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

[Marblehead]

Marble, did you read the link about the implications of hydrocephalus? Don't you think it's interesting that while it affects some people negatively, some lead normal lives with most of their brain tissue missing?

 

Yep. Read it. And yes, I totally agree that it is fantastic how some people's brain adapts so well to a partial lose of the brain while others become totally dependant on others.

 

I think it is also fantastic when you have these folks with some form of mental retardation but yet they have a genius in one or more mental areas. It is almost like they got an extra serving in one area but lost out in most of the other areas.

 

It is also fantastic when we hear about those who had brain cancer, parts of the brain were removed and other parts of the brain took over the work the removed areas used to do. This is somewhat the same with people who have strokes. Some people recover to perfectly normal while others never recover.

 

The wonders of this universe!!!! I love it!!! I think I'll try to hang around for a while yet to see what might happen next.

[goldisheavy]

Yep. Read it. And yes, I totally agree that it is fantastic how some people's brain adapts so well to a partial lose of the brain while others become totally dependant on others.

 

I think it is also fantastic when you have these folks with some form of mental retardation but yet they have a genius in one or more mental areas. It is almost like they got an extra serving in one area but lost out in most of the other areas.

 

It is also fantastic when we hear about those who had brain cancer, parts of the brain were removed and other parts of the brain took over the work the removed areas used to do. This is somewhat the same with people who have strokes. Some people recover to perfectly normal while others never recover.

 

The wonders of this universe!!!! I love it!!! I think I'll try to hang around for a while yet to see what might happen next.

 

I agree that the universe is wondrous. I mean the term wondrous literally.

 

If the brain is merely a CPU in a computer, then physically wrecking the brain should break the person in every case, no exceptions. I'm talking about the Intel, AMD, VIA, various ARM CPUs and so on. Just imagine drilling a hole through the center of the CPU. Is it still going to work? Obviously not. So the brain is not like the CPU chip. But many people think the brain is exactly like the CPU, only more complicated.

[Birch]

I agree that the universe is wondrous. I mean the term wondrous literally.

 

If the brain is merely a CPU in a computer, then physically wrecking the brain should break the person in every case, no exceptions. I'm talking about the Intel, AMD, VIA, various ARM CPUs and so on. Just imagine drilling a hole through the center of the CPU. Is it still going to work? Obviously not. So the brain is not like the CPU chip. But many people think the brain is exactly like the CPU, only more complicated.

What did people think it was like before computers?

Oh yeah, the little guy "driving" :-)?

Other stuff?

There has to be a "closer to reality" model out there somewhere.

[Marblehead]

If the brain is merely a CPU in a computer, then physically wrecking the brain should break the person in every case, no exceptions. I'm talking about the Intel, AMD, VIA, various ARM CPUs and so on. Just imagine drilling a hole through the center of the CPU. Is it still going to work? Obviously not. So the brain is not like the CPU chip. But many people think the brain is exactly like the CPU, only more complicated.

 

The human brain beats out the CPUs every time because the human brain can imagine. They don't have computers to that level yet and likely never will.

 

Heard recently on some TV program that it is believed that within X number of years, I think it was about ten but I'm not sure, that computers will have the capacity of the same number of functions within a given time period as the human brain has.

 

And perhaps one day there will be computers that can reprogram themselves based on collected data. We humans do that as a normal part of our life.

 

Yeah, I think it is our ability to imagine that set us (our brain) apart from all other life forms and any computer that will ever be built.

[goldisheavy]

What did people think it was like before computers?

Oh yeah, the little guy "driving" :-)?

Other stuff?

There has to be a "closer to reality" model out there somewhere.

 

Seriously, right? Hehehe...

 

I think the mind and the brain are like nothing else. All our models are wrong, imo.

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Todd

 

I think a critical error in your understanding of awareness is that object are separate from it. That there is this awareness and this object it is aware of. In conventional language we say so, but awareness and its objects are really indistinguishable. Where is your awareness and where is it located?

 

The better approach is to eliminate the thought of "objects" altogether, but rather see them as states of awareness. For instance, you become hungry and there is the sensation of hunger. It's not that there is an object of hunger, you can't really grab hunger. You can say that it is a chemical process happening in the body, but the physiology doesn't do justice to your experience of it.

 

Likewise, matter is a state of awareness that is dense, can transform to states of touch, then to the state of holding, etc.

 

Also, we are concerned with the boundaries of what is knowable. Even the knowledge that there may be something outside of awareness is your own knowledge. Or that it is uncertain is your knowledge. We cannot escape our subjective biases of our existence, and recognizing that imo is a crucial beginning of inquiry.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Birch]

"We cannot escape our subjective biases of our existence,"

 

Why would we want to? And don't we know that already?

[Marblehead]

"We cannot escape our subjective biases of our existence,"

 

Why would we want to? And don't we know that already?

 

Excellent point!!! I think the only reason we would want to release our subjective biases would be if they were based on faulty data. Otherwise our subjective biases express our individuality.

[goldisheavy]

"We cannot escape our subjective biases of our existence,"

 

Why would we want to? And don't we know that already?

 

It all depends on what school of thought you come from. If you come from a school of thought that proclaims objective reality to exist and to be what is ultimately real, then subjectivity is what gets in the way of perceiving what is real. So for these sorts of people subjectivity is something everyone must work hard to set aside or to sweep away in order to get closer to the objective truth.

 

If you don't believe in an objective reality, then subjectivity ranges from neutral to positive. In the neutral sense it neither helps nor hinders anything. In the positive sense subjectivity is the story-weaving power, which is a positive and good power when used wisely and tastefully for everyone's benefit.

