“do you prefer to be called Orn or something else?” – Mike Anything that clearly identifies me is fine.
And, your ways of using mind and consciousness differently are appreciated. However, it still may cause some confusion in our future interaction. I suggest that if the meaning of these terms is not clear in context that we continue to spell them out, OK? Some observations about how you approach Mind: You say you can see Mind ‘from the outside’. (…by mindful actions.) The first part is a strange notion to me. I find Mind to be neither inside nor outside. And, continuing, a mindful action is no more the Mind than the wave on an oscilloscope is the fluctuation of potential. I do see that you appear to be using the term Mindful actions as being something consciously done, is this correct? Yet, you say these actions are in response to the environment. This latter could easily suggest no consciousness at all. Your heat seeking missile example in a strange way is almost a Flatland example of teleology [“The forces and impacts are controlled by a goal (follow the heat to its source)”] rather than something ‘mindful’ as I understand you mean the term. And, addressing the notion of randomness, I do understand it and use it, but I’m not sure that in any ultimate sense it has an application. I see no accidents at all in an ultimate sense. Your mindful action example using a dog seems to imply that the dog has a sort of self-will rather than instincts. When you completed a disambiguation for missile and dog, you appear to be saying that any action at all is mindful in that it (acts????) to achieve a goal. Perhaps you do embrace teleology. I can’t tell yet for sure. Of course, you are using that very thing that is being observed (mind/ mindfulness) to make the determination about mind/mindfulness. This sort of reflex has difficulties as I see it. And, I do get it that you are agnostic when it comes to consciousness and who/what ‘has’ it. Oh, and overall I agree that complexity of behavior does not determine mind nor mindful behavior. I fully agree with you about the non-locality of consciousness. I too have been watching the developing understanding about photons etc. In fact, I think this knowledge started back in the 1970s or 80s, didn’t it? Regardless, the association of appearances with Mind will still have to be addressed at some point by those observing such things. Thus, I have begun that specific journey of consciousness observing itself. Even William James had strongly suggested this as one of 3 methods of study of Mind way back in the late 1800s! And, of course, the technique has been known ‘forever’. Today, the union of science and such eternal methods is the real work as I see it I hope this doesn't come across as being too disjointed. I was attempting to address your notions and questions without doing a deconstruction using quotations from your post. On Nov 12, 6:49 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Orn, > > do you prefer to be called Orn or something else? > > Here is an attempt to explain my position on this more clearly. In one > approach to thinking about these things, I consider mind different > than consciousness. Mind can be seen from the outside, by mindful > actions. Mindful actions are responses to differences in the > environment. For example, a heat seeking missile detect differences in > air temperature and steers itself towards the source of the heat > which. This action is mindful in that it is not directed by forces an > impacts acting randomly on the missile. The forces and impacts are > controlled by a goal (follow the heat to its source). Another example > of mindful action is the idea that if slap a dog on the nose, the dog > will move a bit from the impact following the laws of physics, but > will probably move a great deal more using its own energy and mindful > action to get away from the source of the pain (or else move towards > you and attempt to bite which also a mindful action). > > From the first example, the heat seeking missile, I believe that most > people would say that the missile is not conscious, meaning for the > moment that it has an inner experience. I would say that I don’t know. > I also believe that some people, perhaps most, would also say that it > has no mind. But I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that > anything that acts to achieve a goal as mindful. In the second > example, I believe most people would say that the dog is conscious, > that it has an inner experience. I also believe that the dog has an > inner experience, but I have no way to know for sure. > > Now here is the point of all this, I don’t how see that consciousness > arises simply from more complex behavior or from the same sort of > organization that makes more complex mindful behavior possible. It > might arise from this, but I don’t see how it could. To me this is > like saying a wheel arises merely from the circular shape. But will a > wheel work if it is not also rigid, to a degree. If matter was like > bosons, an elementary particle in which more than one particle can > occupy the same place. Then a wheel made out of this sort of matter > would collapse and not work. But fermions, from which matter is made, > or usually associated, cannot share the same space. > > In quantum mechanics experiments have been run where one photon seems > to “know” what another photon is doing. As an aside, this happens at > distance and speeds that seem to require faster than light > communication. That is another mystery and it leads most physicists to > acknowledge that there are problems with our idea of location and > reality. For my point, is this “knowing” what the other particle is > doing analogous to the partial rigidity of matter due to the fact that > two or more fermions cannot occupy the same place at the same time? > Does consciousness build from the “communication” between photons in > the same way that a wheel and rolling build from the fermions? If so, > then at the base of it what gives rise to consciousness is non-local > and perhaps in some way consciousness is also non-local. > > Orn, please tell me what you think? > > On Nov 11, 12:05 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ...all credit for the above philosophy is given to it's originator, > > Ichazo > > > .“… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > > such. > > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > > omniscient, among other attributes. > > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > > – Mike > > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > > point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue > > here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it > > is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as > > they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. > > Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes > > that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. > > > “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING > > AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike > > > Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance > > or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. > > > “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT > > EXISTANCE.” – Mike > > > Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from > > Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative > > ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ > > is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. > > That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the > > relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… > > seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. > > > On Nov 10, 10:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > > > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > > > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > > > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > > > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > > > such. > > > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > > > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > > > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > > > omniscient, among other attributes. > > > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > > > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > > > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > > > – Mike > > > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > > > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > > > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > > > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > > > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > > > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > > > point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue > > > here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it > > > is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as > > > they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. > > > Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes > > > that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. > > > > “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING > > > AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike > > > > Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance > > > or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. > > > > “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT > > > EXISTANCE.” – Mike > > > > Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from > > > Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative > > > ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ > > > is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. > > > That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the > > > relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… > > > seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. > > > > On Nov 10, 7:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > > > > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > > > > Mike > > > > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > > > > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > > > > I AGREE THAT FOR ME CONSCIOUNESS IS NO MYSTERY, SINCE I EXPERIENCE IT, > > > > BUT FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
