What's the relationship between the brain and the mind?

[doc benway]

What inspired this shift, if you don't mind my asking?

Vedanta - months of investigating "Who Am I?"

[Todd]

Vedanta - months of investigating "Who Am I?"

 

 

I was hoping you'd share your experience(s), and what about your experience(s) in particular lead to a questioning of the brain as the source of awareness.

[Todd]

When you play the devil's advocate in this discussion, yes, that's what you have to be doing because that's the position you're trying to explore. It doesn't mean you're assuming this in your private day to day life.

 

There are two main aspects to this discussion:

1. What you have logically demonstrated about the source of awareness

2. The logical validity of the possibility that non-awareness is the source of awareness based upon agreed assumptions

 

 

With regard to the first aspect, I maintain that you have not demonstrated that awareness is its own source. This is important, because the viewpoint based upon the conclusion that awareness is its own source is very different from that based upon the absence of that conclusion.

 

With the conclusion that awareness is its own source I can safely dismiss all references to matter or non-awareness as misguided and lose all interest in explorations of a source beyond awareness.

 

Without that conclusion, I am open to a variety of ways of seeing experience, and I might develop a more inclusive and appropriate view over time. I also remain open to the development of better arguments for any of a variety of conclusions, including that awareness is its own source.

 

There also might be an underlying assumption here that there are only two options: either matter is the source, or awareness is the source. That would hamper our view. This hampering would be similar to a scientist assuming that light must be either a particle or a wave, and not being able to grasp its broader nature. He also would remain closed to any potential evidence for non-particle, non-wave aspects of light.

 

This is wrong. I said that if awareness has a source that's fundamentally outside of awareness, such as fundamentally unaware matter interactions, then that must be taken on blind faith. Not only can you not be aware of the source as a source in that case, but you cannot be aware of the source as anything at all, neither as anything specific nor as anything general, nothing at all. So the right way to summarize one thing I said is to say that "You have only shown that if that were true, we would not be aware of this source, period. as a source."

 

You have not shown this. A non-awareness source of awareness does not have to be fundamentally outside of awareness. Some level of the processes by which awareness arises would be outside of awareness, but this does not mean that such an object would necessarily be irredeemably outside of awareness.

 

For example, for the most part we are unaware of the physical, electrical, chemical and quantum mechanical processes that are going on in our particular brains. We may know some things about this in principle based upon observations of other people's brains, or indirect observations of our own brains, but we are not directly aware of our own brain processes. I have never met anyone who claims this. I am not saying that it is impossible, but I think most people can agree on this experience (please speak up if your experience is different). So a brain is a candidate for a non-awareness source of awareness. Just because there are means of indirectly observing one's brain, does not change the direct experience of lack of awareness of the processes that are occurring in the brain, which makes them a potential source of awareness.

 

Second thing I said was this. If something beyond awareness is creating awareness, then the relationships occurring within awareness become immune to reason, since the factors giving rise to those relationships are fundamentally beyond analysis. So the implication of an unaware substance causing awareness is arbitrariness of meaning, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc. At any point I can start talking nonsense and if you ask me why, I could just say, "whatever fundamentally unaware matter interaction that is causing my awareness is causing this sort of talk." The implication then is that gibberish talk is caused in the exact same way as non-gibberish talk, and non-gibberish only sounds intelligent either purely coincidentally or for reasons fundamentally beyond understanding.

 

That is an implication of the non-awareness giving rise to awareness interpretation. I do not claim that this is true, only that you have not demonstrated any more support for your position than I have demonstrated for this position. To say that either position is true requires faith, and I prefer not to base my positions on faith, since this is often limiting in unhelpful ways.

 

 

I don't assume it for myself. I am exploring various lines of reasoning for you. It's not necessary for you to talk like this when you know I just entertain this or that assumption in order to explore it.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't notice that this was just you entertaining a view.

 

Possibilities:

 

1. Matter is self-aware.

 

2. Matter is not self-aware but generates awareness.

 

I was simply saying that in case 1 we don't need the word "matter." We can just rename it. Words have meanings and it's possible to change the meaning of the word "matter" so profoundly that it no longer resembles its original materialistic meaning. At that point it's more honest to discard the word. That's how the word "ether" got discarded in physics.

 

Well, in case we adopt #1 then we would probably still need some word. "Is self-aware" or "self-aware" does not mean much as a statement in English. I do not see that awareness is necessarily better than matter in this case, except perhaps as a provisionally corrective measure, since there would be matter qualities as well as awareness qualities to this third thing.

 

 

Not true. There are infinite unknown factors influencing our experience, but these unknown factors are not fundamentally and permanently unknown. These factors are merely deeply submerged well below the conscious level.

 

It's a shame you missed this nuance upon your first reading. I talked about it. I told you there are two kinds of unknowns. One kind I respect and one I don't.

 

1. Unknown that can potentially be known. -- respect

 

2. Unknown that is fundamentally unknown and can never under any circumstances be known -- no respect

 

So you rule out the unknowable by fiat. This limits your view and leads to some erroneous conclusions.

 

 

This is only partially true because while it is a preference, it's a conventional one. So it's not just me alone taking this pragmatic strategy, it's all the respected thinkers of this world. Still, it is a two-fold preference: mine and conventional. If this two-fold preference is not convincing for you, then nothing is. No one can ever convince you of anything.

 

Well, yes, if we did not respect logic based upon a host of assumptions, then logic would be used to make fewer absolute statements of truth, and I would consider this to be a good thing. I am not likely to be convinced of many absolute statements of truth.