Edited August 10, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

It all depends on what school of thought you come from. If you come from a school of thought that proclaims objective reality to exist and to be what is ultimately real, then subjectivity is what gets in the way of perceiving what is real. So for these sorts of people subjectivity is something everyone must work hard to set aside or to sweep away in order to get closer to the objective truth.

 

If you don't believe in an objective reality, then subjectivity ranges from neutral to positive. In the neutral sense it neither helps nor hinders anything. In the positive sense subjectivity is the story-weaving power, which is a positive and good power when used wisely and tastefully for everyone's benefit.

 

What 'school of thought' proclaims that 'objective' reality exists and is ultimately real? I was under the impression that there was an acceptance of the role of 'the observer' in pretty much everything, including scientific method - which is why 'we' try to invent models that kick the observer out (as an aside that's kind of weird because then 'we' end up with a dead/fake observer).

 

Anyway, what I mean is if we didn't recognize subjectivity then 'we' wouldn't have to make things like this up, would 'we'? We could just rely on whatever anyone came up with because the 'reality out there' would be the same whatever or whoever perceived it.

 

So we have a bunch of subjective perceivers but some of them decide they'd rather give over their subjectivity to a dead/fake person (or model) ?? Or, to be softer, they were convinced/coerced into it when they didn't know better? This is the part I don't get yet.

 

Anyway, I like to look at whatever model is on offer and then somehow find a way of relating to it. Generally to my benefit, but what seems to 'work' better is when it is also to others' benefit. Otherwise 'we' end up with insane 'authorities' insisting on 'one way'. I wonder how many people are just going 'oh whatever, I'll pretend to buy it but I actually don't'?

[dwai]

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.

Almost sounds like vajraHridaya or mikaelz...same alaya obsession, same zest for buddhization....

 

Just sayin' that's all...

[goldisheavy]

What 'school of thought' proclaims that 'objective' reality exists and is ultimately real? I was under the impression that there was an acceptance of the role of 'the observer' in pretty much everything, including scientific method - which is why 'we' try to invent models that kick the observer out (as an aside that's kind of weird because then 'we' end up with a dead/fake observer).

 

It's not the mainstream view in my experience.

 

Anyway, what I mean is if we didn't recognize subjectivity then 'we' wouldn't have to make things like this up, would 'we'? We could just rely on whatever anyone came up with because the 'reality out there' would be the same whatever or whoever perceived it.

 

So we have a bunch of subjective perceivers but some of them decide they'd rather give over their subjectivity to a dead/fake person (or model) ?? Or, to be softer, they were convinced/coerced into it when they didn't know better? This is the part I don't get yet.

 

I used to think objective reality existed, so I do get how it could happen.

 

Anyway, I like to look at whatever model is on offer and then somehow find a way of relating to it. Generally to my benefit, but what seems to 'work' better is when it is also to others' benefit. Otherwise 'we' end up with insane 'authorities' insisting on 'one way'. I wonder how many people are just going 'oh whatever, I'll pretend to buy it but I actually don't'?

 

Obviously it's impossible to count that which is not on display.

[Marblehead]

What 'school of thought' proclaims that 'objective' reality exists and is ultimately real?

 

Mine!!! (Amongst others.) (And for the Buddhists reading this: But nothing lasts forever, all things are only temporary.)

[Todd]

I've been trying to finish an Interlibrary Loan book, before I have to return it. Not looking likely, and I'm gonna be away from the forum for several days, starting tomorrow evening, so I thought I would make some replies before then.

You're talking about intelligence. It is intelligence that is neither uniform nor randomly non-uniform. Sounds like God. There is still a good reason to ignore this. Why? You cannot distinguish this sort of influence from internal movements of awareness. There is no criteria you can establish for differentiating internal causes from external. Not only is it a whopping assumption that there is a permanently external-to-awareness intelligence in the form of unaware matter no less, but you then must invent some ad-hoc way of differentiating this influence from everything else that happens as a natural permutation of the state of awareness.

 

It does complicate things, doesn't it? It is much more elegant to go with the awareness is all approach, but this elegance does not equal proof. It is a preference, with basis in reason, but not a proof.

 

If you want to call it intelligence, that is fine. We're talking about something that is provisionally unknown, so I'm not sure that you can ascribe intelligence nature to it just yet. For example, atoms are things that are non-uniform, but can be described in a non-random, non-uniform way by probabilities. Some might ascribe intelligence to them, but this is not the only way of looking at it.

 

We may be able to tease out influences, especially if we don't assume that nothing accessible to awareness can be a source of awareness. It may be more elegant to do so, and it may have some practical benefits, but it is not proven.

 

 

It's a weak position that puts you at a disadvantage. (you're sharing your power with something that appears as if outside your intent) You should first assume that there is no such external meddlesome influence and try living that way. If you fail, then downgrade. Starting with the downgraded view on your first try is a mistake. Assume the best, and go forward from there.

 

This is not my first try, nor is it for most people. I think the common assumption of many children is that their intent should be able to control all, and that their experience is the sum and total of the universe. This is the first manifestation of the ego, "I am all". If they learn that their name is "Baby", then they will point to things that they see and say, "Baby!" Experience disabuses them of this notion. Then they tend to develop neurotic ego, "I am, and there is a world separate from me." The next stage is not a return to "I am all", though including that view again can be quite helpful. It is a dropping of ego and an opening to the wonder of existence beyond all notions of what is or what can be, which is then able to partake of all notions of what is and what can be.

 

I know that awareness is not generated by anything that appears within awareness. Knowing this alone is more than enough. I know for a fact that awareness is not generated by the brain, for example. Why not? Because the brain appears to us as a concrete object that's contextualized by the state of awareness.

