leth Posted October 2, 2015 It's all in our mind (brain). What is the mind? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 2, 2015 What is the mind? That's why I added the word "brain". Anyone can tell us where our brain is. The word "mind" is intended to include more than just the physical brain. Different people will add different aspects of the universe to the brain and then call it their mind. Some people still believe that their mind is within their heart. This is understandable because our heart is effected by our deeper emotions. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted October 2, 2015 Yes, and action does imply an actor, and ther we are back again, what is it about us that makes us actors? What is conciousness? What is it that experiences? What is it that acts? What is it that decides? That is a very interesting "problem" to solve. Indeed, what IS consciousness? What does it mean to be conscious? To be aware? One could say that "consciousness is the awareness of objects". That said, would it be true that if there were no objects, there would be no consciousness? In meditation we find that there can indeed be objectless consciousness...in the gap between thoughts. What does it tell us about the process of "reasoning" then? Reasoning, thinking etc are also actions of an actor then right? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Action and actor haven't been defined yet, for the purpose of this thread , though the english implies what the relationship would be once they were defined. Im not sure volitionless action should be included , and the boundaries of the actor in a universe need to be defined. For instance , a rock falling, is not using volition, its just moving in the direction of gravity. And if a doctor smacks my knee knee into twitching thats similar. If I cant help but reflect the circumstances of my upbringing , then what I say or do may just be physical consequence of past situations. Edited October 2, 2015 by Stosh 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leth Posted October 2, 2015 That's why I added the word "brain". Anyone can tell us where our brain is. The word "mind" is intended to include more than just the physical brain. Different people will add different aspects of the universe to the brain and then call it their mind. Some people still believe that their mind is within their heart. This is understandable because our heart is effected by our deeper emotions. What is your take on the hard problem of conciousness? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leth Posted October 2, 2015 That is a very interesting "problem" to solve. Indeed, what IS consciousness? What does it mean to be conscious? To be aware? One could say that "consciousness is the awareness of objects". That said, would it be true that if there were no objects, there would be no consciousness? But what is it that is aware? In meditation we find that there can indeed be objectless consciousness...in the gap between thoughts. Meditation surely gives us a certain tacit understanding of conciousness, and i would agree that it is beyond thoughts. It is still very hadrd to define with our lagnuage. That which can be expressed on the subject has alreday been expressed. What does it tell us about the process of "reasoning" then? Reasoning, thinking etc are also actions of an actor then right? It tells ut very little, aside from the fact that our conciousness is beyond thinking, we can also metacognise and that is an interesting aspect of the relationship between conciousness and cognition. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 2, 2015 What is your take on the hard problem of conciousness? I can go only so far with this due to lack of technical knowledge. Conscious thinking is done while we are awake and aware that it is we who are having the thought. Unconscious thinking is done while we sleep and actually at times when we are awake and recall stuff from the past. Most times this thinking is irrational. It has been proven many times over that chimpanzees are self-aware so it must be concluded that they are capable of conscious thinking. Therefore the ability is not strictly a human experience. I watched a documentary last night where the folks were studying the brain of cockroaches and dung beetles. I thouhgt to myself, I have know some humans who could have qualified for those experiments. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geof Nanto Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) On the subject of reason I like Blaise Pascal's lines.... "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." "Two excesses: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason." On consciousness....I suspect us humans will need to development a totally different way of understanding 'reality' to gain insight into the its nature. The current anthropocentric paradigms are manifestly inadequate. Personally, I like the notion from systems / environment theory that posits consciousness as a new and evolving form of non-biological life that lives in the environment of our brains, our bodies. We have a symbiotic relationship with consciousness. It's co-evolved with us. We're continually expanding its environment with our books, computers, hyperspace etc. But I'll leave it there as past experience tells me such a perspective will be met with incomprehension. Edited October 2, 2015 by Yueya 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AussieTrees Posted October 2, 2015 Action and actor haven't been defined yet, for the purpose of this thread , though the english implies what the relationship would be once they were defined. Im not sure volitionless action should be included , and the boundaries of the actor in a universe need to be defined. For instance , a rock falling, is not using volition, its just moving in the direction of gravity. And if a doctor smacks my knee knee into twitching thats similar. If I cant help but reflect the circumstances of my upbringing , then what I say or do may just be physical consequence of past situations. Hi Stosh,and thankyou to dwai. "If I can't help but reflect the circumstances of my upbringing,then what I say or do may just be physical consequence of past situation." No we can't help where or when or what circumstances of our birth and upbringing. Yes these events do have proclivities to the young child. Yet as we grow,at some point we also learn to make choices,which unfolds as idiosyncratic life experience. We choose to expand on our upbringing,and now with insight and compassion,we can help. Impermanence of proclivities is inevitable,although with some this is a slow process if not impossible. