Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 In a message dated 2/26/05 12:18:07 PM, kipalmazy writes: > Pete anounces talking about consciousness: > > > Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in > its unsullied generality. > > > Immortal?! You will never live time enough to know this but time > enough to die. Death is the end of consciousness; there is neither a > personal nor an unsullied consciousness you will be able to talk > about when you are dead....nor will you be able to experience > something. Death isn't " deep sleep without dreams " nor > unconsciousness (of itself, too) nor samadhi nor any other kind of > experience. Death is death, Pete. Telos, Schluss, finito, > fin....nada. > > ........isn't that fantastic enough? > > > All:One > Kip Almazy > > > > > P: Yes, Kip, that's correct from a personal standpoint, but consider, if you would, that consciousness is not the person. I was viewing consciousness just as a universal possibility, such as heat. Heat is not a self sustaining, a self generating phenomenon, it requires certain physical conditions to appear, and so does consciousness. Yet, both are always indestructible as possibilities, when those conditions are present. I'm sure you can see that, and if you don't, no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Pete wrote: Nothing Material, objective, or that can be perceived as partaking of individuality could be immortal because it arises co- dependently, and is, therefore, subject to change. The above, disqualifies from immortality everything we could think of. And this, of course, includes consciousness, simply because consciousness is created by living nerve cells. And yet, awareness (because this two terms are interchangeable) is conferred a sort of immortality by its generic nature. Consciousness, despite the fact, of being created only by individual organisms, remains unstained by individuality, just as electric light can't be said to belong to any single light-bulb, consciousness doesn't partake of an individual's qualities. Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in its unsullied generality. Individuality is form, and forms are perishable, yet potentiality confers immortality on all types of forms. Potential can't be extinguished. Even if the universe were to vanish, the potential for another, exactly the same, would remain intact. And is in this way, that awareness due to his lack of individual qualities, and its eternal potential becomes immortal. And if these were not enough consider that subjective time can't exist without awareness, therefore no discernible period of unawareness could exist. A billion years and a second feel exactly the same length, no duration at all. So in conclusion, are we immortal? No, not in our individualy. But, yes, in consciousness generic purity, and endless potentiality. Pete & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Hi Pete, I've just finished Domasio's 'Looking for Spinoza' and all the time I was wondering because of its philosophic tendency when he would approach the 'hard question'. On page 198 he finally does. Let me quote - " There is a major gap in our current understanding of how neural patterns become mental images. The presence in the brain of dynamic neural patterns (or maps) related to an object or event is a *necessary* but not sufficent basis to explain the mental images of said object or event. We can describe neural patterns - with the tools of neuroanatomy, neurophsiology and neurochemistry - and we can describe images with the tools of introspection. How we get from the former to the latter is known only in part.....((He gives a general picture of what he believes to be the current situation and finally he states)) But I fall short of suggesting, let alone explaining, how the last steps of this image-making process are carried out " . He draws back from suggesting that consciousness is created by living cells because the monism that he proposes is more profound in that in conformity with the ideas of Spinoza he holds that both matter and mind are attributes of a single substance which he calls God. This obviates the problem raised by Descartes when mind is viewed as non-extended substance and matter is extended substance. As Aristotle first pointed out in De Anima interaction presumes commonality. This thinking in terms of Matter and Mind is a totally natural reflex of the human being. Shankara in his Preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhyasa (Vedanta Sutras) spoke of cit(consciousness) jada (the inert). Taking that bifurcation as an apparent given we are drawn into the paradox that this would make awareness impossible. How could that jada(object) become cit(conscious) in me the subject when they are opposed as night the day. How is what is inconceivable the case? How does the jada (object) become superimposed on the cit (subject). That leads Shankara to consider the common forms of superimposition to gain some analogical leverage. The monism that Spinoza proffers is conceptually prior to the matter and mind divide. Incidentally Thomas Nagel (What its like to be a bat) has an admiration for the Spinoza thesis. " My own instincts are in the direction of a Spinozistic monism, which will reveal both the mental and the physical as incomplete descriptions of a more fundamental reality that explains them both, as well as their neccessary connection - but of which we have at present no conception. " (from an essay Consciousness and Objective Reality publ in a book 'The Mind- Body problem , a guide to the current debate publ.Blackwell. I recommend it, the luminaries are all there) So Pete because of the problem of causal closure the idea of matter generating consciousness via micro tubules or whatever is strictly inconceivable and even absurd. No evidence could support it and to say as Galen Strawson does that it simply must be the case because matter is really all that there is seems to me to be doomed. " So they are obliged to hold that experiental phenomena just are physical phemomena, although current physics cannot account for them " . In a way Shankara is saying the diametrically opposite in his account of superimposition. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/26/05 12:18:07 PM, kipalmazy writes: > > > > Pete anounces talking about consciousness: > > > > > > Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in > > its unsullied generality. > > > > > > Immortal?! You will never live time enough to know this but time > > enough to die. Death is the end of consciousness; there is neither a > > personal nor an unsullied consciousness you will be able to talk > > about when you are dead....nor will you be able to experience > > something. Death isn't " deep sleep without dreams " nor > > unconsciousness (of itself, too) nor samadhi nor any other kind of > > experience. Death is death, Pete. Telos, Schluss, finito, > > fin....nada. > > > > ........isn't that fantastic enough? > > > > > > All:One > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Yes, Kip, that's correct from a personal > standpoint, but consider, if you would, that consciousness > is not the person. I was viewing consciousness just > as a universal possibility, such as heat. Heat is not a > self sustaining, a self generating phenomenon, it requires > certain physical conditions to appear, and so does > consciousness. Yet, both are always indestructible as > possibilities, when those conditions are present. > I'm sure you can see that, and if you don't, no big deal. What a stink! Then we could equally state (and it would sound absurd) heat is " immortal " , heat is not the person. Is heat a quantum possibility or the result of the big bang? Is the bigbang a quantum possibility or are quantum possibilities a result of the big bang? Living creatures have one thing in common and that's the DNA. What is DNA? A result of the big bang or a quantum possibility? What makes consciousness or even unconsciousness so attractive to you, Pete? What's the " big deal " with consciousness or heat or whatever outside the lifeform you are in now? You are unable to give an accurate and appropiate definition on consciousness like the rest of human beings. You are spreading here all the time your belief-systems under the umbrella of " no-big-deal " empirical data combining smattering with street-smartness: " Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in its unsullied generality. " You present here consciousness as a dichotomy variable " perishable- personal " vs " immortal-general " talking about an " unsullied generality " . Is something wrong with " perishable-personal " ? Is it sullied? Why? Why should someone swallow such phantasms? You are free to go on with such beliefs but my dear friend you are moving more and more away from the " Zen-platform " you once were upon. But Ok, if we are on discussing consciousness, I would like to ask you why you superimpose to your perceptions a " generality " and " unsullied " additionally? If you are talking about your experiences, ask yourself in which degree they are culturally conditioned. Are you not talking out of " the subject Pete " ? Is the consciousness of an ant sullied? Is life, DNA, sullied and why? Are you not talking out of your cultural and personal lesions? Know thy self, Pete! ALL:One Kip Almazy P.S. We always talk from a personal position, Pete, everyone, because we talk, including you, my dear. Truth or reality is somewhere in between, interwoven, masked, disguised. Consciousness isn't perhaps such a funny thing and has nothing to do with " reality " or " truth " . Don't be so ridiculous to put your self in a position outside consciousness and give here lections about consciousness. You have no clue who and what and where you are like all the rest of the " mortals " . Can you live with it? If you don't, no big deal! Throw the thorn away, man, if you don't have more thorns to pull out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 Throw the thorn away, man, if you don't have more thorns to pull out! If you have some thorns to pull out yet, Pete, stop faking here some sort of mastery and incorrigibility. The last time it seems to me you've got a tad megalomanic. Sure, it's always easy to discard things one is unable to apprehend by using some sort of " non-dual " rhetoric or " street-smartness " . It's hard to learn, it hurts sometimes like a condemnation. Get down to earth! You are on the wrong track in the discussion with Lewis, Pete! BTW, when ever a circus appears in town my children and I are there. All:One Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 In a message dated 2/26/05 11:50:17 PM, kipalmazy writes: > What a stink! > > > K: >Then we could equally state (and it would sound absurd) heat > >is " immortal " , > P: Using the word immortal regarding heat would be absurd, unless we use it poetically. Heat as a possibility is, nevertheless, indistructible, and so is consciousness whether you like it or not. > K:> Is heat a quantum possibility > or the result of the big bang? Is the bigbang a quantum possibility > >or are quantum possibilities a result of the big bang? Living > creatures have one thing in common and that's the