 

Logic is useful in a conventional way, especially when dealing with probabilities and provisional realities.

 

If we discard the principle of seeking out more and more modest explanations, then we discard all of logic. Because if complex explanations are just as good as simpler ones, then I can get space aliens, pink elephants and magical faeries involved in explaining why and how I am typing this post. We reject all of those not because they are proven to be impossible, but because they complicate the story unnecessarily.

 

The brain basis of awareness viewpoint is not only a non-modest explanation of observations. It can explain some things more modestly than the awareness basis of the brain viewpoint. For example, all of the specific changes of consciousness based upon specific changes of the brain are mostly easily explained by the brain basis of awareness viewpoint. There are other aspects which may be better explained by the awareness basis viewpoint, such as OBEs, physic experiences, seeming reality of dreams, recounting of past-life experiences, intention influencing apparent physical reality, awareness seeming to exist in the absence of detectable brain activity, etc. So you cannot pretend that the brain basis argument or the awareness basis argument have no more evidence for them than Uncle Bob on planet Cz-432-B, In Huehufwi Galaxy, in Multiverse 273i controlling all awareness or all beings everywhere simultaneously by pressing buttons really, really quickly, while singing a tune does.

 

You don't in fact know anything like that. If you assume there is something fundamentally beyond knowing, then it's your blind faith at work. You certainly have no evidence for it. You can't say that you not knowing everything is proof that there is something fundamentally unknowable as that would be an argument from ignorance and is not acceptable in formal reasoning on this planet.

 

Touche!

 

Though you also do not know that in principle nothing is unknowable.

 

On the contrary. All my life I've experienced this or that knowns. I've also experienced unknowns becoming known and knowns reverting back to an unknown state. What I've never experienced though and what I have not the slightest shred of evidence for (by definition!) is something that's fundamentally unknowable, something unknowable even in principle.

 

I mean, if you could give me some evidence for something that's unknowable even in principle, I'll gladly accept it. Until then why don't you admit you take such things on blind faith.

 

This is an argument from ignorance.

 

My argument is that we should believe and act as if awareness has no source outside of itself. If awareness does have a source outside itself, that source is utterly irrelevant, inscrutable, has no logical connection to any contents of awareness (or if it does, it renders all the contnts meaningless and beyond reason) and changes nothing whatsoever from a hands-on point of view.

 

There is probably a lot to be learned for the average person who takes this viewpoint. I could probably learn a lot from it too, but I choose not to limit my perceptions based upon faith.

[Todd]

Shoot this down:

 

1. Awareness is intentional and infinitely contextual.

2. Concrete objects that appear to the conscious aspect of awareness are only meaningful within a context. Nothing concrete is inherently meaningful.

3. Brain is one such concrete object.

4. Because of 2, brain is not inherently meaningful and instead it relies on a specific state of awareness for its own meaning to be what it is (like any other concrete object).

5. Implication of 4 is that the brain is imaginary and subjective.

6. Imaginary cannot be a source of real.

 

 

1. I can only agree to "Awareness is." based upon the presented evidence. I can agree to "contextual" to some degree, but you'd have to clarify your meaning. "Intentional" is tricky.

2. That depends on how you define meaning.

3. Yes.

4. Yes, depending on how you answer 2.

5. No, you would first have to demonstrate a equality between the type of meaning that awareness gives and existence. You would have to demonstrate that there is no existence beyond such meaning.

6. Agree, though the imaginary can affect the real, and in a dream raising your heartbeat, or an imagined plan being brought into fruition, or imagined threat causing a change of plans, or the causing the diversion of the mind from truth. In that sense it can be the source of real effects. In that sense, it can be said to be a source of real.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

5. No, you would first have to demonstrate a equality between the type of meaning that awareness gives and existence. You would have to demonstrate that there is no existence beyond such meaning.

 

No, I don't have to demonstrate that at all. What I need to demonstrate is that if there is a permanently external to awareness existence of some sort, it is irrelevant. I set the bar for myself reasonably lower than what you want it to be.

 

6. Agree, though the imaginary can affect the real, and in a dream raising your heartbeat, or an imagined plan being brought into fruition, or imagined threat causing a change of plans, or the causing the diversion of the mind from truth. In that sense it can be the source of real effects. In that sense, it can be said to be a source of real.

 

It's vastly deeper than that.

Edited August 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

There are two main aspects to this discussion:

1. What you have logically demonstrated about the source of awareness

2. The logical validity of the possibility that non-awareness is the source of awareness based upon agreed assumptions

 

 

With regard to the first aspect, I maintain that you have not demonstrated that awareness is its own source.

 

That isn't really my task though. My task is to demonstrate that it's not worth anyone's time to consider realities that may or may not exist fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness. I maintain there are good reason why such considerations can safely and profitably be dropped.

 

I also maintain that if you live your life as if there is a possibility of something fundamentally and in principle permanently beyond the scope of awareness, you're living your life in a way that's half-way open to blind faith. If you live your life as if there is definitely something fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness then you are definitely depending on blind faith.

 

This is important, because the viewpoint based upon the conclusion that awareness is its own source is very different from that based upon the absence of that conclusion.

 

No shit. If they weren't different, I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

 

With the conclusion that awareness is its own source I can safely dismiss all references to matter or non-awareness as misguided and lose all interest in explorations of a source beyond awareness.

