Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Hi friends, Here is an interesting text (.pdf) titled " Perception without awareness " for everyone not just holding on to his familiar beliefs about awareness but also is interested in some more information: www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/representation/papers/Dretske.pdf That article is a small part of the main site " Science of consciousness " where you can find lots more about this topic: http://consc.net/online3.html Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi friends, > > Here is an interesting text (.pdf) titled " Perception without > awareness " for everyone not just holding on to his familiar beliefs > about awareness but also is interested in some more information: > > www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/representation/papers/Dretske.pdf > > That article is a small part of the main site " Science of > consciousness " where you can find lots more about this topic: > > http://consc.net/online3.html > > Werner My idea is that awareness is focused on that which is complexity. In an infinite ocean of possible information, awareness selects information that is a part of complexity. What is complexity then? Well, complexity is not really easy to define. Complexity covers everything from order to chaos, but not disorder (chaos is not disorder). Why then isn't 'my' awareness aware of what George W. Bush had for lunch yesterday? Well, what appear as complexity from Bush's point of view, is not nescessarily complexity from my point of view. Too much information is not complexity. Only when information can form meaningful wholes or holons as Ken Wilber describes it, is there complexity. Is Bush's awareness the same as my awareness? Perhaps. But my awareness is further into the future than Bush's awareness seen from me, and Bush's awareness is further into the future than mine as seen from Bush. If George W. Bush would be standing on the moon and waving his hands to the people here on earth, then Bush would be aware of this waving approximately 1 second before anyone on earth could notice his waving. From his point of view, he would feel like he was 'closer' to the future, and that the succers on earth was hopelessly one second behind. But a person waving his hands from earth would think that he or she is closer to the future and that President Bush standing on the moon is hopelessly 1 second behind. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: > > > Hi friends, > > Here is an interesting text (.pdf) titled > " Perception without > awareness " for everyone not just holding on to his > familiar beliefs > about awareness but also is interested in some more > information: > > http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/representation/papers/Drets > ke.pdf > > That article is a small part of the main site > " Science of > consciousness " where you can find lots more about > this topic: > > http://consc.net/online3.html > > Werner Hi Werner, Thanks. Dretske paper touches on a bit of the icberg below the tip. To fully catch up with philosophical and psychological understandings of implicit perception, awareness, memory, emotion, thought, attitude, etc. see the link below. http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/rediscovery.htm A few words. :-) Most of what is done in life is implicitly done without the need of conscious awareness and conscious awareness is probably only needed for " steering " and nothing more. It has always been a wonder to see the concern over awareness, or consciousness or pure consciouseness and the like (none of which can possibly be affirmed, denied, synthesized or doubted), the separating it out of experience and its placement in the center of dogmatic opinion about this and that. A futile and hopless enterprise. It is one of the best traps or prisons displayed in this place. There is no harm in it of course, if one is simply exploring it as a curiosity. Otherwise it is a burden if not properly understood. The mystery will never be touched with concepts. When the full extent of how much of life is done in darkness, implicitly, without effort or conscious awareness or perception and how little is done with conscious awareness (usually clouded with imagination and symbols - Kip) than it is naturally understood that " we do as we are. " Most of what we do is not done explicitly with conscious awareness but implictly in all the ways that can be described. This lies below explicit awareness and/or consciousness and is always done without separation or objectification and is not done by any superficially identified personage. So words usually contain both what is imagined by the appearance if writing superficially using conscious awareness and what is not as implicit awareness enters all. Readers and writers can see both though that is not always the case and so..... What is created, like the typing of this sentence, emerges effortlessly in a unfathomable way in the appearance and so it cannot be claimed, for who or what has done it? It emerges. On the other hand, let conscious awareness interfere with what emerges and that is not the case. It is a mystery how it all occurs and all the " explanations " are attempts to fathom it. It is " witnessed " and spoken of, and this is possible and it too, the " witnessing, " is unfathomable. It happens. This is not to say there is an unconscious or unconsciousness, for it seems there is no such experience. The source of it is a mystery and remains so. Many tried to explain it through the millennia and still do. The result is the same. There is nothing but belief and rumination and contention. No explanation satisfies all. The jury of humanity remains out on it. The verdict is not in. All those concerned dutiful citizens die in the jury room. I am in the park enjoying the sun and the basking in the mystery. Examine anything that is done and it will soon be realized that there is no way to explain how it is done. One may describe what has transpired but not precisely and definitively or absolutely how; there are only theories speculations, imaginings on the how, some convincing others not so to each appearance as it is. None of them above doubt, contradiction and contention. All