 

We already discussed this. The brain that generates awareness in the brain generating awareness model is not an object of awareness, except through rather roundabout means, and awareness of this brain will always be incomplete, at least to the awareness that it generates (though perhaps, through a group or machine assisted effort most things about it can potentially be known or observed, subject to the limitations of the uncertainty principle), and so it is a potential source of awareness, no matter how non-modest such a possibility may be. You cannot absolutely know that this is not so based upon what you have presented, though it can be your preference based upon reason.

 

The brain is a reification of something that we know doesn't exist as anything more than an illusion.

All arguments aside, I really like this sentence. It seems to jump out of both the views that we are presenting.

There is nothing advantageous in considering a less empowering position before you consider the most empowering one. Remember, if you really believe some external-to-awareness reality generates awareness and then interferes with it in some intelligent and non-trivial manner, this influence is permanently beyond your intent. So this position puts you into the role of a victim. You're at the mercy of this other reality and you can't inspect it directly. If it turns out you can completely figure out how to work with this permanently external-to-awareness reality, then guess what? It's not outside awareness after all, if you can be aware of it. But if it's an object of awareness, it's not able to generate awareness. So if something permanently and fundamentally external to awareness generates it, it must be completely foreign and opaque, or it must be completely transparent, ending up being irrelevant either way.

 

There are more options. It may be influencable by intent, but not completely so. One might be able to come to understand the ways that it is not currently influencable and make adjustments in how one lives one's life in accordance with that understanding. The greater the understanding of it, the more likely that more of it might be influencable. It may all eventually be influencable, but to come to realize this influence, we may have to pass through a deep acceptance and understanding of the seeming matter qualities of existence.

 

This is completely wrong. There is a reason why awareness is grander than any one object. Whatever object appears to your conscious awareness only has meaning to the extent it's being contextualized and defined by meanings and relations of other objects that do not appear to your conscious awareness. So for example, if I enter into a perfectly dark room, I know it is dark because I know what light is like and this isn't it. So I need the knowledge of light to be available to my subconscious mind in order to perceive darkness. So even if the object of perfect darkness is completely at the forefront of conscious awareness, it's only dark to the extent the object of lightness exists in my subconscious awareness. That's a simple example. Other examples are dramatically more complex. So seeing a blade of grass means you have the entire known and unknown universe in your subconscious mind, or else you wouldn't know what grass was and wouldn't be able to recognize it as such.

 

This is a difficult topic. To fail to understand what I am describing about is very very common and expected.

 

So in short, things only have meaning thanks to context. Nothing has its own meaning. There is no forkness in the fork and no horseness in the horse. No grassness in the grass. Etc. No object brings its own meaning along with it. Meaning is relative to context and context is infinite. That's why awareness is not just objects that appear in it. Awareness is a living breathing intentional context together with objects that appear thanks to that context, intent, beliefs and habit. It's all of that. And you are that.

 

This is based on the idea that meaning is derived from an infinite field of possibilities as opposed to a finite field of possibilities within a finite awareness. Objects as we experience them (the meaning of objects) need not be the sole reality of objects in such a case, since awareness is not defined as all. In your view, I understand that this is exactly how things are, that the meaning of objects is their sole reality. Your view is elegant, but it is not proven. It is a preference based upon reason.

 

You can't infer anything outside your own awareness. You can only assume it. Inference only works on things inside awareness (conscious and subconscious minds are both game for inference).

 

Once again, you are speaking only from your paradigm of awareness as all. If one considers a finite awareness, within a larger reality, then it is easy to infer things that are outside of awareness. For example, I can infer that there is a person who is typing these messages to me. The only thing that I am aware of is that these messages have been appearing, and they seem to respond to my messages, so you are not in my awareness, but something that you do is in my awareness, so I can infer that you exist and have been typing messages to me. I do not know this for certain, but I can reason with a high degree of probability that this is the case.

 

I feel kind've like I am talking to someone with a great faith in God, who keeps bringing God into the discussion, even though he cannot provide proof for God. He can only provide strong reasons for believing in God and his preference for those reasons and his belief in God, but despite not being able to provide proof for God, he uses God in his arguments as a way of providing proof for all sorts of things, including God! This is a very slippery way of reasoning and leads to a very insular view.

 

Definitely. Such inference would castrate you as a being and make you stupid, helpless, confused. It's the stripping of your power.

 

Its funny that you should say this here and the opposite in your next post.

 

Awareness is permanent necessarily. Why so? Because things have meaning only within context. Context cannot have a beginning. Context cannot be established. There is no way to start a context. Context is eternal.

 

So if something exists permanently outside awareness generating it, then both awareness and this something must be permanent because we know awareness is permanent due to its endlessly contextual nature.

 

All your life you've experienced modifications of the state of awareness. You've never experienced generation or creation of awareness. If you believe in creation or generation of awareness, it's not because you have personal experience of such things.

 

You have not conclusively established meaning and reality as being equal, so this argument is not valid, except on the basis of that assumption.

 

It is true that I can only infer the generation or creation of awareness, as you define it. Though as a concept or experience, I can and have experienced its creation.

 

Also, I can see children being born. I can infer that they are aware, based upon how they react, though I cannot be sure. I have good reason for thinking that they are aware, and I would have to assume that they are not aware, so in terms of probability, I tend to go with them being aware. This is a good reason to consider the possibility that awareness is created or generated, since before they were conceived and born, I had no basis for inferring that their awareness existed. I only had the experience of my own awareness and the ability to infer that others also were aware. When they are born, I have a basis to infer that a new awareness has come into being.