 

You have every right to reasonably and logically stop such explorations right now. All you've ever known are various states of mind. You've never come into contact with anything that is external to your mind. You'll never develop any good philosophical basis to infer that something exists fundamentally outside your own mind.

 

Because your own mind and its various experiential states is all that you can ever experience and know, if you decide there must be something permanently and in principle outside your own mind, and then you decide to search for it, that's your choice and no one can keep you from living that way.

 

Without that conclusion, I am open to a variety of ways of seeing experience, and I might develop a more inclusive and appropriate view over time. I also remain open to the development of better arguments for any of a variety of conclusions, including that awareness is its own source.

 

I am not attached to my own lines of reasoning. If I realize there are better ones, I'll gladly switch.

 

If you provide me some evidence that there is something fundamentally and in principle beyond the scope of awareness, I'll have no choice but to accept it.

 

There also might be an underlying assumption here that there are only two options: either matter is the source, or awareness is the source. That would hamper our view. This hampering would be similar to a scientist assuming that light must be either a particle or a wave, and not being able to grasp its broader nature. He also would remain closed to any potential evidence for non-particle, non-wave aspects of light.

 

Absolutely.

 

But there are good reasons to be less open-minded than that. For example, if someone embraces materialism, it generates a more predictable and stable lifestream, but the price you pay is that it is dramatically less magical and more contrary to your intentions in life.

 

Similarly there are good reasons to accept the view that awareness is all that there is. Your lifestream becomes less predictable and more open, but the upside is that things appear to be more enchanted, more meaningful and more magical. You become a weaver of meaning. Of course there are at first some constraints, such as old habits, which die hard, but at least this way the door is fully open.

 

And whatever third or fourth option you discover, there is no way it will be better than the last option, because I don't see how the last option can be further enhanced, as it gives you everything for the price of fear and old habits. What more could you want?

 

You have not shown this. A non-awareness source of awareness does not have to be fundamentally outside of awareness.

 

Yes it does. A thing C cannot be both an effect and cause of thing D. It's illogical. If a thing C is an effect of thing D, then thing C is in a submissive position relative D. If thing C is a cause of thing D, then thing C is in a dominant position relative D. The same thing cannot be both submissive and dominant at the same time, as that kind of thinking is gibberish.

 

If the brain is a concrete object we can experience within our conscious awareness on par with other concrete objects, then that immediately disqualifies it from being capable of generating awareness. The reason for that disqualification was explained before.

 

If something is fundamentally and permanently beyond the scope of awareness we need to treat that something differently from that which is temporarily beyond the scope of awareness.

 

So for example, currently various objects beyond the walls of my room are outside the scope of my conscious awareness, but these objects lay dormant in the depths of my mind. Thus, when I open the door out of my room, I can readily experience these objects as they present themselves to my conscious mind. As I leave my room the objects in my room submerge into the pool of the potential experiences in my subconscious mind. The reason I can return back into my room later is because I have my room readily referenced in my subconscious mind.

 

What you may notice in this interplay of experience is this: those concrete objects that now present themselves to conscious awareness and those that now do not present themselves but which can in principle become vividly present are fundamentally the same. The only difference between them is intentionality. I am in my room and not in the hallway because that's what I intend. I intend to be typing right now. Other than that one difference, they are the same. So if the concrete objects I am presently conscious of cannot be the source of my awareness, then no objects at all that can ever be thus present can be the source of my awareness.

 

Thus by logically analyzing the qualities of concrete objects that are currently present I can disqualify all of them, even all of the potential such objects, the entire infinity of them. Why? Because the same logic applies to all concrete objects, be they currently vividly apparent ones or those that are not yet apparent but have the potential of becoming apparent.

 

Some level of the processes by which awareness arises would be outside of awareness, but this does not mean that such an object would necessarily be irredeemably outside of awareness.

 

It would have to be, since I've logically eliminated the possibility of something inside awareness having the power to create awareness.

Edited August 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

To say that either position is true requires faith, and I prefer not to base my positions on faith, since this is often limiting in unhelpful ways.

 

It's like saying that since I cannot absolutely positively prove that an invisible pink elephant is not in fact standing in the middle of my room, I've lived my entire life based on blind faith.

 

Oh how much better would my life be if I just accepted the invisible pink elephant standing in my room! Shame on me.

 

Well, in case we adopt #1 then we would probably still need some word. "Is self-aware" or "self-aware" does not mean much as a statement in English. I do not see that awareness is necessarily better than matter in this case, except perhaps as a provisionally corrective measure, since there would be matter qualities as well as awareness qualities to this third thing.

 

One of the essential qualities of matter is that matter is defined as something fundamentally external to mind and fundamentally lacking in awareness.

 

So you rule out the unknowable by fiat. This limits your view and leads to some erroneous conclusions.

 

I'm a bit better than that. I split the unknowable into two kinds. One that can in principle be known and one that cannot ever be known, not even in principle. I then propose we drop that which is fundamentally unknowable from consideration. At the same time I agree to analyze all that which is knowable at least in principle, if not right now. You must admit I am very reasonable.

