• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Define Consiousness

Dancing David said:
The two are equivalent. Moo!
Which two?


ME: This seems specious. Energy and material are not the same.

DD: Proof? Evidence?

Indeed, perhaps in a similar relationship! It could depend upon your standards. Consider a battery.

DD: Are you aware of why it appears that you can sit on a chair and not walk through walls without doors?

Perhaps DD will explain the meaning of the question, but I'm guessing it has something to do with consciousness - we are programmed to think we are not one with the universe?

DD: However what about the photon? It has a small mass that disappears if the photon were ever to rest.

As perhaps noted, Einstein proposed an equivalence, not an identity. Are you suggesting that photons are material to consciousness?

DD: So are photons material or are they a-energy?

From the point of view of ordinary consciousness photons are not energy and are not material even if they are part of how one might see what one might see of material things.


ME: But if we ("with us") could be tweaked without that "anything" having to exert a force through a distance, the tweaker would not have done any work. How could this be? In the language of physics here are at least two to consider: No energy well between two alternative paths at least at some point; tunneling between energy wells. Maxwell's Demon wouldn't break a sweat...

DD: Umm, could you elaborate, this word soup is hard for me to parse, I am sure that it has meaning and I would hate to over critique of it, while I can't understand it.

It might be an acquired taste, but one way to acculturation is to taste the soup as best one can and report one's likes and dislikes -- if one doesn't have taste in the first place bootsrapping might be an option. There are three and a half sentences there... one of which is a rhetorical question.

DD: BTW 'tunneling' is a misnomer ! The electrons engage in a quantum jump, they dont tunnel , they disappear and reappear.

Having never seen an electron, I would not know much about their disappearances. In general when things vanish from ones sight and then reappear somewhere else as in a "magic" trick, one suspects a hidden pathway perhaps one which takes the electron out of the apparently material universe for a moment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME
 
JAK said:
[Maxwell's Demon] represents intelligence via perception, analysis, and gated control. All require the manipulation of energy (performing work).


You seem to be over-anthropomorphising.

I'm not familiar with your "energy wells." Please supply a reference which I can research, or please elaborate on what you mean.

Consider water in a glass on an ordinary table. Work must be done to lift the water out of the glass so that it might fall to the floor. The water is in a gravitational potential well. The notion of tunneling oringinally has to do with the phenomemon of tunneling at a nanoscopic level - where the "water" doesn't seem to have to climb out of the well via ordinary work.

The crux of the issue is communication between facets of the universe. Common laws must apply to allow that communication to be coherent. These laws must embody both sender and receiver.
I'm reluctant to apply my ordinary notions of 'communication' blithely in this matter. If you are assuming that there is a non-material facet to the universe, I would like to hear more about your thinking.

Even if a spirit can introduce new energy into the universe ...
such as correspondence in good spirits? I wasn't assuming it was a new energy.


ME
 
JAK said:
This whole area is very interesting. But I don't think we have nailed down the analogy fully.

Is there only one entity at the "middle point?" Or do each of us have individual "middle points?"

Yes, thats the "difficult" question. But I would say that it is so just from HERE. The analogy is incomplete because reason cant reach that far (I know, is an ad hoc argument), or at least is as far as I can take it.

On THERE, there is nothing like "individuals" nor "one" or "more" "entities" nor nothing known in HERE...
 
Atlas said:
I wish I understood it all better. Certainly Zen is not a Physicalism. It seeks the truth of life and creation with an assumption that our perspective is improved by Satori or many Satoris. It offers an experience of the Absolute which might be the Ideal of it's Idealism.

I think I can take some of your words to TRY to describe it a bit better... is not like:

"an I" having "an experience" of "the absolute".

Its more like

"experiencing" "the absolute" from "the absolute"

if this makes ANY sense

Atlas said:
We come to the experience of Oneness by seeing that the world of opposites is an illusion.

Yes, but WORDS CANT TOUCH IT. I believed I could understand whats "behind" those concepts, but they dont even come close. Being "THERE" is like opening your eyes for the first time, there is absolutely no way to "transmit" what is like to being THERE, its like talking to a blind "explaining" him light through waves, frequencies and so on.

Atlas said:
I accept the enlightenment experience as real. I doubt there are any of us that are not visited occasionally by those flashes of insight that are little Satori experiences or would be if they had a Zen direction behind them.

Yes, "little" Satori's. But awaiting there are BIGGER monsters, hidden just around the limits of the world.

Atlas said:
Perhaps this is why I cannot escape my own dualistic perspective.

The mind is a powerful shield.
 
Mr. E said:
...
I'm reluctant to apply my ordinary notions of 'communication' blithely in this matter. If you are assuming that there is a non-material facet to the universe, I would like to hear more about your thinking.
...
My reference to "communication" may be a bad term for what I intended. Perhaps "interacting" is better. What I'm getting at is the ability for one "thing" (thought, object, spirit, whatever) to influence another. Such interaction must have natural "laws" or rules enabling such interactions if they are to include any being, mind, or spirit. These rules would encompass both sides of any interaction (and both sides of any communication). Without rules of interaction, none could occur.