[Birch]

Mine!!! (Amongst others.) (And for the Buddhists reading this: But nothing lasts forever, all things are only temporary.)

 

Mr Marblehead, i don't think it counts as a "school of thought" if there's just you in it:-)

Like you can't have a "school" of one fish;-) And I think "school" implies that it gets taught.. Things that get taught might be useful but it doesn't mean they're...oh rats, no word for it:-)

 

There's a bit too much of the r-word in here. Why use it anyway if nothing can be r-worded? And how do we get to make up words for things that aren't possible? But I digress

[Todd]

It wouldn't lose these qualities. It would be as always. What you describe is a real object that's knowable in contradistinction to all the ordinary objects that tend to appear. And vice versa. The reason we know these various mundane objects here is partly because we also subconsciously know the state of all-potential. The contextual relatedness that defines meanings stretches into the realms of mystery and unknowing, but these realms are within awareness and are accessible.

 

Transitioning in and out of that state demonstrates a meaningful relatedness between all possible objects.

 

 

 

This non-division is also a kind of division because it appears as an experience that's distinct from one of diverse multifarious mundane objects. So in this sense, nothing is destroyed when the non-divided all-potential object presents itself to the conscious awareness and the various diverse objects retreat into the subconscious. And when the all-potential object recedes into the subconscious and various diverse objects appear once again, nothing is created.

 

So there is a division between a state of division and a state of non-division. And even if you could unify these two states, this union would still be divided from the case where it's not unified. So division is always there when it comes to experience. The only true non-division is not something experiential, but a realization of an enlightened being that transcends all possible experiences, including all possible mystical experiences.

 

 

 

Of course there is always awareness. That state is also intentional. Just the fact that you're talking about it now demonstrates it is within the scope of awareness.

 

 

 

Exactly. "Awareness" is just a tool concept. But as a tool, it is the best tool. A tool par excellence.

 

 

 

Ok. We mostly agree. Anything that can be talked about, thought of, or experienced is a division of that which is. As such, that which is, reality as it were, is not any of those divisions. It cannot be experienced as such, though nothing that is experienced is actually separate from it.

 

Any name that we give it, including awareness, is a division of it. It is not just the name that is the division, but the experience that gives rise to the name.

 

Our disagreement is your identification of awareness as the best tool, "a tool par excellence". I agree that it is a very good tool, but if we are to limit ourselves to only one tool, then we will be limiting ourselves severely. I don't care if our tool is a super-duper swiss army knife with 50 extensions. There are things that a swiss army knife just isn't the best tool for. You know the saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, everything will start to look like a nail"?

 

One can see everything as "I". One can everything as "emptiness". One can see everything as "God". One can see everything as "Light". One can see everything as "Dark". One can see everything as "everything". One can see everything as "nothing". One can see everything as "awareness". One can see everything as "non-awareness" (gasp!). One can everything as "potential". One can see everything as "mystery".

 

Every one of these ways of seeing everything has something to offer.

 

What I like about your particular way of seeing things, what I gained from exploring your point of view, is the way that intent is seen as a natural part of awareness. It is necessary for manifestation, and inseparable from the capacity for anything to be experienced. I like this, because part of the teachings that I have been engaging speak of the falling away of personal will. Those teachings utilize intent, but due to their focus, the intent is engaged in ways that are a bit subterranean, getting at a deeper movement, or a more inclusive intent, such that one can start to feel a bit alienated from one's day to day intent. There is both a power and downfall to this approach, and so I appreciate the perspective on intent that your view brings. It makes intent's use and function and nature clearer to me.

 

I also like that it starts from the everyday experience of awareness. This is powerful as well, though there is also a trap in it. This is not a trap that might not be escaped, but it is there nonetheless. There is a temptation to return to the child ego of "I am all! My will reigns supreme over all creation!" It is kinda true, but that creation is not separate from the I that is declaring supremacy (though it sure appears separate from any ego "I") so there isn't much point in making such a bold declaration. It doesn't have the same juice in that light, but any part of ego that still sees itself as separate will thrive and generate juice from that declaration, and start trying to control things everywhere as if that was what it was meant for. It isn't meant to control, since that happens beyond (but including) "separate" ego. It is meant to allow appreciation and enjoyment. At least thats my view at the moment.

 

At first it doesn't change much of anything, because beliefs and habits have force that has to be coped with in terms of pragmatic reality. Later on it brings the experiences that are inconceivable from the point of view of the ordinary mindset. These experiences at first elicit great fear and a feeling of insanity. Eventually this can be overcome. This stage can be called "tolerance of the inconceivability of phenomena." At that point your life cannot be described except as one of freedom. At some point you might even get bored of being free and wish to be limited and stupid once again so you can re-experience it all over again.

I find it fascinating that you see it this way when I present it to you using your point of view and language, but you saw it the opposite when I presented the same thing to you from a different point of view.

 

This conversation has brought up a couple quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, which is not something that I really refer to much at all, but my teacher mentions from time to time. The first quote was brought to mind by your statement, "These experiences at first elicit great fear..."

 

The quote is: "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."

 

The random website that I got this from includes this at the end of the quote: "[And after they have reigned they will rest.]" I'm not sure where that is coming from, given that it is in brackets, but just thought I'd mention it, since it was there.

 

The second quote, which my teacher does not refer to, but came up the one time that I read a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, has to do with our broader discussion, and has provided some the inspiration for my exploration of the body as source of awareness point of view as potentially valid. The idea being that perhaps there might be more wonder to be found through the exploration of even this possibility, instead of just blithely attempting to sweep the appearance of matter under the rug:

 

"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."