 

The brain basis of awareness viewpoint is not only a non-modest explanation of observations. It can explain some things more modestly than the awareness basis of the brain viewpoint. For example, all of the specific changes of consciousness based upon specific changes of the brain are mostly easily explained by the brain basis of awareness viewpoint. There are other aspects which may be better explained by the awareness basis viewpoint, such as OBEs, physic experiences, seeming reality of dreams, recounting of past-life experiences, intention influencing apparent physical reality, awareness seeming to exist in the absence of detectable brain activity, etc. So you cannot pretend that the brain basis argument or the awareness basis argument have no more evidence for them than Uncle Bob on planet Cz-432-B, In Huehufwi Galaxy, in Multiverse 273i controlling all awareness or all beings everywhere simultaneously by pressing buttons really, really quickly, while singing a tune does.

 

I agree, but the brain basis of awareness carries a cost with it that's unacceptable to me: it's illogical. I am aware of its benefits. Just because something is illogical doesn't mean it cannot have any benefits. Fiction has some benefits.

 

Touche!

 

Though you also do not know that in principle nothing is unknowable.

 

On the contrary. All my life I've experienced this or that knowns. I've also experienced unknowns becoming known and knowns reverting back to an unknown state. What I've never experienced though and what I have not the slightest shred of evidence for (by definition!) is something that's fundamentally unknowable, something unknowable even in principle.

 

I mean, if you could give me some evidence for something that's unknowable even in principle, I'll gladly accept it. Until then why don't you admit you take such things on blind faith.

 

This is an argument from ignorance.

 

So asking for evidence is argument from ignorance now?

 

My argument is that we should believe and act as if awareness has no source outside of itself. If awareness does have a source outside itself, that source is utterly irrelevant, inscrutable, has no logical connection to any contents of awareness (or if it does, it renders all the contnts meaningless and beyond reason) and changes nothing whatsoever from a hands-on point of view.

 

There is probably a lot to be learned for the average person who takes this viewpoint. I could probably learn a lot from it too, but I choose not to limit my perceptions based upon faith.

 

I showed you many times how you depend on blind faith whereas I do not. I am a lot more evidence-oriented than you are in these explorations. You keep claiming that me rejecting realities for which I have no evidence is an act of faith on my part.

Edited August 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Want to have even more fun? OK.

 

Most brain-addicts believe they experience a mix of subjective and objective experiences.

 

I ask: where is the difference between subjective and objective established?

 

Case 1: It's established outside one's own mind. In this case, why don't all people uniformly and predictably agree on all matters considered to be objective facts?

 

Case 2: It's established inside one's own mind. In this case, how is an objective experience still objective, when its establishment is itself subjective?

[forestofclarity]

For me, it wasn't just one thing, but many things, over time. The practice and the teachings tend to rewire the brain, so to speak. I used to feel like I was located in my head, but now I feel that everything I see is taking place in an awareness.

 

A crucial point came for me on a retreat. Toward the end of the retreat, my mind was very calm and clear. As I sat, I heard a dog barking. I noticed that my experience of sound (the noise) was a separate object than the instrument of sound (my ear).

 

I was hoping you'd share your experience(s), and what about your experience(s) in particular lead to a questioning of the brain as the source of awareness.

[Todd]

No, I don't have to demonstrate that at all. What I need to demonstrate is that if there is a permanently external to awareness existence of some sort, it is irrelevant. I set the bar for myself reasonably lower than what you want it to be.

 

You even with this bar, you have not demonstrated the the non-awareness factor to which I was referring must be permanently external to it, nor have you demonstrated that it is irrelevant. I will discuss this when I respond to your next post.

 

It's vastly deeper than that.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

[Todd]

That isn't really my task though. My task is to demonstrate that it's not worth anyone's time to consider realities that may or may not exist fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness. I maintain there are good reason why such considerations can safely and profitably be dropped.

 

I also maintain that if you live your life as if there is a possibility of something fundamentally and in principle permanently beyond the scope of awareness, you're living your life in a way that's half-way open to blind faith. If you live your life as if there is definitely something fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness then you are definitely depending on blind faith.

 

Just as: if you live your life as if there is definitely not something fundamentally beyond the scope of awareness, then your are definitely depending on blind faith.

 

Remaining open to a recognition that something might be beyond the scope of awareness is not remaining open to blind faith. One can use reason to come to the conclusion that there are things that in principle, at least based upon all that we currently know, cannot be known. The uncertainty principle is such a conclusion, which you refer to from time to time.

 

 

If you provide me some evidence that there is something fundamentally and in principle beyond the scope of awareness, I'll have no choice but to accept it.

 

Please refer to the uncertainty principle. I do not know that this is 100% true in all possible situations, but apparently there is good logic and evidence for it.

 

 

If you provide me with convincing evidence that awareness is all that exists, then similarly I will have to shift my views further in that direction, commensurate with the degree to which your evidence is convincing.

 

But there are good reasons to be less open-minded than that. For example, if someone embraces materialism, it generates a more predictable and stable lifestream, but the price you pay is that it is dramatically less magical and more contrary to your intentions in life.

 

Similarly there are good reasons to accept the view that awareness is all that there is. Your lifestream becomes less predictable and more open, but the upside is that things appear to be more enchanted, more meaningful and more magical. You become a weaver of meaning. Of course there are at first some constraints, such as old habits, which die hard, but at least this way the door is fully open.

 

And whatever third or fourth option you discover, there is no way it will be better than the last option, because I don't see how the last option can be further enhanced, as it gives you everything for the price of fear and old habits. What more could you want?

 

I can imagine a way that it might be better. If it is more in accord with reality then it would be better. I do not want something based on an assumption. I like things that are in accord with reality, because in my experience, they work better and there is less unnecessary stress.