of them able to be taken up and believed. All of life, ultimately, is indescribable, ineffable from speech to writing to music to art to walking to driving to seeing to crapping to building to destroying to caring to indifference to growing to changing to decaying whatever. Coming to a simple awe and amazement and wonder in what is ordinarily is done without knowing how, without reason or intellection or logic, in whatever way that is done and the realization of the utter inacapabilty of explaining action in these ways, is enough for some to do the trick all talk about. As to the all the unpleasantness in life look at movements of conscious awareness, that precious and cherished thing, as it messes with what emerges implicitly. Therein the problem lies. It is handled with our capabilities and incapabilities. You know all of this already and your reference allowed it to come out. So it is your fault all of this is here. :-) Enjoy it Werner, if it is possible. Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Hi Lewis, Thanks for your reply and that link to " The Rediscovery of the Unconsious " which I only have read parts of it today, there is an overwhelming material in it I have problems with to digest. I need more time to investigate it. With your own text I sympathize and have no objection or opposition. At the end your wrote: You know all of this already and your reference allowed it to come out. So it is your fault all of this is here. :-) Question: What do I know already, your reply or the material of your link ? The latter is new to me and your own reply was new to me before I have read it and afterwards it no longer was, maybe simply because I have read it - at least I think so Werner Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi friends, > > > > Here is an interesting text (.pdf) titled > > " Perception without > > awareness " for everyone not just holding on to his > > familiar beliefs > > about awareness but also is interested in some more > > information: > > > > > http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/representation/papers/Drets > > ke.pdf > > > > That article is a small part of the main site > > " Science of > > consciousness " where you can find lots more about > > this topic: > > > > http://consc.net/online3.html > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner, > > Thanks. Dretske paper touches on a bit of the icberg > below the tip. To fully catch up with philosophical > and psychological understandings of implicit > perception, awareness, memory, emotion, thought, > attitude, etc. see the link below. > > http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/rediscovery.htm > > A few words. :-) > > Most of what is done in life is implicitly done > without the need of conscious awareness and conscious > awareness is probably only needed for " steering " and > nothing more. It has always been a wonder to see the > concern over awareness, or consciousness or pure > consciouseness and the like (none of which can > possibly be affirmed, denied, synthesized or doubted), > the separating it out of experience and its placement > in the center of dogmatic opinion about this and that. > A futile and hopless enterprise. It is one of the best > traps or prisons displayed in this place. There is no > harm in it of course, if one is simply exploring it as > a curiosity. Otherwise it is a burden if not properly > understood. The mystery will never be touched with > concepts. > > When the full extent of how much of life is done in > darkness, implicitly, without effort or conscious > awareness or perception and how little is done with > conscious awareness (usually clouded with imagination > and symbols - Kip) than it is naturally understood > that " we do as we are. " > > Most of what we do is not done explicitly with > conscious awareness but implictly in all the ways that > can be described. This lies below explicit awareness > and/or consciousness and is always done without > separation or objectification and is not done by any > superficially identified personage. So words usually > contain both what is imagined by the appearance if > writing superficially using conscious awareness and > what is not as implicit awareness enters all. Readers > and writers can see both though that is not always the > case and so..... > > What is created, like the typing of this sentence, > emerges effortlessly in a unfathomable way in the > appearance and so it cannot be claimed, for who or > what has done it? It emerges. On the other hand, let > conscious awareness interfere with what emerges and > that is not the case. > > It is a mystery how it all occurs and all the > " explanations " are attempts to fathom it. It is > " witnessed " and spoken of, and this is possible and it > too, the " witnessing, " is unfathomable. It happens. > > This is not to say there is an unconscious or > unconsciousness, for it seems there is no such > experience. > > The source of it is a mystery and remains so. Many > tried to explain it through the millennia and still > do. The result is the same. There is nothing but > belief and rumination and contention. No explanation > satisfies all. The jury of humanity remains out on it. > The verdict is not in. All those concerned dutiful > citizens die in the jury room. I am in the park > enjoying the sun and the basking in the mystery. > > Examine anything that is done and it will soon be > realized that there is no way to explain how it is > done. One may describe what has transpired but not > precisely and definitively or absolutely how; there > are only theories speculations, imaginings on the how, > some convincing others not so to each appearance as it > is. None of them above doubt, contradiction and > contention. All of them able to be taken up and > believed. > > All of life, ultimately, is indescribable, ineffable > from speech to writing to music to art to walking to > driving to seeing to crapping to building to > destroying to caring to indifference to growing to > changing to decaying whatever. Coming to a simple awe > and amazement and wonder in what is ordinarily is done > without knowing how, without reason or intellection or > logic, in whatever way that is done and the > realization of the utter