The Only Immortality

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/05 4:33:29 AM, ombhurbhuva writes:

 

 

> Your throw,

> Michael.

>

 

P: You just went yada, yada down the same old winding road

without defining consciousness. I asked you to define it

because otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

Some people use the term as the faculty which knows in one

sentence and then, without warning, as the ultimate cause

of phenomenality in the next. It's like playing baseball with

a pitcher who feels free to switch the ball from a baseball,

to a football, to a golf ball with every throw.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pete 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.

 

***********************************

***********************************

 

Hi Pete,

Your wife's reaction to your touch

is a good example of those things that we

experience but are not conscious of. We

drive along, our mind on other things and

are evidently experienceing all the twists

and turns without full on phenomenal

consciousness. That autonomic corner of

the mind/body is doing it all which is an

elegant and adaptive process because

there is a great deal that we don't need

to know about. What needs a decision is

what we need to know about. At this

point in the evolutionary ladder there is

a high level of complexity and it is

tempting to hold that this level of

complexity is what gives rise to

consciousness. We, so to speak, become

able to talk into our own ears and create

a centre of consciousness in this way.

 

The annals of biology hold many examples

of extraordinary specialisation and

virtual intent, even the bacillus moves

from the sour end of the solution to the

sweet end. We now know in the way that

we know that there is such a force as

gravity that we as humans came from simple

cells in a primal soup. Such

considerations led to the early monistic

speculations. Put at its broadest, we ask

whether consciousness always irradiated

reality and greater complexity only

reflects more of what is already there.

In this view the dualism of brain/mind is

avoided and we get the nondualism of cit

and jada. What is now regarded as jada

is the brain/mind/body complex.

Consciousness is not just linked to a

brain but permeates the whole body. From

this sort of thinking the theory of cakras

emerges as a practical technology.

 

From the practical interaction with the

world the idea of Jiva or individual

person emerges corrosponding to the whole

range of activities of the incarnate

entity from the routine that we don't

need to know, to 'can we have a decision

on this please ASAP.

 

That in essence is the nondual position.

Is there anything that can confirm this

experientially? At the extreme end of

reality are there limit cases that suggest

that the pervasion of the Jiva by

consciousness can become expressed as

contiguity. In other words, can we

directly know things in a quasi

perceptual way when we are in no physical

position to do so because our body is not

there. I speak of precognition. You

Pete will perhaps consider this a kick to

touch i.e. leading to a temporary

suspension of the game; but for others it

is a factor which determines their

judgement.

 

Your throw,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/28/05 4:33:29 AM, ombhurbhuva@e... writes:

>

>

> > Your throw,

> > Michael.

> >

>

> P: You just went yada, yada down the same old winding road

> without defining consciousness. I asked you to define it

> because otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

> Some people use the term as the faculty which knows in one

> sentence and then, without warning, as the ultimate cause

> of phenomenality in the next. It's like playing baseball with

> a pitcher who feels free to switch the ball from a baseball,

> to a football, to a golf ball with every throw.

>

>

 

There is the subjective experience of consciousness and there are

physical measurable correlates to thoughts e t c in the form of

brain-scans e t c. According to Ken Wilber; only relying on one of

these types of descriptions will not give us the whole picture.

Therefore it is very difficult to give a clear definition of

consciousness using mere words, if not downright impossible.

 

/AL