 

In such a case, you wouldn't keep wondering why the universe doesn't seem to be bending itself wholly and easily to your conscious intentions. You wouldn't have to explain such things away, and you wouldn't be as likely to fall on your face trying, since you would be more likely to keep your balance as you exercise your intention.

 

Your rating of reasons for accepting these various views is based upon the assumption that the views are entirely intentional, and that there is no "is-ness" quality to the world outside of view, and there is nothing outside of awareness. You have not demonstrated this to me.

 

Yes it does. A thing C cannot be both an effect and cause of thing D. It's illogical. If a thing C is an effect of thing D, then thing C is in a submissive position relative D. If thing C is a cause of thing D, then thing C is in a dominant position relative D. The same thing cannot be both submissive and dominant at the same time, as that kind of thinking is gibberish.

 

...

 

Thus by logically analyzing the qualities of concrete objects that are currently present I can disqualify all of them, even all of the potential such objects, the entire infinity of them. Why? Because the same logic applies to all concrete objects, be they currently vividly apparent ones or those that are not yet apparent but have the potential of becoming apparent.

 

 

There are two key assumptions here:

1) There is causality

2) Causality is linear

 

I won't deal with #1, since my counter example depends upon it as well.

 

#2 is fatal though. This view of causality is of things only progressing in one direction, and of effects that never feed back to the affect the level that generates them. The issue with things progressing in only one direction, is that you end up with the question of, "What was the first cause?" If you believe that everything can in principle be known, then this is logically inconsistent, since for any first cause, one can reasonably ask, "What caused that?" It becomes absurd and not treatable by logic. So this does not accord with your own assumptions and logic.

 

Beyond logic, we can observe many effects in the world that feed back to affect the level that caused them. An example is learning. It is based upon perception. We perceive the world, we have an experience, and then we form a model of the world based upon this experience, which then becomes a filter through which we perceive the world. The learning, based on perception, affects the perception that caused it. I have left out the interpretive function, since its kinda part of perception, but the interpretive function is also effected. This all affects the next learning as well, so all levels are affected by every event. There is no domination and submission. Domination and submission is a very Yang, straight-line way of viewing the world.

 

There are plenty of other examples of this. There are computer programs that learn, and alter themselves in response from feedback from systems that they can influence, and without any obvious awareness. Living systems are pretty much defined by a cornucopia of mutually supporting and controlling feedback loops, as we discussed before in the magic thread.

 

So the possibility that the brain is one such cause that can be affected by its effects is quite in keeping with what can be observed in the world, and your logic in no way rules it out, unless you accept untenable assumptions.

 

What I say does not prove that the brain has this position (especially since causality itself need not be assumed), but neither does what you say prove that it doesn't, or that awareness is all that is.

 

 

I'll respond to your next post later.

[Todd]

For me, it wasn't just one thing, but many things, over time. The practice and the teachings tend to rewire the brain, so to speak. I used to feel like I was located in my head, but now I feel that everything I see is taking place in an awareness.

 

A crucial point came for me on a retreat. Toward the end of the retreat, my mind was very calm and clear. As I sat, I heard a dog barking. I noticed that my experience of sound (the noise) was a separate object than the instrument of sound (my ear).

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing.

 

_/\_

[goldisheavy]

Todd,

 

Can you please explain why awareness cannot be caused?

[Todd]

Todd,

 

Can you please explain why awareness cannot be caused?

 

Did I say this?

[goldisheavy]

Did I say this?

 

I did. The question is, why might I say it? What would my reasons be?

[Todd]

I did. The question is, why might I say it? What would my reasons be?

 

I will do this, wholeheartedly. Do you want me to start from your assumptions, or should I start from as few assumptions as possible? It will be more wholehearted if I start from as few assumptions as possible, but there is a good chance that it will end in a similar place, going through different vocabulary and experiences, to where my other explorations have pointed, since the assumptions are the most important thing.

 

Will you do this for what I have been presenting? Just remember that I am not primarily arguing for the possibility of brain as cause of awareness. This is a minor point. I am arguing for the inability to conclusively establish either awareness as all, or brain as cause of awareness, at least based on anything that has been presented in our discussion so far. I suggest that there is a usefulness to this view.

[goldisheavy]

I will do this, wholeheartedly. Do you want me to start from your assumptions, or should I start from as few assumptions as possible? It will be more wholehearted if I start from as few assumptions as possible, but there is a good chance that it will end in a similar place, going through different vocabulary and experiences, to where my other explorations have pointed, since the assumptions are the most important thing.

 

Will you do this for what I have been presenting? Just remember that I am not primarily arguing for the possibility of brain as cause of awareness. This is a minor point. I am arguing for the inability to conclusively establish either awareness as all, or brain as cause of awareness, at least based on anything that has been presented in our discussion so far. I suggest that there is a usefulness to this view.

 

No, I will not try to reiterate your worldview. I feel like you have no idea what my view really is and you're arguing against straw men of various kinds.

 

In particular, when I read your last post, I found so much irrelevant and tangential information in it, so much stuff I disagree with and want to object to, that I found it not worth my time to respond. I'd have to object to every line of everything you write for many reasons and it's too much and serves no purpose, since you're not really engaging me at all. You don't argue directly against my claims. Once again you're trying to squeeze through the side door. But this time I am familiar with that approach and I'm not going to entertain it.

