Guest guest Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 P: What can I say but, Bravo! Bravisimo! Like it or not this gets forwarded. ) > > > Ok. Pete. Even though I favor the use of different models, I will go > with this model/theory and see where it takes us and > tweak it up and down and all around. I had some experience with these > models in discussions with a medical doctor over the nature of > consciousness. That is how I became familiar with them and used them to > for certain purposes in the contemplative life. > > Also, let's add an issue that may be of some interest to some here and > that may contribute to the resolution of some stubborn subjective > experiences. > > The issues first. If the model is assumed temporarily and contemplated > well, it may or can be used to resolve several concerns for the those > interested in apperception, no mind, etc. direct experiencing. > > 1. There is always some implicit or explicit, hidden or open, concern, > attachment, conceptual confusion or debate about " personal agency " or > the existence of the SELF or Atman, Brahman, Soul and other > conceptualizations that point to a " pure awareness without awareness, " > " apperception " that is impersonal in content but remains personal in > expression, at least in thought. That is, the use of I, me, my, etc. is > retained but with a sense that this " I " is empty, ego less, impersonal, > not a person, but some other unknowable thing directing the individual > appearing mind/body, as Toombaru once put it, as a " meat puppet. " And it > may be supposed that the same goes for all 6.3+ billion meat puppets on > the planet. > > The model, if assumed fully and temporarily as an object of > contemplation, can work to remove the following from thought process > attachment: personal identity, self, SELF, atman, Atman, Brahman, Soul, > Spirit, God or gods, demons and all spiritual phenomena, a notion of > personal agency, and a biggy, one of the last to go, free will. > > The sensation of awareness, consciousness, personal agency and free will > remain. However, one feels like one has these abilities, but the > model/theory if assumed well, puts them in the hands of unknowable and > unseen movements of interacting quanta which reduce all to a whir of > information, a whirl of movements behind awareness. What happens in > daily life is not because it is willed or because one is aware or has > things in the field of consciousness that one deals with. There is a > loss of control a sense of losing, and insecurity. > > How do we manage to do what is done in daily life in this assumed model? > By " nature " as animals do. They do incredible things and survive. In the > model, if is assumed, humans are simply extremely sophisticated beings > that have inherent capabilities given by the interactions of quanta and > human brain by the swirl of information. Thinking in general in this > model is mere fill in for the work done as it is done in animals but > with far more capabilities. One realizes that thought is unnecessary for > most activities. > > If the model is fully assumed and only temporarily for contemplative > purposes, for that is all that can be done for it cannot be known or > proven in fact, then what results may or can it it bring? > > Assumed and used properly for a time, it may help to dissipate > dependency or attachment to the sensation of free will as existing or > not existing, functioning or not functioning, for such a matter can > never be known beyond the sensations of choice, selectivity and > determination. > > It allows, if assumed properly, to experience the futility of thinking > about this and that since conscious thinking does not contribute > directly to most activities in life with certain exceptions such as > intellectual work (designing, planning, reading, writing and so forth) > thus leaving the mind to mind its business quietly without thought. > > It also can aid in dissolving the sense of personal identity for there > is none in this model; just complex stimulus-response discrete events > interacting with others of the same that gives the appearance of > continuity. > > Finally, it may or can end the attachment to the concept of an immortal > SELF, which can never be known by mind, in any case. In its place are > the quanta interacting with the brain in its seamless and unknowable > way. Attachments to the concepts and sensations of free will, personal > identity, and an immortal Self can be loosened or loosed if one assumes > that one is an animal, albeit sophisticated and creative in the human > way, temporarily. All religious concepts and practices that refer to > immortality and immortal beings and identities also dissolve. So warning > to adherents teachings of various kinds. On the other hand, there is no > reason to fear assuming this unless one is afraid of ghosts, which this > model is in the end. > > This model as well as any model, say the Advaita Vedanta, yoga or the > mysticism models of the East and West all contain sets of assumptions > and concepts, and these assumptions and concepts being what they are not > knowable with certainty and can never be verifiable with certainty with > thought. The appearances will never be known or verified with complete > certainty given the nature of experience. The holding on to to the > assumption of certainty, the sensation of personal identity, immortality > or other control and sensation that one can be right or true all may or > can crumble in this model, if assumed and contemplated well. But it too > is given up, leaving a shambles those things that hinder experience as > it is, and if used properly and then put down, laid aside with the rest. > > > 2. Tweaking the model could consist of making it neither spiritual nor > physical nor monist in nature. No assumption need to be made about the > nature of the substance underlying the quanta or the appearances. Subtle > bodies, subtle energies and other diaphanous stuff can be left alone. Or > one change everything into photons instead of quanta. There are models > for that. > > Below are references to a set of models that eliminate the non-physical > as stories for awareness and consciousness. > > > 1. The Penrose-Hameroff's Orch OR model of consciousness > http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html#penrose > > 2. Francis Crick and Christof Koch's neurobiological theory of > consciousness. > http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html > > 3. Karl H. Pribram's Holographic Model of Brain and Consciousness. > http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/ > > 4. Ricciardi and Umezawa's Quantum Dynamical Model > http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psychologie/psyzeit/cogproc/1-2000/vitiell1.h > tm > > 5. Quantum Field Theoretical Approaches to Consciousness > http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum/Lecture7.htm > > 6. James Newman and Bernard J. Baars's Global Workspace Theory > http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/GWorkspace.html > > 7. Rodney M. J. Cotterill's neural correlates of consciousness > http://info.fysik.dtu.dk/Brainscience/1997b.pdf > > Enjoy. Get physical for a change of pace. It may prove to be refreshing > and insight full or it may bore your mind to death, which may not be a > bad thing. :-D > > > Lewis > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > P: What can I say but, Bravo! Bravisimo! > Like it or not this gets forwarded. ) Odysseus: Pete, this is a Nisargadatta web site. Where we try to understand Advaita-Vedanta and non-dual philosophy. Stuff like that. I wonder why you are so proud to encourage such theories? It comes from Lewis, but you agree! I thought you were interested to learn more about the masters? I know you think you know all. But you don't. I'm sorry you don't. You say to others to go beyong the mind and what do you do? You go right in the mind, with stuff like Quantum theory, etc. Anyway I don't want to be rude. :0) It is just that showing the others the mind won't help them to go beyond the mind. It is already difficult to see the rope and not the snake... and you bring more snakes for us to be scared of?? Nothing special about Quantum Theory appliyed to consciousness, neurobiological theory of consciousness etc. It is just the rope! I " love " to eat quantum hamburgers and quantum french fries! We all call them hamburgers and french fries! Love Odysseus, 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.