 

We have been trying to avoid matter for a long time. The acceptance of the appearance of matter has been hard won, especially in the face of numerous religious points of view. I do not choose to think of this as having just been a giant aberration. It may have swung too far in the direction of giving matter supremacy, but isn't it interesting that even through an intense investigation of matter as all, that scientists have begun to discover matter's "non-matter" properties?

 

I think that tied into this are considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it. But this hasn't for the most part been successful, except in a very limited way. I think that we are now being called to include the body, and perhaps to include matter, in our explorations of spirit, and to call off this war, trying to get all of ourselves into one or the other, so that we might reign supreme.

 

Well, this was very impressive. You seem to understand my view pretty well.

 

 

Thank you. I am glad you think so. Perhaps we can talk without you accusing me of arch idiocy and incapability of understanding you so often.

 

 

[Todd]

Lucky,

 

I know it might seem that I am arguing for non-awareness being the source of awareness, but this isn't my main argument. My main argument is that it is a possibility, and that allowing this possibility has the potential to inform our experience in interesting ways (such as for example, considering the way that a third thing, which you gave the name "awareness" might have different densities, as you hinted, and that those denser aspects might have intimate relation with awareness, and perhaps even give rise to particular of its forms).

 

Probably most people who are attracted to a point of view beyond, "brain is the source and location of awareness", would not be inclined to reinclude this view as a possiblity, within a field of possibilities, but for better or worse, this is what I am suggesting.

 

At the very least, I am suggesting that one not declare proof for things by means that do not actually provide proof, but are actually just very well reasoned preferences.

 

With regard to, "Even the experience of non-aware matter is just a further division of awareness"... maybe so.

[Todd]

There's a bit too much of the r-word in here. Why use it anyway if nothing can be r-worded? And how do we get to make up words for things that aren't possible? But I digress

 

 

 

 

 

 

[goldisheavy]

I've been trying to finish an Interlibrary Loan book, before I have to return it. Not looking likely, and I'm gonna be away from the forum for several days, starting tomorrow evening, so I thought I would make some replies before then.

 

 

It does complicate things, doesn't it? It is much more elegant to go with the awareness is all approach, but this elegance does not equal proof. It is a preference, with basis in reason, but not a proof.

 

You'll never be able to prove your proposed position either. So what we have here is a contest of two preferences. You seem to agree my preference is grounded in reason. I don't see any reason in your preference though. Your entire argument up to this point seems to be, "Something permanently beyond awareness might be out there."

 

If you want to call it intelligence, that is fine. We're talking about something that is provisionally unknown, so I'm not sure that you can ascribe intelligence nature to it just yet. For example, atoms are things that are non-uniform, but can be described in a non-random, non-uniform way by probabilities. Some might ascribe intelligence to them, but this is not the only way of looking at it.

 

We know that atoms don't really exist as such. Standard Buddhist logic applies here. It's no wonder you think that atoms reflect intelligence because the world presented to you by the fluctuating states of your own awareness is indeed shaped by your own intelligence. It's your own intelligence you're ascribing to atoms, as if atoms were anything more than the shifting states of your conscious awareness.

 

We may be able to tease out influences,

 

Give it a try. I can't even imagine how you'd begin.

 

especially if we don't assume that nothing accessible to awareness can be a source of awareness. It may be more elegant to do so, and it may have some practical benefits, but it is not proven.

 

This is not my first try, nor is it for most people. I think the common assumption of many children is that their intent should be able to control all, and that their experience is the sum and total of the universe. This is the first manifestation of the ego, "I am all". If they learn that their name is "Baby", then they will point to things that they see and say, "Baby!"

 

I've never had this experience and I've been around small kids and never seen them do this. Ever. I've had amazing experiences in my childhood but nothing even close to this. It sounds to me like you're either making it all up or you're describing your personal experience forgetting that you don't necessarily represent the common case.

 

Experience disabuses them of this notion. Then they tend to develop neurotic ego, "I am, and there is a world separate from me." The next stage is not a return to "I am all", though including that view again can be quite helpful. It is a dropping of ego and an opening to the wonder of existence beyond all notions of what is or what can be, which is then able to partake of all notions of what is and what can be.

 

 

 

We already discussed this. The brain that generates awareness in the brain generating awareness model is not an object of awareness, except through rather roundabout means, and awareness of this brain will always be incomplete, at least to the awareness that it generates (though perhaps, through a group or machine assisted effort most things about it can potentially be known or observed, subject to the limitations of the uncertainty principle), and so it is a potential source of awareness, no matter how non-modest such a possibility may be. You cannot absolutely know that this is not so based upon what you have presented, though it can be your preference based upon reason.

 

 

All arguments aside, I really like this sentence. It seems to jump out of both the views that we are presenting.

 

 

There are more options. It may be influencable by intent, but not completely so. One might be able to come to understand the ways that it is not currently influencable and make adjustments in how one lives one's life in accordance with that understanding. The greater the understanding of it, the more likely that more of it might be influencable. It may all eventually be influencable, but to come to realize this influence, we may have to pass through a deep acceptance and understanding of the seeming matter qualities of existence.

 

 

 

This is based on the idea that meaning is derived from an infinite field of possibilities as opposed to a finite field of possibilities within a finite awareness. Objects as we experience them (the meaning of objects) need not be the sole reality of objects in such a case, since awareness is not defined as all. In your view, I understand that this is exactly how things are, that the meaning of objects is their sole reality. Your view is elegant, but it is not proven. It is a preference based upon reason.