 

From where I stand, you've offered absolutely nothing, no objection worth even a penny against anything I've proposed. And I've tried to dumb everything down so that even a 12 year old can understand. I gave both detailed expositions and arguments and brief simple mother-approved summaries. I tried everything. I feel like you have no desire to even try to entertain what I am saying. In fact, I have no idea what your goal really is. My goal is to present a view that different from the norm. Physicalism is the norm. I present reasons for rejecting it. That's my goal. My goal is accomplished. So from now on every post I make on this thread is purely extracurricular.

Edited August 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

No, I will not try to reiterate your worldview. I feel like you have no idea what my view really is and you're arguing against straw men of various kinds.

 

In particular, when I read your last post, I found so much irrelevant and tangential information in it, so much stuff I disagree with and want to object to, that I found it not worth my time to respond. I'd have to object to every line of everything you write for many reasons and it's too much and serves no purpose, since you're not really engaging me at all. You don't argue directly against my claims. Once again you're trying to squeeze through the side door. But this time I am familiar with that approach and I'm not going to entertain it.

 

From where I stand, you've offered absolutely nothing, no objection worth even a penny against anything I've proposed. And I've tried to dumb everything down so that even a 12 year old can understand. I gave both detailed expositions and arguments and brief simple mother-approved summaries. I tried everything. I feel like you have no desire to even try to entertain what I am saying. In fact, I have no idea what your goal really is. My goal is to present a view that different from the norm. Physicalism is the norm. I present reasons for rejecting it. That's my goal. My goal is accomplished. So from now on every post I make on this thread is purely extracurricular.

 

 

 

Ok. I offer to demonstrate understanding and perhaps further your view, and you refuse to do the same for mine. You also refuse to respond to my points but dismiss them as irrelevant, and then accuse me of slipping out the side door.

 

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say, and that is why it seems irrelevant to you. You seem to think this is an argument about physicalism, where I am on the side of physicalism and you are on the side of non-physicalism.

 

This is fine.

 

I may explore the view from your angle, and/or other angles similar to yours, in later posts, for my own enjoyment and edification. Perhaps then you can show me how I am misunderstanding your position.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

Ok. I offer to demonstrate understanding and perhaps further your view, and you refuse to do the same for mine.

 

You'd need to first understand my view before you could further it.

 

So far you don't appear to understand it since you don't talk directly to the statements I make, and instead you decided to bring up all kinds of tangential and irrelevant information such as 'uncertainty principle' which is utterly irrelevant in this discussion, since we're discussing awareness which is an exceptional topic and ordinary considerations do not apply. If awareness was an object among objects, we could treat it in an ordinary manner. It is not, so we cannot.

 

Another example of breaking the rules of logic is demanding a positive proof of absence, which is never done in philosophy. You know who constantly requests an absolute proof of absence? Theologists do and they are laughed at (rightly so) when they want people to absolutely positively prove that God doesn't exist. There are excellent reasons to live life as if God doesn't exist regardless of God's true status, but theologists will have none of it. They want a positive iron-clad proof of absence from those who don't accept God. Of course since theologists have been at it for so long, by now they know it's a dumb demand that won't be honored, so they know when to give up and they've learned to simply agree to disagree and they proudly invoke "faith" as the answer to this problem.

 

I've said this before: matter is pysicalists' God. Matter cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be proven. We know concrete objects can't be made of matter because they are empty in the Buddhist sense. So there is no way to establish any kind of substance behind appearances. Scientists simply assume it, but they are not stupid enough to think they can ever prove it. They know it's an assumption. Matter is an article of blind faith among the scientific community. No scientist has ever been able to prove the existence of matter and in fact, the scientists are absolutely baffled by consciousness. Consciousness simply doesn't fit into the materialistic paradigm. Some have even gone so far as to say we're not actually conscious.

 

You also refuse to respond to my points but dismiss them as irrelevant, and then accuse me of slipping out the side door.

 

Your points are all tangential and irrelevant indeed when it comes to contradicting what I am saying.

 

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say, and that is why it seems irrelevant to you. You seem to think this is an argument about physicalism, where I am on the side of physicalism and you are on the side of non-physicalism.

 

This is fine.

 

I may explore the view from your angle, and/or other angles similar to yours, in later posts, for my own enjoyment and edification. Perhaps then you can show me how I am misunderstanding your position.

 

I know what you're trying to say. You're basically saying "you don't know any better than any other human.. how can you be so certain? Can you positively prove non-existence of something fundamentally beyond awareness? No? I thought so. Bahaha... keep an open mind.. anything is possible." That's basically your entire argument. It's full of gibberish and nonsense. You don't engage any specific point I make unless I put a metaphorical gun to your head. Like when I gave you a list of 6 points, you responded to point number 5 in a direct and honest manner. When I countered that equally directly and equally honestly, you responded with evasions, tangents, irrelevant stuff of all kinds.

 

The only thing you said that was even remotely interesting was a psychological concern which has nothing to do with hard logic of the situation. Your psychological concern was "if everything is awareness, why does it seem like my intent has limits? Won't I go crazy trying to exercise intent against objects which are outside my intent?" That was a valid concern but it was not one of logic. It was a reflection of unfamiliarity and fear. It's like a concern of someone who watches a strong man lift 900 lbs and says, "This weight will kill me if I try it." It may even be true. But it doesn't mean that people lifting 900 lbs is an illogical proposition. It just means there is a pragmatic concern.

[Todd]

You'd need to first understand my view before you could further it.