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted October 2, 2015 Conscious thinking is done while we are awake and aware that it is we who are having the thought. Unconscious thinking is done while we sleep and actually at times when we are awake and recall stuff from the past. Most times this thinking is irrational. If you're looking to define the thinker, just saying we or me isn't enough. We need to look deeper than that, otherwise why bother having the conversation. I question your definition of conscious vs unconscious thinking. When we think in our non-lucid dreams it is generally quite similar to our waking thought process. If you pay close attention, I suspect you won't find any difference. Similarly, we can become lucid in our sleeping dreams and carry on much as we would in our waking state, just without so many limitations. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Hi Stosh,and thankyou to dwai. "If I can't help but reflect the circumstances of my upbringing,then what I say or do may just be physical consequence of past situation." No we can't help where or when or what circumstances of our birth and upbringing. Yes these events do have proclivities to the young child. Yet as we grow,at some point we also learn to make choices,which unfolds as idiosyncratic life experience. We choose to expand on our upbringing,and now with insight and compassion,we can help. Impermanence of proclivities is inevitable,although with some this is a slow process if not impossible. Yeah that appears to be true , but its presuming free will exists,, which one may , I like to think it exists , but I don't know if its provable. Dwai is ,perhaps, presuming or inferring that there is an "actor". (Someone which actually is more than just a automaton and somehow dictates the flow of events in a time line, to what they might not have been. or along those lines) But ,We could just be very complicated pachinko machines, completely predictable so long as one has the correct algorithm, and any seeming 'choice' didnt actually exist. If we are pachinko machines, we have no individuality that can be called an actor and we are just the imagined cogs of a much bigger machine.. the cosmos .. the Tao ,.. etc. Edited October 2, 2015 by Stosh 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 2, 2015 If you're looking to define the thinker, just saying we or me isn't enough. We need to look deeper than that, otherwise why bother having the conversation. But you know I cannot go to those places. It is up to other members to speak to those aspects. I question your definition of conscious vs unconscious thinking. You are by no means the first person to ever question me regarding something I have said. When we think in our non-lucid dreams it is generally quite similar to our waking thought process. If you pay close attention, I suspect you won't find any difference. Similarly, we can become lucid in our sleeping dreams and carry on much as we would in our waking state, just without so many limitations. Fair and valid points. I have mentioned before that I rarely remember ever dreaming. The other night while sleeping I dreamed that it was raining. (I haven't been getting much rain this year.) When I woke up I had to go outside to see if it actually did rain. Nope. Not a drop. I suppose that some of our dreams may very well reflect our awakened reality. But they can also be BS. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted October 5, 2015 Action and actor haven't been defined yet, for the purpose of this thread , though the english implies what the relationship would be once they were defined. Im not sure volitionless action should be included , and the boundaries of the actor in a universe need to be defined. For instance , a rock falling, is not using volition, its just moving in the direction of gravity. And if a doctor smacks my knee knee into twitching thats similar. If I cant help but reflect the circumstances of my upbringing , then what I say or do may just be physical consequence of past situations. Reminds me of the zen koan - "If a tree fell in a forest, with no one to witness it - Did that tree really fall?" What meaning does anything have, without a consciousness experiencing? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted October 5, 2015 Yeah that appears to be true , but its presuming free will exists,, which one may , I like to think it exists , but I don't know if its provable. Dwai is ,perhaps, presuming or inferring that there is an "actor". (Someone which actually is more than just a automaton and somehow dictates the flow of events in a time line, to what they might not have been. or along those lines) But ,We could just be very complicated pachinko machines, completely predictable so long as one has the correct algorithm, and any seeming 'choice' didnt actually exist. If we are pachinko machines, we have no individuality that can be called an actor and we are just the imagined cogs of a much bigger machine.. the cosmos .. the Tao ,.. etc. Hmm...very complex pachinko machines just built themselves? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Hmm...very complex pachinko machines just built themselves? Well.. they arent distinct from the universe as a whole ,so the universe as a whole, itself , formulated the pachinko machines along with anything else,, stars planets viruses ice. The subdivisions are illusory. Edited October 5, 2015 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Reminds me of the zen koan - "If a tree fell in a forest, with no one to witness it - Did that tree really fall?" What meaning does anything have, without a consciousness experiencing? None , and ,, not in and of itself even if there was someone to hear it , be hit by it , or build a house out of it. You can assign meaning to the event if you want. And that what makes it , meaning, illusory rather than false. Meaning, suggests that there was some alternative sequence of events possible , which didn't fulfill some plan , but the only events that happened actually occurred , no alternative exists which both did not happen and did happen. The not happening of an event is imaginative. EX, this Lotto winning means I can buy a new car. The event in which you weren't able to buy the car was a situation you imagined. The event was never otherwise. .. Perhaps this is clearer in reverse,, Losing the money means I can't buy the car. Well you never did buy the car , and the buying of the car was again,, imagined. Either way , the sequence of events unfolds as it will. If one believes in free will, that somehow you can change what will happen, this requires some disconnect between cause and effect, but that still requires an imagination, to have an expectation which does not get fulfilled -( the 'change' ) Edited October 5, 2015 by Stosh 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted October 5, 2015 Reminds me of the zen koan - "If a tree fell in a forest, with no one to witness it - Did that tree really fall?" What meaning does anything have, without a consciousness experiencing? Similarly what form does anything have without a sensory apparatus and conceptual processing connected to it? What does that tree look like without an eye/brain to see it? It is our sensory apparatus and conceptual processing which creates form out of emptiness/energy. Change the sensory apparatus and/or processing and the form changes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AussieTrees Posted October 6, 2015 After many rainy days,sometimes we also get strong winds. Locally this will see several trees fallen over the road,blocking access for many hours. No one sees or hears them fall,but yet they persist in blocking the roadway. What does this even mean? Maybe something like;the fallen tree blocking the road has resulted in more one to one chat within the delayed car. Or for driver only cars also blocked by fallen tree which persists despite no one seeing or hearing it fall.There could be rage or even acceptance of situation. One time during one of these events,it was entertaining watching as someone produced a chainsaw,making short work of clearing the road,very impressive. No real meaning in any of this,other than,we don't expect the unexpected,but how do we cope with that. Some enrage,some observe passively,other display their resilence,others turn car around and go home. Life? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 6, 2015 after sleep and a re-read, ... 'Does the unwitnessed tree fall?,' I say ,Sure , as in Aussies account, the ramifications persist ,so the event mustve happened though unwitnessed. If no one ever encountered the fallen tree, then from a human perspective, the event appears formless,,as in Steves definition , and the event is undefined as a drop of water in an endless sea. Im thinking the Koan is designed to tire out your deductive process trying to reconcile those two considerations. Re: meaning,, I dont see Steves or Aussies posts as endorsing there being any Meaning ,outside of the meaning one attributes to an event. Though Im curious what argument can be made For , Meaning ,which exists in some way independent of an ascriber. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 The problem with the "tree falling" question is that it ignores the 4.5 billion years of Earth's evolution before man evolved into a thinking being. Stop thinking!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 6, 2015 Stop thinking!!! Why? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted October 6, 2015 None , and ,, not in and of itself even if there was someone to hear it , be hit by it , or build a house out of it. You can assign meaning to the event if you want. And that what makes it , meaning, illusory rather than false. Meaning, suggests that there was some alternative sequence of events possible , which didn't fulfill some plan , but the only events that happened actually occurred , no alternative exists which both did not happen and did happen. The not happening of an event is imaginative. EX, this Lotto winning means I can buy a new car. The event in which you weren't able to buy the car was a situation you imagined. The event was never otherwise. .. Perhaps this is clearer in reverse,, Losing the money means I can't buy the car. Well you never did buy the car , and the buying of the car was again,, imagined. Either way , the sequence of events unfolds as it will. If one believes in free will, that somehow you can change what will happen, this requires some disconnect between cause and effect, but that still requires an imagination, to have an expectation which does not get fulfilled -( the 'change' ) Let me rephrase it, without you - the subject, does anything matter? If the subject ceases to exist, the object too ceases to exist right? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Why? Because it gets in the way of the full and objective experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted October 6, 2015 Similarly what form does anything have without a sensory apparatus and conceptual processing connected to it? What does that tree look like without an eye/brain to see it? It is our sensory apparatus and conceptual processing which creates form out of emptiness/energy. Change the sensory apparatus and/or processing and the form changes. Yes indeed. Subject only experiences objects via sensory apparatuses. But does subject exist if objects don't? Forms and labels are after experiencing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Let me rephrase it, without you - the subject, does anything matter? If the subject ceases to exist, the object too ceases to exist right? Oh, No, No, No. The Earth existed very well for 4.5 billion years without some human animal making a subjective opinion of it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
