Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 In a message dated 2/28/05 7:48:24 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >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. > P: Did I ask you to define it? You just want to stick your spoon in every bawl of soup, don't ya? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 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. Hi Pete, You have a point. At first I was distinguishing between those thing that we experience and those that we are conscious of. In that I was beginning to isolate the concept of consciousness of something in the sense that we are aware and know that we are aware. Consciousness has many modalities and each of those can be looked at. That is more or less where I was at with my response to you. I was incidentally agreeing with you that there are things we experience that we are not conscious off. Your wife experienced your touch. However to isolate consciousness as such is impossible because it is always on. It can be shown but not known. Anthony Quinton the English Philosopher makes this point about the soul/self. " Suppose that from its very first stirrings my consciousness has contained a continuous whistling sound of wholly unvarying character. I should clearly never notice it, for I can only notice what varies independently of my consciousness - the whistles that start and stop at times other than those at which I wake up and fall asleep. It is this fact that ensured from the outset that Hume's search for a self over and above his particular perceptions was bound to fail. " Is that any clearer? If not, state specifically where its not clear. May I add a question? If we can have experience without being conscious of it, can we have a conscious state without experiencing it? Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > 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. > imho, awareness IS. it cannot be defined, except like energy or space can be " defined " . awareness is intrinsic to the universe, and flowers according to the capabilities of the vessel. as the buddha would say, work on pulling the arrow out of the injured man rather than debating the status etc of the shooter.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > imho, awareness IS. it cannot be defined, except like energy or space > can be " defined " . awareness is intrinsic to the universe, and flowers > according to the capabilities of the vessel. > > as the buddha would say, work on pulling the arrow out of the injured > man rather than debating the status etc of the shooter.. But to say that we cannot say anything about awareness is omitting empirical correlates, in fact ignoring almost all of science. Shouldn't we look at both empirical science and mystical wisdom? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > 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 Good Morning, All definitions of " consciousness " will be provisional and suited to the needs of discussants for the purpose they set out, if it can be agreed on. One may use sunyata and dependent origination, the limits of language and concept to describe subjective experience a la Wittgenstien's notion of private language, a nihilist perspectivism, or the Advaita Vedanta teaching that second hand knowledge is " no better than the recollection of a dream " or other views like Ken Wilber to demonstrate the provisional nature of all conceptual objects including consciousness. So in one sense to define consciousness once and for all for all humanity is an impossibility. There will always be multiple definitions and points of departure, this or that emphasized or ignored. On the other hand, to define it and use it as pointer to something experienced can be done. This has been done used in all the ways that it has been for thousands of years. Religion, philosophy, science and other disciplines have used consciousness in their ontologies (Ontology is the theory of objects and their connections and relations. An ontology gives the criteria for distinguishing between objects be they material, non-material, existing, non-existing, real, imagined, independent, dependent, co-dependent, and their connections and relations - causal and otherwise - and assumptions allowing their affirmation and action. So to continue a discussion, there must be a definition that is least provisonally agreed up for anything to move forward. What could happen in such a discussion? From a Buddhist perspective of the Nagarjuna type such a discussion will end in absurdity. From a Advaita Vedanta perspective this will be an extension of a dream that can be seen as that, a dream sequence. From a nihilist perspectivism such a discussion will end up a battle between creators or holders of ideas. From private language perspective it will end up meaningful if there is agreement with reality created or in event of disagreement a reduction to private language, which means something only to the holder or believer of the idea. There are many other endings possible depending on the conventions used and methods practiced. From a believer's or debaters perspective, an argument proving their point over the other(s) for whatever purpose. From a manipulative perspective, the content of the disccusion does not matter, it is a means to trip and make fall the opponent..... From a promoter perspective, the discussion is a means to promote a viewpoint, personal or otherwise for a whatever purpose..... From a stimulator perspective, the discussion is way to get things going, a prod to thinking in a new or different way.... From a ...... And before this, there is the unutterable and knowable experience of " consciousness, " that which is trying to be defined and sourced. By open discussion and debate experiences can be had that do what these sort of things do. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > 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 > > Good Morning, > > All definitions of " consciousness " will be provisional and suited to > the needs of discussants for the purpose they set out, if it can be > agreed on. One may use sunyata and dependent origination, the limits > of language and concept to describe subjective experience a la > Wittgenstien's notion of private language, a nihilist perspectivism, > or the Advaita Vedanta teaching that second hand knowledge is " no > better than the recollection of a dream " or other views like Ken > Wilber to demonstrate the provisional nature of all conceptual objects > including consciousness. > > So in one sense to define consciousness once and for all for all > humanity is an impossibility. There will always be multiple > definitions and points of departure, this or that emphasized or ignored. > > On the other hand, to define it and use it as pointer to something > experienced can be done. This has been done used in all the ways that > it has been for thousands of years. Religion, philosophy, science and > other disciplines have used consciousness in their ontologies > (Ontology is the theory of objects and their connections and > relations. An ontology gives the criteria for distinguishing between > objects be they material, non-material, existing, non-existing, real, > imagined, independent, dependent, co-dependent, and their connections > and relations - causal and otherwise - and assumptions allowing their > affirmation and action. > > So to continue a discussion, there must be a definition that is least > provisonally agreed up for anything to move forward. What could happen > in such a discussion? > > From a Buddhist perspective of the Nagarjuna type such a discussion > will end in absurdity. > > From a Advaita Vedanta perspective this will be an extension of a > dream that can be seen as that, a dream sequence. > > From a nihilist perspectivism such a discussion will end up a battle > between creators or holders of ideas. > > From private language perspective it will end up meaningful if there > is agreement with reality created or in event of disagreement a > reduction to private language, which means something only to the > holder or believer of the idea. > > There are many other endings possible depending on the conventions > used and methods practiced. > > From a believer's or debaters perspective, an argument proving their > point over the other(s) for whatever purpose. > > From a manipulative perspective, the content of the disccusion does > not matter, it is a means to trip and make fall the opponent..... > > From a promoter perspective, the discussion is a means to promote a > viewpoint, personal or otherwise for a whatever purpose..... > > From a stimulator perspective, the discussion is way to get things > going, a prod to thinking in a new or different way.... > > From a ...... > > And before this, there is the unutterable and knowable experience of > " consciousness, " that which is trying to be defined and sourced. > > By open discussion and debate experiences can be had that do what > these sort of things do. > > Lewis I think it's a good thing to try to define consciousness. Some day we may even find a definition that science/religion can agree upon. For now, I have no idea about any definition of consciousness. I am not even sure about what, for example, the actual relationship is between space and consciousness! /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 In a message dated 2/28/05 8:20:44 AM, ombhurbhuva writes: > Hi Pete, > M: >You have a point. At first I was > >distinguishing between those thing that we > experience and those that we are conscious > of. In that I was beginning to isolate > >the concept of consciousness of something > in the sense that we are aware and know > >that we are aware. Consciousness has many > modalities and each of those can be looked > at. That is more or less where I was at > with my response to you. I was > >incidentally agreeing with you that there > are things we experience that we are not > conscious off. Your wife experienced your > >touch. > > > However to isolate consciousness as such > is impossible because it is always on. It > can be shown but not known. Anthony > >Quinton the English Philosopher makes this > point about the soul/self. " Suppose that > >from its very first stirrings my > consciousness has contained a continuous > >whistling sound of wholly unvarying > character. I should clearly never notice > >it, for I can only notice what varies > independently of my consciousness - the > >whistles that start and stop at times > other than those at which I wake up and > fall asleep. It is this fact that ensured > >from the outset that Hume's search for a > self over and above his particular > >perceptions was bound to fail. " > > >Is that any clearer? If not, state > >specifically where its not clear. > P: This is not clear: " However to isolate consciousness as such is impossible because it is always on. " To me that is a proposition which cannot be proven. And one that closes the door to all investigation because it implies " c " is undetectable. Just sounds like a comforting belief. Not to mention that what makes the word 'c' its meaning is that is conscious, so to say it's always there even when unconscious, is absurd. > > M: >May I add a question? If we can have > experience without being conscious of it, > >can we have a conscious state without > >experiencing it? > > P: This is a tricky, but interesting question. It's tricky because > if we are not careful to stick to the meaning we gave above to the word experience (which was the subconscious processing of inf. by the brain) we could switch to the meaning of experience as knowledge, and wind up with: can we be conscious without knowing we are conscious? So, is the question: Can we know consciousness without any content, any object of'c'? Or can we distinguish in an act of perceiving both the object and consciousness as separate? Or are they one. Sometimes when meditating a great flare up of clarity is there which is all embracing, is that a flare up of consciousness, or something different, and does it matter? Or did you intend to ask, can we be conscious and not know it? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/28/05 7:48:24 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > >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. > > > P: Did I ask you to define it? You just want to stick your spoon > in every bawl of soup, don't ya? ) > Yes, I am like agent Smith: I will turn everything into myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Sometimes when meditating a great flare up of clarity is there which is all embracing, is that a flare up of consciousness, or something different, and does it matter? ) You mentioned it ergo does matter. Don't hide yourself behind a rhetoric question. You meditate, me too, Pete. What's that all about? Consciousness trying to grasp consciousness? All embracing? You mean you get clarity on consciousness while meditating? Or, do you see some sort of lights, which are " all embracing " . I think Michael had a couple consistent notions. " A great flare up of clarity!? " Why don't you keep there, then. Is it boring? Are you in some stage of superior knowledge while meditating? Or, experiencing some sort of overwhelming extraterrestrial " I-don't-know-how-to-tell-it " ? Tell us more about your little adventures in the magic land of meditation? All:One Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 In a message dated 3/1/05 1:36:03 AM, kipalmazy writes: > You mentioned it ergo does matter. Don't hide yourself behind a > rhetoric question. You meditate, me too, Pete. What's that all about? > Consciousness trying to grasp consciousness? All embracing? You mean > you get clarity on consciousness while meditating? Or, do you see > some sort of lights, which are " all embracing " . I think Michael had a > couple consistent notions. " A great flare up of clarity!? " Why don't > you keep there, then. Is it boring? Are you in some stage of superior > knowledge while meditating? Or, experiencing some sort of > overwhelming extraterrestrial " I-don't-know-how-to-tell-it " ? > > Tell us more about your little adventures in the magic land of > meditation? > P: What is interesting here, is that you don't appear to be asking these questions in good faith. Certain words you use give away the adversary prosecutory tone of one that is not out to inquire, but to justify a guilty verdict, which has already been made. Such words as 'hide,' 'boring,' 'superior,' 'extraterrestrial,' 'little adventures' point to a considerable level of irritation, or perhaps hostility. Why are you feeling threatened by my words? Can I, any longer, get a fair hearing from you, Kip? Or did my making fun at your conversion to Lacanism got to you? Sorry, Kip, in my opinion, psychoanalysis is not a science, but modern shamanism and science fiction. The only role of scientific psychology is to study behavior, any analysis of the subjective reasons for behavior is artistic creativity, which sometimes is useful to the patient, and sometimes does harm. Philosophical psychology as presented by your Guru is nothing but a new religion masquerading as science. > > > All:One > Kip Almazy > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 > P: What is interesting here, is that you don't appear to be > asking these questions in good faith. Certain words you use > give away the adversary prosecutory tone of one that is not out > to inquire, but to justify a guilty verdict, which has already been > made. Such words as 'hide,' 'boring,' 'superior,' 'extraterrestrial,' > 'little adventures' point to a considerable level of irritation, or perhaps > hostility. Why are you feeling threatened by my words? > Can I, any longer, get a fair hearing from you, Kip? > Or did my making fun at your conversion to Lacanism got to you? > Sorry, Kip, in my opinion, psychoanalysis is not a science, but modern > shamanism and science fiction. The only role of scientific psychology > is to study behavior, any analysis of the subjective reasons for behavior > is artistic creativity, which sometimes is useful to the patient, and > sometimes does harm. Philosophical psychology as presented by your > Guru is nothing but a new religion masquerading as science. Pete, you make me laugh! Isn't that above hubristic? As you know so well what science and scientifical work constitutes come out of the closet and tell us if you are in the business. Don't be shy! Where have you got all that knowledge? Man, it's incredible how much you know! What's artistic and what not! What's the role of science and what not! What psychonalysis is and what not! What subjective reasons are and what not! And so, on and on and on, always. Overwhelming, Pete. You truely have reached the state of Buddha. ) No hostility, just amused! All:One Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Hi Kip, Let me just make some remarks. I am not Pete's advocate but what about if he is right ? One has not to live in a frying pan to know how to roast a steak. You see, I had this so often in my life when in a discussion that the other asked me to denominate the sources of a remark I just made. And if I couldn't recall the exact title of the book and the exact page number where I got my knowledge from then I was treated as if my only source I ever have read was Reader's Digest. Do you think that is fair ? Werner Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > P: What is interesting here, is that you don't appear to be > > asking these questions in good faith. Certain words you use > > give away the adversary prosecutory tone of one that is not out > > to inquire, but to justify a guilty verdict, which has already been > > made. Such words > as 'hide,' 'boring,' 'superior,' 'extraterrestrial,' > > 'little adventures' point to a considerable level of irritation, > or perhaps > > hostility. Why are you feeling threatened by my words? > > Can I, any longer, get a fair hearing from you, Kip? > > Or did my making fun at your conversion to Lacanism got to you? > > Sorry, Kip, in my opinion, psychoanalysis is not a science, but > modern > > shamanism and science fiction. The only role of scientific > psychology > > is to study behavior, any analysis of the subjective reasons for > behavior > > is artistic creativity, which sometimes is useful to the patient, > and > > sometimes does harm. Philosophical psychology as presented by your > > Guru is nothing but a new religion masquerading as science. > > > Pete, you make me laugh! Isn't that above hubristic? As you know so > well what science and scientifical work constitutes come out of the > closet and tell us if you are in the business. Don't be shy! Where > have you got all that knowledge? Man, it's incredible how much you > know! What's artistic and what not! What's the role of science and > what not! What psychonalysis is and what not! What subjective > reasons are and what not! And so, on and on and on, always. > Overwhelming, Pete. You truely have reached the state of Buddha. > > ) > > No hostility, just amused! > > > 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.