DNA. What is DNA? > >A result of the big bang or a quantum possibility? > P: Both are quantum possibilities, which is a fancy way of saying both could happen over and over again under certain conditions. The distinction I'm trying to highlight is that they are not unique events which require special creation and can't be repeated like Bach's Organ Concerto in C minor. > > K:>What makes consciousness or even unconsciousness so attractive to > >you, Pete? What's the " big deal " with consciousness or heat or > >whatever outside the lifeform you are in now? > P: I wrote that for you Kip, or so it seems, you are the only one who had an allergic reaction to it. > > K:>You are unable to give an accurate and appropiate definition on > >consciousness like the rest of human beings. > P: Please, give me a 100% accurate definition of any mental phenomena. It can't be done. Does that mean we should stop trying to communicate, and should delete all these lists? > K:You are spreading here > all the time your belief-systems under the umbrella of " no-big-deal " > empirical data combining smattering with street-smartness: > P: Well, that, is the way it seems to you, my intention is really to stimulate thoughts or discussion of certain topics. > > " Although, it is perishable in its personal form, it's immortal in > its unsullied generality. " > > K: You present here consciousness as a dichotomy variable " perishable- > personal " vs " immortal-general " talking about an " unsullied > generality " . Is something wrong with " perishable-personal " ? Is it > sullied? Why? Why should someone swallow such phantasms? > P: For me there is nothing wrong with a perishable consciousness, but for most people it's a hard pill to swallow, so they cling to all those beliefs in immortal souls, heavens, reincarnation, etc. Unsullied was probably not a good choice of words. The notion I was trying to convey was that our identity is a complex of thoughts-emotions which is reflected in consciousness, but never tarnishes, or imprints it as a dye permanently colors a cloth. > > K:>You are free to go on with such beliefs but my dear friend you are > >moving more and more away from the " Zen-platform " you once were upon. > P: Thanks, for the warning, dear friend, since it comes from you, I'll look into it. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr writes: > Hi Pete, > > W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add a bit > >more about consciousness. > P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you. > > W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision > >center and the person suffering from that still can move around > >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has > >consciousness? > > >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we > >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa. > > >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ? > P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth, that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate. When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.' No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel more alive than when facing live or death situations. Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. ) > > Pete > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 Hi Pete, Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add a bit more about consciousness. When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision center and the person suffering from that still can move arround without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has consciouseness ? I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa. Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ? And if that is true then the world we consciously perceive already is the view of our environment like for example society ? Werner Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/26/05 2:15:27 PM, ombhurbhuva@e... writes: > > > > Hi Pete, > > I've just finished Domasio's 'Looking for Spinoza' and all the time > > I > > was wondering because of its philosophic tendency when he would approach the > > 'hard question'. On page 198 he finally does. Let me quote - " There is a > > major gap in our current understanding of how neural patterns become mental > > images. The presence in the brain of dynamic neural patterns (or maps) > > related > > to an object or event is a *necessary* but not sufficent basis to explain > > the > > mental images of said object or event. We can describe neural patterns - > > with > > the tools of neuroanatomy, neurophsiology and neurochemistry - and we can > > describe images with the tools of introspection. How we get from the former > > to > > the latter is known only in part.....((He gives a general picture of what he > > believes to be the current situation and finally he states)) But I fall > > short > > of suggesting, let alone explaining, how the last steps of this image-making > > process are carried out " . > > > > > > He draws back from suggesting that consciousness is created by living cells > > because the monism that he proposes is more profound in that in conformity > > with > > the ideas of Spinoza he holds that both matter and mind are attributes of a > > single substance which he calls God. This obviates the problem raised by > > Descartes when mind is viewed as non-extended substance and matter is > > extended > > substance. As Aristotle first pointed out in De Anima interaction presumes > > commonality. > > > > This thinking in terms of Matter and Mind is a totally natural reflex of the > > human