 

Once again, you are speaking only from your paradigm of awareness as all. If one considers a finite awareness, within a larger reality, then it is easy to infer things that are outside of awareness. For example, I can infer that there is a person who is typing these messages to me. The only thing that I am aware of is that these messages have been appearing, and they seem to respond to my messages, so you are not in my awareness, but something that you do is in my awareness, so I can infer that you exist and have been typing messages to me. I do not know this for certain, but I can reason with a high degree of probability that this is the case.

 

I feel kind've like I am talking to someone with a great faith in God, who keeps bringing God into the discussion, even though he cannot provide proof for God.

 

The slight difference being that I am aware of being aware, so I don't have to take the fact of awareness on faith. Whereas I've never seen or experienced God. I've had experiences I might refer to as God-like, but that's as close as it gets. So neither experiences nor reason support the idea of God. Whereas both reason and experience support the idea of awareness. Other than that small difference I am exactly like someone with unbending faith in God, yes.

 

What reasons do you have to believe that something fundamentally unaware exists permanently beyond awareness, generating it and then influencing its contents? Wouldn't this position be a lot more akin to faith in God than mine?

 

He can only provide strong reasons for believing in God and his preference for those reasons and his belief in God, but despite not being able to provide proof for God, he uses God in his arguments as a way of providing proof for all sorts of things, including God! This is a very slippery way of reasoning and leads to a very insular view.

 

 

 

Its funny that you should say this here and the opposite in your next post.

 

 

 

You have not conclusively established meaning and reality as being equal, so this argument is not valid, except on the basis of that assumption.

 

It is true that I can only infer the generation or creation of awareness, as you define it. Though as a concept or experience, I can and have experienced its creation.

 

You've experienced the creation of your own awareness? Do tell!

 

Also, I can see children being born. I can infer that they are aware, based upon how they react, though I cannot be sure. I have good reason for thinking that they are aware, and I would have to assume that they are not aware, so in terms of probability, I tend to go with them being aware. This is a good reason to consider the possibility that awareness is created or generated, since before they were conceived and born, I had no basis for inferring that their awareness existed.

 

What you also notice if you pay attention is that kids miraculously are able to understand the world around them. If kids were born with blank minds, they'd have no context with which to make sense of the world.

 

I only had the experience of my own awareness and the ability to infer that others also were aware. When they are born, I have a basis to infer that a new awareness has come into being.

 

It's not new, that's for sure. It relies on much the same pre-existing context of meanings that all beings in our realm share.

Edited August 10, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Ok. We mostly agree. Anything that can be talked about, thought of, or experienced is a division of that which is. As such, that which is, reality as it were, is not any of those divisions. It cannot be experienced as such, though nothing that is experienced is actually separate from it.

 

Any name that we give it, including awareness, is a division of it.

 

Awareness is not a division because awareness is not an ordinary name. Unawareness is awareness. This doesn't apply to other names. For example light is not also darkness. But you have to be aware of not being aware to have the concept of unawareness. So unawareness is a form of awareness.

 

It is not just the name that is the division, but the experience that gives rise to the name.

 

Our disagreement is your identification of awareness as the best tool, "a tool par excellence". I agree that it is a very good tool, but if we are to limit ourselves to only one tool, then we will be limiting ourselves severely. I don't care if our tool is a super-duper swiss army knife with 50 extensions. There are things that a swiss army knife just isn't the best tool for. You know the saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, everything will start to look like a nail"?

 

One can see everything as "I". One can everything as "emptiness". One can see everything as "God". One can see everything as "Light". One can see everything as "Dark". One can see everything as "everything". One can see everything as "nothing". One can see everything as "awareness". One can see everything as "non-awareness" (gasp!). One can everything as "potential". One can see everything as "mystery".

 

Every one of these ways of seeing everything has something to offer.

 

What I like about your particular way of seeing things, what I gained from exploring your point of view, is the way that intent is seen as a natural part of awareness. It is necessary for manifestation, and inseparable from the capacity for anything to be experienced. I like this, because part of the teachings that I have been engaging speak of the falling away of personal will. Those teachings utilize intent, but due to their focus, the intent is engaged in ways that are a bit subterranean, getting at a deeper movement, or a more inclusive intent, such that one can start to feel a bit alienated from one's day to day intent. There is both a power and downfall to this approach, and so I appreciate the perspective on intent that your view brings. It makes intent's use and function and nature clearer to me.

 

What you're describing is 1) very powerful and 2) not whatsoever contradicting the view of intent I present. In my view, we as humans, ultimately do not understand the true extent and the true nature of our own intent. Human flavor of intent is only the starting point for us drunkards. You can never forgo your intent (eternal responsibility... it can be a harsh mistress). The best you can do is relax it so deeply that the ensuing experience goes beyond your understanding of what you are. Ultimately you can never really lose yourself. You can only lose your limited idea of yourself. You can lose something that you never were to begin with. You can lose a role but not yourself.

 

My view is precisely the view that allows for the best, most total relaxation.

 

I also like that it starts from the everyday experience of awareness. This is powerful as well, though there is also a trap in it. This is not a trap that might not be escaped, but it is there nonetheless. There is a temptation to return to the child ego of "I am all! My will reigns supreme over all creation!" It is kinda true, but that creation is not separate from the I that is declaring supremacy (though it sure appears separate from any ego "I") so there isn't much point in making such a bold declaration. It doesn't have the same juice in that light, but any part of ego that still sees itself as separate will thrive and generate juice from that declaration, and start trying to control things everywhere as if that was what it was meant for.