inacapabilty of explaining > action in these ways, is enough for some to do the > trick all talk about. > > As to the all the unpleasantness in life look at > movements of conscious awareness, that precious and > cherished thing, as it messes with what emerges > implicitly. Therein the problem lies. It is handled > with our capabilities and incapabilities. > > You know all of this already and your reference > allowed it to come out. So it is your fault all of > this is here. :-) > > Enjoy it Werner, if it is possible. > > > Love, > > Lewis > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr: Hi Lewis, Thanks for your reply and that link to " The Rediscovery of the Unconsious " which I only have read parts of it today, there is an overwhelming material in it I have problems with to digest. I need more time to investigate it. With your own text I sympathize and have no objection or opposition. At the end your wrote: You know all of this already and your reference allowed it to come out. So it is your fault all of this is here. :-) Question: What do I know already, your reply or the material of your link ? The latter is new to me and your own reply was new to me before I have read it and afterwards it no longer was, maybe simply because I have read it - at least I think so Werner Answer: Yes. That's it. Lewis Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10: --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr: Hi friends, Here is an interesting text (.pdf) titled " Perception without awareness " for everyone not just holding on to his familiar beliefs about awareness but also is interested in some more information: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/representation/papers/Drets ke.pdf That article is a small part of the main site " Science of consciousness " where you can find lots more about this topic: http://consc.net/online3.html Werner Hi Werner, Thanks. Dretske paper touches on a bit of the icberg below the tip. To fully catch up with philosophical and psychological understandings of implicit perception, awareness, memory, emotion, thought, attitude, etc. see the link below. > http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/rediscovery.htm A few words. :-) Most of what is done in life is implicitly done without the need of conscious awareness and conscious awareness is probably only needed for " steering " and nothing more. It has always been a wonder to see the concern over awareness, or consciousness or pure consciouseness and the like (none of which can possibly be affirmed, denied, synthesized or doubted), the separating it out of experience and its placement in the center of dogmatic opinion about this and that. A futile and hopless enterprise. It is one of the best traps or prisons displayed in this place. There is no harm in it of course, if one is simply exploring it as a curiosity. Otherwise it is a burden if not properly understood. The mystery will never be touched with concepts. When the full extent of how much of life is done in darkness, implicitly, without effort or conscious awareness or perception and how little is done with conscious awareness (usually clouded with imagination and symbols - Kip) than it is naturally understood that " we do as we are. " Most of what we do is not done explicitly with conscious awareness but implictly in all the ways that can be described. This lies below explicit awareness and/or consciousness and is always done without separation or objectification and is not done by any superficially identified personage. So words usually contain both what is imagined by the appearance if writing superficially using conscious awareness and what is not as implicit awareness enters all. Readers and writers can see both though that is not always the case and so..... What is created, like the typing of this sentence, emerges effortlessly in a unfathomable way in the appearance and so it cannot be claimed, for who or what has done it? It emerges. On the other hand, let conscious awareness interfere with what emerges and that is not the case. It is a mystery how it all occurs and all the " explanations " are attempts to fathom it. It is " witnessed " and spoken of, and this is possible and it too, the " witnessing, " is unfathomable. It happens. This is not to say there is an unconscious or unconsciousness, for it seems there is no such experience. The source of it is a mystery and remains so. Many tried to explain it through the millennia and still do. The result is the same. There is nothing but belief and rumination and contention. No explanation satisfies all. The jury of humanity remains out on it. The verdict is not in. All those concerned dutiful citizens die in the jury room. I am in the park enjoying the sun and the basking in the mystery. Examine anything that is done and it will soon be realized that there is no way to explain how it is done. One may describe what has transpired but not precisely and definitively or absolutely how; there are only theories speculations, imaginings on the how, some convincing others not so to each appearance as it is. None of them above doubt, contradiction and contention. All of them able to be taken up and believed. All of life, ultimately, is indescribable, ineffable from speech to writing to music to art to walking to driving to seeing to crapping to building to destroying to caring to indifference to growing to changing to decaying whatever. Coming to a simple awe and amazement and wonder in what is ordinarily is done without knowing how, without reason or intellection or logic, in whatever way that is done and the realization of the utter inacapabilty of explaining action in these ways, is enough for some to do the trick all talk about. As to the all the unpleasantness in life look at movements of conscious awareness, that precious and cherished thing, as it messes with what emerges implicitly. Therein the problem lies. It is handled with our capabilities and incapabilities. You know all of this already and your reference allowed it to come out. So it is your fault all of this is here. :-) Enjoy it Werner, if it is possible. Love, Lewis Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail./mail_250 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.