being. Shankara in his Preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhyasa (Vedanta > > Sutras) spoke of cit(consciousness) jada (the inert). Taking that > > bifurcation > > as an apparent given we are drawn into the paradox that this would make > > awareness impossible. How could that jada(object) become cit (conscious) in > > me > > the subject when they are opposed as night the day. How is what is > > inconceivable the case? How does the jada (object) become superimposed on > > the > > cit (subject). That leads Shankara to consider the common forms of > > superimposition to gain some analogical leverage. > > > > The monism that Spinoza proffers is conceptually prior to the matter and > > mind > > divide. Incidentally Thomas Nagel (What its like to be a bat) has an > > admiration for the Spinoza thesis. > > " My own instincts are in the direction of a Spinozistic monism, which will > > reveal both the mental and the physical as incomplete descriptions of a more > > fundamental reality that explains them both, as well as their neccessary > > connection - but of which we have at present no conception. " > > (from an essay Consciousness and Objective Reality publ in a book 'The Mind- > > Body problem , a guide to the current debate publ.Blackwell. I recommend > > it, > > the luminaries are all there) > > > > So Pete because of the problem of causal closure the idea of matter > > generating > > consciousness via micro tubules or whatever is strictly inconceivable and > > even > > absurd. No evidence could support it and to say as Galen Strawson does that > > it > > simply must be the case because matter is really all that there is seems to > > me > > to be doomed. " So they are obliged to hold that experiental phenomena just > > are > > physical phemomena, although current physics cannot account for them " . In a > > way Shankara is saying the diametrically opposite in his account of > > superimposition. > > > > Michael. > > > Hi Michael, > > Glad to see you stood up to dance this song. You are the ideal partner > for this dance because you are truly curious about the subject, without > being emotionally involved, as most are. > > First, let's see if we can come up with a definition we both can agree with. > Would you say that to be conscious goes beyond perceiving, that to truly > call an act of perception conscious there most be a knowing of the > of the stimulus. For example when my wife snores, and I touch her lightly, > she stops snoring, yet she doesn't wake up or knows I touched her. Next > morning, if I say that I hope I didn't wake her up. She neither knows I > touched > her, or that she was snoring. Some could say she simply forgot. But, some > people who suffer injury to the connection between the vision center and > the > frontal lobe looses all consciousness of seeing, yet can walk around a room > without bumping into furniture, yet if you ask them what was the object they > just avoided they have no idea unless the y touch it. These proves they > can perceive without being aware of perception, just as robots equip with > a camera can also walk around obstacles. > So in this way we could define consciousness as knowledge of perception. > So, perception without knowledge triggers a single act (avoidance) and > vanishes, while in knowing perception the perception is catch in a hold > of mirrors which multiply its effects. > > Well, let me stop here. Later we can discuss whether assigning > nerve cells as the most immediate cause of consciousness precludes > it from having other more ultimate sources, such as quantum fields, or > even the primal void. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 P: Thanks, again, for your concern, Kip. I have no idea, if there are thorns left to pull out. Nothing seems to hurt, mentally that is, without brother suffering to help locate those thorns, I have no idea if there are any left. If one begins hurting, I'll let you know. No thanks required between friends. Yes, it's true I get urticaria on too much pseudo-cientific-semi-spiritual consciousness-gibberish in caustic moralin sauce with Indian spices..... unsullied-ly yours, Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add a bit > > >more about consciousness. > > > P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you. > > > > W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision > > >center and the person suffering from that still can move around > > >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has > > >consciousness? > > > > >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we > > >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa. > > > > >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ? > > > P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception > antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started > pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth, > that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement > detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats > more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate. > When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator > needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all > that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.' > No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social > lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more > aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and > those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel > more alive than when facing live or death situations. > > Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. ) > > > > Pete > > > > > > > Cause-and-effect goes from this moment to the " past " , not from an imagined mysterious " start " of time at the Big Bang, then to single-celled life forms, then to multi-celled life forms, then to humans... The present moment does not appear as it is because of the past. The past appear as it does because the present moment is as it is. Pete, you have an upside-down view of what evolution is. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 2/27/05 9:54:21 AM, wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > > > W: Forgive me joining but I like your conversation and feel to add > a bit > > > >more about consciousness. > > > > > P: I'm glad you did. Always good to hear from you. > > > > > > W: When there is no connection between the frontal lobe and the vision > > > >center and the person suffering from that still can move around > > > >without bumping into furniture the question arises what use then has > > > >consciousness? > > > > > > >I think to this there is a simple answer, without consciousness we > > > >could not communicate the seen to others and vice versa. > > > > > > >Can't we conclude that consciousness is just a social function ? > > > > > P: The biological origins of 'c' antedates humans, and perception > > antedates 'c.' It was in the primal seas as creatures started > > pursuing food, instead of waiting for it to drift into their mouth, > > that eyes evolved from simple light detectors to movement > > detectors. Goes without saying that an organism which eats > > more and avoid being eaten has a better change to procreate. > > When predators got bigger and faster, both prey and predator > > needed a more sophisticated nervous system to process all > > that split second maneuvering. This eventually lead to 'c.' > > No doubt primate and human 'c.' has evolved along social > > lines. Obviously, the more complex the environment the more > > aware one needs to be. It's often said by some soldiers and > > those who seek dangerous adventures, that they never feel > > more alive than when facing live or death situations. > > > > Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. ) > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cause-and-effect goes from this moment to the " past " , not from an > imagined mysterious " start " of time at the Big Bang, then to > single-celled life forms, then to multi-celled life forms, then to > humans... The present moment does not appear as it is because of the > past. The past appear as it does because the present moment is as it > is. Pete, you have an upside-down view of what evolution is. > > /AL Well, my view of cause-and-effect where the present is causing the past is probably as much upside-down as the predominant view of cause-and-effect. Here is another view that embraces both of these other views: Consider a two dimensional fractal image, such as the Mandelbrot Set ( http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/explorer.html ). Such image is static and fixed for all times. Yet, when we zoom in areas in a fractal image, more and more details are revealed and new patterns emerge as we zoom deeper into the picture. There is no end to variety and details in a fractal image. Even though such image is static, we can zoom in endlessly into it and thereby create a never ending journey of changing form. Yet there is no time involved in the picture itself. It is timeless. In practical computer simulations we cannot zoom in endlessly because of the limitations of precision in the numerical calculations performed by floating-point arithmetics in the computer. But theoretically we can zoom in endlessly into a fractal image. Now let's shift to a model of the entire existence. Imagine all that is as a set of all possibilities. Then further imagine complexity as a subset of this overall set of possibilities. The total set of complexity can be modelled as a two dimensional image, similar to the Mandelbrot Set. This image is static; it is changeless, forever the same. There is no time involved here, so how do we get time, cause-and-effect, change and variety? We simply select one single point in this image of complexity and this represents an infinite zooming in into smaller and smaller areas of the image of complexity. This selection of a single point is a single event, yet it will go on forever zooming deeper and deeper into the image and thereby revealing more and more details in endless variety. The selection of a single point in the image of complexity can be represented by the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. One single collapse resulting in an endless zooming in into complexity at an exact certain point which we can call an individual soul. The collapse happens now. There is only now. The future is constanly being created by the zooming in into complexity. The Big Bang represents the whole set of complexity, and a human being represents a unique zoomin-in point in the same set of complexity. Both the Big Bang and the human being are the same timeless set of complexity. The unique soul is also timeless, changeless, for it is simply a unique, exact single point in the timeless configuration space of complexity. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 > Let's hope, Kip, took his allergy pills this morning. ) I recomend a reading on the Hegelian concept on self-consciousness and on reciprocal recognition illustrated by the dialectic of master and slave and, of course, Lacan's view on it. Semir Zeki, BTW, too. All:One Kip Almazy 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.