 

You talk about your own ego as if it was self-powered somehow. In reality there is only you. You are beyond your ego. What you call ego is you egoing. It's an activity that you enjoy performing. When you are egoing you can simultaneously influence things that are seemingly outside of yourself. You can also stop egoing and in that state you can also influence things that are seemingly nowhere (because without egoing in some way you lose the sense of location). The influence can be direct or indirect. Direct influence means simply relaxing and knowing all is a reflection of your undying intent. Indirect influence means exercising intent through a structured awareness, and awareness is structured by beliefs and habits (psychological factors). And yes, it is power. But this power is your birthright and the best any of us can do is to try to talk you away from it or confuse you in some way. Even then, it's all your doing. If I can confuse you, it's only because you can confuse yourself. Once you are no longer willing to be confused, there is shit all I or anyone else can do.

 

It isn't meant to control, since that happens beyond (but including) "separate" ego. It is meant to allow appreciation and enjoyment. At least thats my view at the moment.

 

I find it fascinating that you see it this way when I present it to you using your point of view and language, but you saw it the opposite when I presented the same thing to you from a different point of view.

 

This conversation has brought up a couple quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, which is not something that I really refer to much at all, but my teacher mentions from time to time. The first quote was brought to mind by your statement, "These experiences at first elicit great fear..."

 

The quote is: "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."

 

The random website that I got this from includes this at the end of the quote: "[And after they have reigned they will rest.]" I'm not sure where that is coming from, given that it is in brackets, but just thought I'd mention it, since it was there.

 

The second quote, which my teacher does not refer to, but came up the one time that I read a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, has to do with our broader discussion, and has provided some the inspiration for my exploration of the body as source of awareness point of view as potentially valid. The idea being that perhaps there might be more wonder to be found through the exploration of even this possibility, instead of just blithely attempting to sweep the appearance of matter under the rug:

 

"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."

 

We have been trying to avoid matter for a long time.

 

Who is "we"? Do you mean yourself and your friends?

 

The acceptance of the appearance of matter has been hard won, especially in the face of numerous religious points of view. I do not choose to think of this as having just been a giant aberration. It may have swung too far in the direction of giving matter supremacy, but isn't it interesting that even through an intense investigation of matter as all, that scientists have begun to discover matter's "non-matter" properties?

 

This isn't surprising since when scientists investigate matter they really investigate their own mind in the most bass ackwards way possible. If the scientists remain disciplined and principled, sticking to reason and experimentation, they will find the same truth eventually, but it will be a very very slow and confusing road.

 

I think that tied into this are considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it.

 

My view doesn't ignore it. My view allows the study of structures as beliefs and habit. Habit is almost like matter with some crucial differences. Habit is not defined to be external to awareness. Habits can be arbitrarily difficult to change, but they can be changed intentionally in every case.

 

For me what the scientists are talking about is useful information because it presents to me the baseline of my subconscious habits.

 

Also, science is mostly honest. Only the metaphysics inherent in science are wrong. But insofar the scientists are disciplined and principled, they are really like deluded spiritual aspirants. They are the good guys who will eventually get the truth because they are searching for it sincerely and engage, even if they do have blind-faith assumptions that get in their way.

 

So I have a rather friendly relationship with science, even if the scientific community fears someone like me.

 

Also, I don't view all habits as bad. This computer here is a mind habit, but it's an enjoyable one. I don't plan to dissolve it soon. That's just one example.

 

But this hasn't for the most part been successful, except in a very limited way. I think that we are now being called to include the body, and perhaps to include matter, in our explorations of spirit, and to call off this war, trying to get all of ourselves into one or the other, so that we might reign supreme.

 

Thank you. I am glad you think so. Perhaps we can talk without you accusing me of arch idiocy and incapability of understanding you so often.

 

I am convinced you understood everything I said in this specific discussion.

 

I also notice you don't really argue against my view per se. You mostly try to promote and defend the view of there being something unaware, call it matter if you like, permanently existing beyond awareness and generating it and then quasi-intelligently interfering with the contents of awareness. It can't be God, because God is the ultimate awareness, if anything. But it's like God in many ways, yea? Like God you have to take it on faith and like God you claim it produces interference that you then claim to be intelligible and discernible.

 

Well, since I am convinced you understand what I said so far, maybe you can start over, forget my view for a second, and try to present your view from start to finish, give reasons for it, explain its benefits, etc. There is hardly any point in talking about my view now, since we both seem to agree to disagree and whatnot, and I am sure you understand my view enough to be able to reject it authentically (which is your right in my books).

Edited August 10, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

"...considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it."

 

Sorry to cherrypick Todd but I believe the opposite. What I believe is that many religions and traditions have a grasp (in many cases a pretty firm one at that) of "human nature" that they use to leverage whatever needs/wants leveraging. Ever notice the messages vehicled alongside all the "love"? And why the dualism all over the teachings? Why the requirement to worship as a group/community/sangha? Sounds weird huh? But why on earth would the first thing a child hears at church be that he/she is a sinner/born of sin or that the ego needs killing, or any variant of the latter?

I'm pondering it and haven't concluded yet but I saw your sentence as an opportunity.

[Marblehead]

"...considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it."

 

Sorry to cherrypick Todd but I believe the opposite. What I believe is that many religions and traditions have a grasp (in many cases a pretty firm one at that) of "human nature" that they use to leverage whatever needs/wants leveraging. Ever notice the messages vehicled alongside all the "love"? And why the dualism all over the teachings? Why the requirement to worship as a group/community/sangha? Sounds weird huh? But why on earth would the first thing a child hears at church be that he/she is a sinner/born of sin or that the ego needs killing, or any variant of the latter?

I'm pondering it and haven't concluded yet but I saw your sentence as an opportunity.

 

Yeah, I noticed that you are still working with that one. Let me know when you think you have it figured out. Okay?