 

So far you don't appear to understand it since you don't talk directly to the statements I make, and instead you decided to bring up all kinds of tangential and irrelevant information such as 'uncertainty principle' which is utterly irrelevant in this discussion, since we're discussing awareness which is an exceptional topic and ordinary considerations do not apply. If awareness was an object among objects, we could treat it in an ordinary manner. It is not, so we cannot.

 

Your argument depends on assumptions. If I agree to your assumptions, then your argument is sound. If I do not agree to your assumptions, then it is not. That is why I do not directly address the individual points of your argument. I address the assumptions, which are a much deeper level, which you seem to be totally unwilling to consider, since it might entail changing your views.

 

You say that my arguments are irrelevant. Allow me to draw the connections for you, since you have been unwilling to follow along.

 

1.Your argument is based on the assumption that awareness, in principle, cannot be a subset of a larger set, or an object among objects.

2.The argument that you make to support this is that awareness is before all objects of awareness, and hence must be causal of all objects, and cannot therefor be another object among objects.

3.I make a clear argument that your logic in making this point is flawed.*

4.You do not respond to this argument, but dismiss it as irrelevant.

5.Further you request that I demonstrate understanding of your view.

6.I wholeheartedly offer to do so and ask you to do the same for my view.

7.You respond very negatively, dismissing my ability to understand even your dumbed down reasoning and refuse to demonstrate understanding of my view, as if you worry what the outcome of such a process might be and are attempting to avoid it.

 

*I am including this argument here to give you another chance to respond to it.

 

"'goldisheavy, on 06 August 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:Yes it does. A thing C cannot be both an effect and cause of thing D. It's illogical. If a thing C is an effect of thing D, then thing C is in a submissive position relative D. If thing C is a cause of thing D, then thing C is in a dominant position relative D. The same thing cannot be both submissive and dominant at the same time, as that kind of thinking is gibberish.

 

...

 

Thus by logically analyzing the qualities of concrete objects that are currently present I can disqualify all of them, even all of the potential such objects, the entire infinity of them. Why? Because the same logic applies to all concrete objects, be they currently vividly apparent ones or those that are not yet apparent but have the potential of becoming apparent.'

 

 

There are two key assumptions here:

1) There is causality

2) Causality is linear

 

I won't deal with #1, since my counter example depends upon it as well.

 

#2 is fatal though. This view of causality is of things only progressing in one direction, and of effects that never feed back to the affect the level that generates them. The issue with things progressing in only one direction, is that you end up with the question of, "What was the first cause?" If you believe that everything can in principle be known, then this is logically inconsistent, since for any first cause, one can reasonably ask, "What caused that?" It becomes absurd and not treatable by logic. So this does not accord with your own assumptions and logic.

 

Beyond logic, we can observe many effects in the world that feed back to affect the level that caused them. An example is learning. It is based upon perception. We perceive the world, we have an experience, and then we form a model of the world based upon this experience, which then becomes a filter through which we perceive the world. The learning, based on perception, affects the perception that caused it. I have left out the interpretive function, since its kinda part of perception, but the interpretive function is also effected. This all affects the next learning as well, so all levels are affected by every event. There is no domination and submission. Domination and submission is a very Yang, straight-line way of viewing the world.

 

There are plenty of other examples of this. There are computer programs that learn, and alter themselves in response from feedback from systems that they can influence, and without any obvious awareness. Living systems are pretty much defined by a cornucopia of mutually supporting and controlling feedback loops, as we discussed before in the magic thread.

 

So the possibility that the brain is one such cause that can be affected by its effects is quite in keeping with what can be observed in the world, and your logic in no way rules it out, unless you accept untenable assumptions.

 

What I say does not prove that the brain has this position (especially since causality itself need not be assumed), but neither does what you say prove that it doesn't, or that awareness is all that is. "

 

Another example of breaking the rules of logic is demanding a positive proof of absence, which is never done in philosophy. You know who constantly requests an absolute proof of absence? Theologists do and they are laughed at (rightly so) when they want people to absolutely positively prove that God doesn't exist. There are excellent reasons to live life as if God doesn't exist regardless of God's true status, but theologists will have none of it. They want a positive iron-clad proof of absence from those who don't accept God. Of course since theologists have been at it for so long, by now they know it's a dumb demand that won't be honored, so they know when to give up and they've learned to simply agree to disagree and they proudly invoke "faith" as the answer to this problem.

 

Can you not see the symmetry of your position and my (provisional) counter position? They both make positive statements about the nature of reality that cannot be proven. You attack the unprovable nature of my position, but refuse to provide proof for your position, stating that the unprovable nature of my position is proof enough for your position.

 

You make the very same sorts arguments that you vehemently deny, and dismiss as based on faith. One advantage that I have in this conversation is that I do not maintain that my counter position is truth. I do not take a stance that requires faith. I only present a counter position to demonstrate that it is no more or less faith based than your position.

 

I know what you're trying to say. You're basically saying "you don't know any better than any other human.. how can you be so certain? Can you positively prove non-existence of something fundamentally beyond awareness? No? I thought so. Bahaha... keep an open mind.. anything is possible." That's basically your entire argument. It's full of gibberish and nonsense.

 

Is this the best you can do? Can you see no potential development beyond the statement, "keep and open mind.. anything is possible."? I suggest we make wholehearted attempts to express the other's views, as if they were our own, and then offer critiques of how well the other presented our views, see how this changes the landscape, and go from there.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

Your argument depends on assumptions. If I agree to your assumptions, then your argument is sound. If I do not agree to your assumptions, then it is not. That is why I do not directly address the individual points of your argument. I address the assumptions, which are a much deeper level, which you seem to be totally unwilling to consider, since it might entail changing your views.