Atlas said:
...
Perhaps this is why I cannot escape my own dualistic perspective.
...
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
...
The mind is a powerful shield.
Okay, let's take a crack at putting monism and dualism together in a coherent framework.

Regarding “monism” and “dualism,” a variant may be supportable such that monists and dualists can be brought to common ground and agreement. This variant depends upon “Time” being multi-dimensional ...

All of our “time travel” books and movies (The Time Machine, Back to the Future, Somewhere in Time, etc.) have a common factor: regardless of traveling into the future or the past, the time traveler retains memories in sequence. For instance, when Christopher Reeve’s character (Somewhere in Time) goes back to the early 20th century, the character retains memories of being an author from the late 1970s. Thus, his sequence of memories is: birth until 1979, cut to 1916 (roughly), sequence forward for a couple of days in 1916, cut back to 1979, and sequence forward again. He remembered that he, FIRST lived from the 1950s through the 1970s, SECOND lived in 1916 for a couple of days, and THIRD lived again in the 1970s. If his memories were trapped within 1979, then, as he went backwards, his memories would be erased in reverse sequence ... college, high school, grade school, toddler, babbling babe, etc. Without a separate “time track” for the mind and memories, by the time Reeve’s character reached 1916, his mind would be wiped clean leaving him virtually catatonic or infantile at best. (His body should likewise reverse and disappear by the time the early 1950s are reached.) But to retain memories in sequence across time, as it is for time travelers in other books and movies, this must require a separate “time track” or time dimension – at least for the mind. Referencing our three classical material dimensions, X, Y, and Z, the mind would need at least two similar dimensions for our favored concept of time travel to work. One axis (X) would be the material universe. Another axis (Y) would be perpendicular to it and represent the mind which would track upon it. Memories would continue to track forward on the Y (mind) axis regardless of jumping left or right on the X (material/historical) axis.

For an analogy, tornadoes offer a decent reference. Typically, in the northern hemisphere, tornadoes move northeastward. Why? It is the result of two motions: one north and one east. Weather systems usually track west to east (the X axis). Meanwhile, thunderstorms associated with a frontal system move parallel to the front and northward (the Y axis). Put both motions together, and a northeasterly track is created (X,Y). Tornadoes, being manifestations of thunderstorms, show the general track of their parent storms – north and east combined. Even so, the tornado track appears to be in a singular direction of its own accord.

If the mind follows the Y axis and material objects follow the X axis, the combined motion would present the "apparent" direction of time. This, too, would seem singular to us and appear traveling of its own accord.

As for a Z “time” axis? “Spirit,” perhaps? With each lifetime representing an XY plane, a spiritual entity could progress along a Z axis. Each lifetime would be another XY track. (With each new life and XY track being higher on the Z axis, the memories of earlier lives may become inaccessible.) Thus, “spirit” would spiral upwards on the Z axis while creating a stack of lives in XY planes – like a stack of dishes. (And just as dishes have material thickness, a life would have “thickness” on the Z axis.) Kharma/Dharma would become, primarily, part of the Z axis.

This XYZ structure would support an overall “monistic” view while appearing “dualistic.” IF monism and dualism can find common ground, it may be some variant of what I have just described. Multi-dimensional time, again, may hold the key.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I think I can take some of your words to TRY to describe it a bit better... is not like:

"an I" having "an experience" of "the absolute".

Its more like

"experiencing" "the absolute" from "the absolute"

if this makes ANY sense
I like those kinds of corrections. Flying fast is a thrill but perfect speed is being there.
Yes, but WORDS CANT TOUCH IT. I believed I could understand whats "behind" those concepts, but they dont even come close. Being "THERE" is like opening your eyes for the first time, there is absolutely no way to "transmit" what is like to being THERE, its like talking to a blind "explaining" him light through waves, frequencies and so on.
No doubt the experience has an emotional aspect to it. Awesomeness generally incites full person WOW. There are a lot of human experiences that words cannot touch. But one outcome is a reorienting of perspective. I believe the death of a loved one offers an approximating experience of the absolute, possibly from the absolute, and also reorients perspective. The abyss is truly one view of the absolute but a view often devoid of balance. It is not a middle way experience generally, but it brings many close to the absolute and makes for profound changes in many many people.
Yes, "little" Satori's. But awaiting there are BIGGER monsters, hidden just around the limits of the world.
I agree. It seems like Satoris are like, and should be like, tomorrrows. Expect some great ones and you'll enjoy them happening. I've always thought it's a good thing to note how and when insight happens to you. It's useful to know how and when it happens and how it makes you feel so you can take steps to maximize both expectation and affect.
The mind is a powerful shield.
So true.

