my experience; if it were, I would not be asking these questions. I understand that the Self is that to which all experience is presented... subject only, never object, and without attributes. But obviously to be fundamental to Being itself, the Self must be continuous. So my simple question was, If the Self is continuous, and fundamentally our awareness already is the Self, then how do we account for the fact that our consciousness is _not_ always continuous? So far it seems that the only answer is that our concept (or non-concept) of the Self requires it to be so, and on that basis we assume a continuous state that is not part of our experience. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1999 Report Share Posted October 27, 1999 >"f. maiello" <egodust >actually there are no philosophical doctrines >being postulated at all. the Fourth State [of >pure consciousness] is nowhere clearly defined. >the proof is in 'neti, neti, etc' itself. The doctrine to which I referred is the idea that witnessing continues even though we don't experience it. In other words, how can we engage in 'neti, neti' discrimination if we are not 'here,' are not conscious? How can we ask to whom the phenomena of the relative plane are being presented when nothing is being presented, when the subject itself has been temporarily extinguished? How can we even deal in terms of a subject during a time in which we are not present to register anything at all, not even blankness? Of course the answer will be that the subject is the Self, and the Self can never be extinguished. But it seems that we are identifying something that in fact can be temporarilty extinguished with something else that we insist cannot. >it's the classic apples and oranges dilemma here. >according to the 3 phases of the relative Mind, >the contention that unconsciousness ensues post >death, sleep or swoon, is quite correct. > >however, vedanta (and metaphysics) postulates >another realm of possibility, causal and primal >to the Relative: the Absolute 'Stateless State,' >where pure consciousness exists. *however*, it >cannot be in any way apprehended from the relative >perspective! that it is even referred to as 'pure >consciousness' is grossly misleading! nothing >whatsoever can be reported about this free state. >if one requires empirical evidence, none can be >forthcoming, because such evidence is hopelessly >confined and defined to and by Relativity. Direct (lack of) experience strongly suggests that there is no consciousness during unconsciousness - pure, relative, or otherwise. >in Ramji's post this morning, quoting from the >archive: where Sadanandaji stated: > >"But the beauty is there is a scientific inquiry to find out the truth >by objectifying the subject - I am not sure when they will come to the >conclusion it is the residue after neti - neti etc. > >"Any description of consciousness is not consciousness but an object of >consciousness!" I am clear on this point. I was attempting to account, not for consciousness, but for lack of consciousness. >...hones in on the core of the matter. the method >of 'neti, neti, etc' results in the neutralization >finally of the relative dominion [comprising the >three phases of Mind], leaving the primal state >of pure consciousness or suddha chit [being thus >the turiya or Fourth State] in its wake. > >so we have relative awareness and absolute consciousness. >the former is subject to birth and death; the latter >can't even be talked about. Again, I understand (at least after a fashion) the process of abstracting pure awareness from our everyday relative awareness of objects and our apparent individual mind. But I'm still not clear on how this process of abstraction has any bearing on a lack of consciousness itself. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 1999 Report Share Posted October 28, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > > The doctrine to which I referred is the idea that witnessing continues even > though we don't experience it. In other words, how can we engage in 'neti, > neti' discrimination if we are not 'here,' are not conscious? How can we ask > to whom the phenomena of the relative plane are being presented when nothing > is being presented, when the subject itself has been temporarily > extinguished? How can we even deal in terms of a subject during a time in > which we are not present to register anything at all, not even blankness? actually, the inquiry takes place in and through the relative plane of the jiva or ego-Mind. also, the idea of 'witness' is additionally only a way of alluding to a condition that in reality can't be described. the thought-free so-called 'stateless state' is the background of all other [relative] states. once experienced, it is somehow recognized to be a living continuum. to be it is to know it, and vice-versa. > Direct (lack of) experience strongly suggests that there is no consciousness > during unconsciousness - pure, relative, or otherwise. > there is no "lack of experience" involved. only 'experience' that falls outside the classic domain of subject/object--having a near-parallel to the difference between newtonian and quantum mechanics, where one is empirically reasonable and the other intrinsically unknowable. moreover, i contend that the exclusive 'neti, neti' response in the face of the quest for the Real is, or can be, misleading...insofar as the resultant understanding and formation of one's philosophical conception (which is strictly formed in and by the nature of the relative Mind...which survives the egoic dissolution process in moksha, although it is in a fundamentally altered state in contrast to its former tyrannical glory). in the beginning, to say 'neti, neti' *exclusively* is important in terms of applying an effective strategy to overcome the powerful habit of our dependence on and projection into the external world. however, to maintain this [what amounts to a] nihilistic stance or attitude, is holistically erroneous. here's what i've found through the application of the method of Self-enquiry (some may disagree because it's a departure from the popular, and from what i contend to be, the exoteric teaching): when asking oneself, "who am i?" four things are certain to transpire: 1. that no answer(s) can ever describe it; 2. that all conceivable answers are fractionally true, representing infinitesimal fragments of one's totality in the Self; 3. that there can be no end to the answers forthcoming; 4. that the question itself will eventually dissolve. OM shaanthi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 1999 Report Share Posted October 28, 1999 >"Parisi & Watson" <niche > > >Greg Goode <goode ><snip> > >While asking that Advaita account for continuity, you might ask > >yourself. Is continuity *really* your experience? > > >Now _there's_ an interesting way to turn the tables! No, continuity >certainly is not my experience; if it were, I would not be asking these >questions. I understand that the Self is that to which all experience is >presented... subject only, never object, and without attributes. But >obviously to be fundamental to Being itself, the Self must be continuous. So >my simple question was, If the Self is continuous, and fundamentally our >awareness already is the Self, then how do we account for the fact that our >consciousness is _not_ always continuous? Very clearly stated! Experiences and objects aren't continuous, but your true nature is unbroken - You are that which registers thoughts and the gaps between thoughts, sensations and gaps bewteen sensations. Thoughts, feelings and sensations are discontinuous - in order for you to be aware of this, you must *not* be discontinuous. It's like sitting at the bank of a river watching it flow. If you think about your sensory experiences, you can see an analogy. Let's say you are sitting on a moving train, looking out the window. Your experience is not that "you" (the body) move. Rather, it is a wash of moving colors streaming by, accompanied by click-clacking that arises and falls, accompanied by pleasant, regular rocking and bumping. All of these experiences move "across" you; you don't move through them. For you to be aware of this movement, you must not be moving. This is our experience. The claim that the mind is what experiences this, or that the brain registers this, is clearly NOT our sensory experience. Rather, that would be an inference from sensory experience. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.