[Birch]

Yeah, I noticed that you are still working with that one. Let me know when you think you have it figured out. Okay?

Could take a while and also displease folks. It's all tied up like a bunch of crossed wires:-) Many things to consider:-) I think a better idea is to look at the various religions from a practice standpoint. I've found if I do that then they all seem to say quite similar things. But without practice IMO they're dangerous. But maybe I'm outdated when it comes to such things.

 

I think the theologians have a good handle on it (it is after all their "science"). I should go talk to some. There was a guy here called Prince who did both I think.

[Everything]

Hi Everything,

 

I had to switch your post around to be able to respond in the way I feel best.

 

 

 

I am still open for further understanding regarding what 'mind' is. I will agree that 'mind' includes consciousness but I feel the need to expand on this even though I really have no idea what all to include. I think that our 'gut feelings' and 'intuitive inspirations' belong with the mind as well but I can't justify why I feel this way.

 

The 'brain' isn't really a problem - it can be physically identified. Consider that I believe that we all have personal Chi that interacts with Chi of the universe as well as with other beings as well as plant life. Does this belong in the arena of the 'mind'?

 

 

 

Hehehe. Made me think of the old D. O. stuff. The Buddhists here are getting to me.

 

In my understanding, the brain is relative to life; the mind is relative to the brain. Without life the brain no longer functions. Without the brain the mind has no focal point for awareness/recognition. So, in Buddhist terms, the brain is dependant on physical life and the mind is dependant on the the functioning brain.

 

Yeah, everything is relative. Hehehe.

And so it has been said! The brain shall be this and the mind shall be that!

 

Their relationship can be found within their connection. When you take away the two and make them one of each, they are no longer related. When you take them appart in order to seek an answer, they are from that moment on directly related to your desire of truth and no longer directly related to eachother.

 

Thus, you must seek to observe the relationship passively and make no distinction between the two related. Then you shall find that the relationship between the mind and the brain is strong, solid, indestructible, constant, everlasting, timeless, infite, etc.

 

However, if you wish to destroy the relationship, your must make a destinction between the two related. The relationship between the mind and the brain, then, becomes weak, flexible, everchanging, etc.

 

Thus the relationship between the mind and the brain shall forever remain relative. So good of you to recognize that even I am relative!

 

Also thanks for the reply and sorry for such a late response! Thought I'd respond anyway, cause I enjoyed reading your comment

Edited August 11, 2011 by Everything

[Todd]

You'll never be able to prove your proposed position either. So what we have here is a contest of two preferences. You seem to agree my preference is grounded in reason. I don't see any reason in your preference though. Your entire argument up to this point seems to be, "Something permanently beyond awareness might be out there."

 

I agree. Thats why I have never claimed proof for my position. I am not trying to make the position of non-awareness source of awareness win out over awareness as all. I am only trying to open up the conversation a bit.

 

Having explored your view more thoroughly, I agree that it is more elegant and fun (for me at least), and if I had to choose one or the other, then I would choose something similar to yours, but luckily I do not have to choose. To me views are like tools, since none is actually complete, and there is a time and a place for different tools.

 

 

I've never had this experience and I've been around small kids and never seen them do this. Ever. I've had amazing experiences in my childhood but nothing even close to this. It sounds to me like you're either making it all up or you're describing your personal experience forgetting that you don't necessarily represent the common case.

 

I am referring to my niece, who just recently turned two. She doesn't only go around calling things, "Baby", but she does it often enough that I have noticed. I can't speak for what she is thinking, when she says this, but it intriguing to me. Part of the reason that you may not remember this, is that it likely happens before we start retaining conscious memories that persist into adulthood.

 

Are you saying that you never had the feeling that your intent should be able to change things as a kid?

 

 

The slight difference being that I am aware of being aware, so I don't have to take the fact of awareness on faith. Whereas I've never seen or experienced God. I've had experiences I might refer to as God-like, but that's as close as it gets. So neither experiences nor reason support the idea of God. Whereas both reason and experience support the idea of awareness. Other than that small difference I am exactly like someone with unbending faith in God, yes.

 

Many people who believe in God have an experience/experiences of God, that they refer to along with whatever other reasons they have for believing.

 

What reasons do you have to believe that something fundamentally unaware exists permanently beyond awareness, generating it and then influencing its contents? Wouldn't this position be a lot more akin to faith in God than mine?

 

I don't believe this and I don't use it as a proof for anything. Speaking about a possibility and the potential that might lay in considering this possibility is a very different thing from belief.

 

 

You've experienced the creation of your own awareness? Do tell!

 

As I said, I have not experienced the creation of awareness as you have defined it. As a concept or an experience, I have. Awareness as an experience can have different qualities, but the one I was referring to is awareness as a field, a kind've diffuse observer, permeating everything. This is a division from what you are calling awareness, in that there is a presence of a field that is experiencing everything, as opposed to a lack of such presence. If I no longer make this division, then the field disappears. There is also no non-field, really. Its just not an aspect of experience. If I make the division again, then it reappears. Its not at all dissimilar to no longer generating the experience of "I". All sorts of other stuff can go on in the absence of that experience. Conceptually this doesn't make sense ("How can you experience anything without an 'I'!?"). Awareness as a concept or experience is just another aspect of existence and can be experienced or not.

 

What you also notice if you pay attention is that kids miraculously are able to understand the world around them. If kids were born with blank minds, they'd have no context with which to make sense of the world.

 

There might be something to this. Kids do appear to develop more context and to be able to understand more things as they have more experiences though.

 

It's not new, that's for sure. It relies on much the same pre-existing context of meanings that all beings in our realm share.

 

Perhaps.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Todd