I end up though believing that I'd classify Zen with Objective Idealism where the World and the Intellect fit like yin and yang. The middle way accepts them both as real but also immaterial. And the absolute - the oneness - is an experience of the nothingness of everything or somethingness of nothing - a unity of all opposites. But in so being it is an idealistic philosophy.
 
JAK said:
... I don't believe we have indulged "emergent properties." With emergent properties, life becomes very tasty and nourishing. ...
I like this simple thought more than the time idea. That is, consciousness is an emergent property of complex living organisms. It's a physicalism (monism) that assumes consciusness to be an unremarkable natural upshot of self organizing entities who are alive. The universe is self organizing. Gravity is a a self organizing force, like life is a self organizing force. Gravity sets the stage for life, an unexpected outcome, by pulling galaxies, solar systems, and planets together. Life sets the stage for consciousness, an unexpected outcome, in a parallel way. In organizations of plant, animal, and human forms consciousness emerges, although at the plant level it's hardly recognizable as the same thing as human consciousness. as different in appearence as a sun is from a black hole.
 
As an aside Mr. E. , I discuss the appearnce of the physical world which is percieved through the organic frame(assumed by appearnce).

Mr. E said:
Which two?

Uh, duh, matter is eneryy. Is that easier? There is no matter. There is no matter! There is no matter? Matter is a set of traits we impose upon energy at a macro scale.

Moo!


ME: This seems specious. Energy and material are not the same.

DD: Proof? Evidence?

Indeed, perhaps in a similar relationship! It could depend upon your standards. Consider a battery.

Mister E., you miss the point, I can consider a battery. Every attribute that you can choose to ascribe to matter is really a manifestation of energy.

So choose your poison, which attribute do you assign to matter?


DD: Are you aware of why it appears that you can sit on a chair and not walk through walls without doors?

Perhaps DD will explain the meaning of the question, but I'm guessing it has something to do with consciousness - we are programmed to think we are not one with the universe?

Uh, no. Think , hmm. Why don't objects intersect? Is it because they are made of some 'hard' substance that doesn't interpentrate?


DD: However what about the photon? It has a small mass that disappears if the photon were ever to rest.

As perhaps noted, Einstein proposed an equivalence, not an identity. Are you suggesting that photons are material to consciousness?

Uh, Einstein isn't the issue, 'matter' is energy. Are you aware of why Bose_Einstein Condensate?


DD: So are photons material or are they a-energy?

From the point of view of ordinary consciousness photons are not energy and are not material even if they are part of how one might see what one might see of material things.

That is more non-sequiter. It is cake but not cake. No, a photon appears to be energy with a limited amount of what we ascribe as material attributes.



ME: But if we ("with us") could be tweaked without that "anything" having to exert a force through a distance, the tweaker would not have done any work. How could this be? In the language of physics here are at least two to consider: No energy well between two alternative paths at least at some point; tunneling between energy wells. Maxwell's Demon wouldn't break a sweat...

DD: Umm, could you elaborate, this word soup is hard for me to parse, I am sure that it has meaning and I would hate to over critique of it, while I can't understand it.

It might be an acquired taste, but one way to acculturation is to taste the soup as best one can and report one's likes and dislikes -- if one doesn't have taste in the first place bootsrapping might be an option. There are three and a half sentences there... one of which is a rhetorical question.

I like soup, but your statements are nonsensical to me, so you can't explain them?


DD: BTW 'tunneling' is a misnomer ! The electrons engage in a quantum jump, they dont tunnel , they disappear and reappear.

Having never seen an electron, I would not know much about their disappearances. In general when things vanish from ones sight and then reappear somewhere else as in a "magic" trick, one suspects a hidden pathway perhaps one which takes the electron out of the apparently material universe for a moment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME


Silly you then. The electron goes to Aruba to scuba then. Except the flight and vacation take zero time. The electron never leaves it just wiggles into the other side of the tunnel. You are ascribing macroscopic attributes to the quantum scale.
 
Atlas said:
I like this simple thought more than the time idea. That is, consciousness is an emergent property of complex living organisms. It's a physicalism (monism) that assumes consciusness to be an unremarkable natural upshot of self organizing entities who are alive. The universe is self organizing. Gravity is a a self organizing force, like life is a self organizing force. Gravity sets the stage for life, an unexpected outcome, by pulling galaxies, solar systems, and planets together. Life sets the stage for consciousness, an unexpected outcome, in a parallel way. In organizations of plant, animal, and human forms consciousness emerges, although at the plant level it's hardly recognizable as the same thing as human consciousness. as different in appearence as a sun is from a black hole.

Parsimony is always attractive. I, too, am enamoured with the idea.

Yet, with string theory suggesting 10 dimensions (or 11 - I forgit), my 3-dimensional time uses up 3 instead of the traditional 1. If each of the 3 time dimensions have associated 3 spacial dimensions (don't ask me how), suddenly 9 of the 10 predicted dimensions can be accounted for.

Of course, all would be wild speculation at this point. Meanwhile, the "emergent property" idea is "meatier" given today's science.
 

Back
Top Bottom