 

You say that my arguments are irrelevant. Allow me to draw the connections for you, since you have been unwilling to follow along.

 

1.Your argument is based on the assumption that awareness, in principle, cannot be a subset of a larger set, or an object among objects.

 

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since already you misrepresent my position. I didn't make that assumption.

 

My argument is like this:

 

1. Maybe awareness has something outside it, maybe not:

 

2a. It has something outside it.

 

2aa: Split the outside into two kinds, something that is outside in a fundamental and permanent manner and something that is outside only temporarily. Treat these two possibilities differently.

 

2aaa: Fundamentally outside -- irrelevant.

 

2aab: Temporarily outside but otherwise knowable at least in principle -- relevant and treated in 2b.

 

2b. Nothing is outside it and all things are only inside of it.

 

2ba: whatever is inside is empty and a fragment of a larger context, thus cannot be the source of that which is larger than itself. The leg of the chair is not the source of the chair, etc... a part of something cannot be a source of the whole.

 

Done.

 

So as you can see, I investigate two domains. What's inside, and what is possibly outside. I don't assume shit. Whatever is inside is empty. Whatever is outside is of two kinds, and I treat both scenarios with strong logic.

 

Since you weren't able to present this properly, I now terminate this discussion. This is not an acceptable way to behave. I will say that what you're doing now is basically either malice or trolling at this point. Because of this I may never want to talk to you again. It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to butcher what I am saying for your own selfish and myopic jollies.

Edited August 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since already you misrepresent my position. I didn't make that assumption.

 

My argument is like this:

 

1. Maybe awareness has something outside it, maybe not:

 

2a. It has something outside it.

 

2aa: Split the outside into two kinds, something that is outside in a fundamental and permanent manner and something that is outside only temporarily. Treat these two possibilities differently.

 

2aaa: Fundamentally outside -- irrelevant.

 

2aab: Temporarily outside but otherwise knowable at least in principle -- relevant and treated in 2b.

 

2b. Nothing is outside it and all things are only inside of it.

 

2ba: whatever is inside is empty and a fragment of a larger context, thus cannot be the source of that which is larger than itself. The leg of the chair is not the source of the chair, etc... a part of something cannot be a source of the whole.

 

Done.

 

So as you can see, I investigate two domains. What's inside, and what is possibly outside. I don't assume shit. Whatever is inside is empty. Whatever is outside is of two kinds, and I treat both scenarios with strong logic.

 

Since you weren't able to present this properly, I now terminate this discussion. This is not an acceptable way to behave. I will say that what you're doing now is basically either malice or trolling at this point. Because of this I may never want to talk to you again. It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to butcher what I am saying for your own selfish and myopic jollies.

 

Ok, my abbreviated list of connections did not include your entire argument. I did not include the aspect of objects fundamentally outside of awareness, because you define them as irrelevant. I did include the crux of your argument that you can agree is relevant. You say that, excluding objects that are fundamentally outside of awareness (and hence cannot be known to exist or not exist), no object of awareness (including objects that are unknown but in principle accessible to awareness) can be the source of awareness.

 

The argument that I quoted, and you refused to even address, was a direct answer to this argument. I showed how your argument is based upon assumptions. I detailed why those assumptions are not tenable. If you do not agree with my reasoning, then please address my reasoning. Right now, you have only refused to even consider it.

 

Let me make it really simple.

1.Your argument is based upon linear logic

2.Linear logic is a flawed approach

3.It is based on the assumption that nothing can affect its own cause

4.This reduces to absurdity if logically explored

5.Abandoning such absurdity, one is left with a situation where there is no domination or submission, but a net of interrelated causes and effects, if any cause and effect can be said to exist at all

6.In such a situation, an object such as awareness can arise from another object, such as a brain, and potentially become at least partially aware of that brain, while still being an effect of that brain

 

Since you base your proof on linear logic, then you are basing it on absurdity.

 

I'm not saying that your experience might not offer a lot of good reason to believe the things you do, but to pretend that it is logically proven is untenable.

 

It is your right to choose not to talk to me again. I have enjoyed the conversation and might continue to explore these issues as discussed above, though if you specifically request that I don't share this here, then I won't. (Though if someone else specifically requests that I do, then I will. You can feel free to ignore it, then.)

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd

[Everything]

When I think of the word mind and brain, the words the origin and the originated pops into my head.

 

As in: the originated brain originated from its origin; the mind.

 

I'm pretty satisfied with this answer actually ^^

Edited August 7, 2011 by Everything

[Todd]

The uncertainty principle is relevant since it demonstrates that there are aspects of the world, which we interct with and have effects, which we cannot in principle be aware of, such as the exact position and velocity of any object at the same time.

 

This is crucial, since you rule out the possibility that anything which is in principle unknowable can have any relevance to the known world, despite referring to the uncertainty principle from time to time, as if you consider it to be valid.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd

[Marblehead]

Looks like y'all are having fun. I want to play.

 

 

2.Linear logic is a flawed approach

3.It is based on the assumption that nothing can affect its own cause

 

I disagree totally with #2. and I disagree conditionally with #3.

 

Linear logic is the only way to view a process. Otherwise the order of the process will be violated and the data will be invalidated.

 

The effect can affect the cause only in the future, not the past or present.