[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
Dogma -- even dogma that seems to explain subjective experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never has, never will. At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number, something to keep you from pondering the great questions of life because you've convinced yourself that you already know the answer to them. At worst it's blind adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. You're smart enough to know, and to handle being told if you don't. Thanks Turq, i know my experience. Is different from faith or belief. Just is. Is the incredible thing about a human life. Dear Turq of Sitges, is way beyond just a belief or anything you may think you believe. If you just want to argue and contend belief and not go beyond you'll not get out of the mud. That might take some discipline. The knowledge is in the experience and that is self-evident. Spiritual people know their experience. Is the opportunity of a lifetime. And the un-spiritual? By contrast, reading this earnest contending is like watching that mud wrestling at the county fairs. Lot of struggling and not a lot of grace. Will hope for more clarity for you in meditation. Best Regards, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Believe what you want? Or is it merely Just Another Subjective Experience? Could the experience of enlightenment -- and one's view of what constitutes reality and Truth from the *standpoint* of enlightenment -- be Just Another Subjective Experience? Much of spiritual practice and religion is predicated on a No answer to those last two questions above. They envision the world as a series of hierarchical truths, the highest of which is enlightenment. Anything per- ceived from that level *must*, in their view, be equivalent to Truth. I don't believe this. I think that the view from enlightenment is Just Another Subjective Experience. And I'll continue thinking this even if someone enlightened claims to know for sure that there is such a thing as being Barry. :-) :-) :-) Believe what you want, to be true? And that might well be dangerous according to just the science. Aside from actual spiritual experience. Turq, on the one hand I do worry for you that you seem acting like an obstinate child contending this ignorant un-spiritual position, though I also suspect you are way more knowing, even enlightened by experience, than you let on publicly defending such a position as this guy's denial, as public service. His is the important teaching to discern in a life. a shame to miss the lesson. On this larger skepticism of this guy, there is a beautiful song written about this yearning kind of spiritual struggle. Lord, I cannot let Thee go, Till a blessing Thou bestow; Do not turn away Thy face, Mine's an urgent, pressing case. Dost Thou ask me who I am? Ah! my Lord, Thou know'st my name; Yet the question gives a plea To support my suit with Thee. Thou didst once a wretch behold, In rebellion, blindly bold, Scorn Thy grace, Thy pow'r defy; That poor rebel, Lord, was I. King of Peace http://shapenote.net/74b.htm Jai Adi Shankara, -D in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Dogma -- even dogma that seems to explain subjective experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never has, never will. At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number, something to keep you from pondering the great questions of life because you've convinced yourself that you already know the answer to them. At worst it's blind adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. No dogma is *adequate* to explain subjective experience. For that matter, no *explanation* is adequate to explain subjective experience. One suspects that those who brush off subjective experience as adherence to dogma have never had much in the way of subjective experience (that is, have never had much in the way of experience of the nature of consciousness specifically; *all* experience, by definition, is subjective). The Truth of subjective experience of consciousness is self-evident--which, in this context, does not mean obvious. It means no explanation is necessary or even possible; it's evident in terms of itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: .By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. I think the insolubility is the attraction. I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from nonliving being? I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper experience for a better perspective. Doug, I'm going to respond to this because even though you *might* have been parodying the TM TB Party Line by saying this, you also *might* have been either serious or partly serious. It's hard to tell with you. Why I'm replying is that you did in your reply *exactly* what I've been talking about -- you took a discussion about *ideas* and reduced it to a discussion about *people*. In Eleanor Roosevelt's terms, you took it from a discussion among great minds and tried to transform it into a discussion among small minds. First you portrayed the author's position as due to a lack of experience that, coincidentally, you and others who believe like you have had. At the same time you demeaned him by calling him son, and then by saying outright that your position (the one you suggest he should adopt) is both better and deeper. Is way more than speculation. No, it's really not. You are speculating based on 1) your subjective experience, and 2) what you have been told that subjective experience means. Neither is anything *more* than speculation. Do you meditate? Have you had your meditation checked recently? Sat with a Sat-guru any time? More demeaning. If he *hasn't* done these things, he's obviously lesser than you are. May be go ask the knows-it-alls over on the experiential list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a friendly bunch and from some lay experience might help you towards the experience you seek. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s Yeah, just do what we who are far more advanced and knowledgeable than you are tell you to do, and someday you will understand The Truth about conscious- ness the way we do. Doug, again it's difficult to tell whether you really believe this elitist crap you spout from time to time or are parodying it. Either way, someone needs to point out that it *is* elitist crap. No matter how much you'd like to believe it, your sub- jective experience of something does *not* make it true, let alone Truth. It's just a subjective experience. And when you have spent decades being indoctrinated with dogma telling you what such subjective experiences mean, it's even less true. Dogma -- even dogma that seems to explain subjective experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never has, never will. At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number, something to keep you from pondering the great questions of life because you've convinced yourself that you already know the answer to them. At worst it's blind adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. You're smart enough to know, and to handle being told if you don't. Dear Turq of Sitges, is way beyond just a belief or anything you may think you believe. If you just want to argue and contend belief and not go beyond you'll not get out of the mud. That might take some discipline. The knowledge is in the experience and that is self-evident. Spiritual people know their experience. Is the opportunity of a lifetime. And the un-spiritual? By contrast, reading this earnest contending is like watching that mud wrestling at the county fairs. Lot of struggling and not a lot of grace. Will hope for more clarity for you in meditation. Best Regards, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coulsong2001 geoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: ... I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell. This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. She asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if there were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they think the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be nothing that it was like to be it. The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ other ones). I'd strongly recommend the book. Geoff Sounds good Geoff. Am currently reading her 10 Zen Questions. Brilliant in some ways. OTH I can't quite *get* some of the ways she sees some things. Early on she discusses trying to ask yourself the question Am I conscious now?. When you ask yourself that question, she says, it feels as though you just suddenly wake up. Mmm... is that right? Seems to me you're lost in something (e.g. typing a post), then you ask her magic question, and... You're just focussed on something else! (The crazy coot describes how she has all sorts of post-it notes with the magic question stuck everywhere - on her fridge, in the car, whatever). Am I conscious now? Am I conscious now? Ah, I've just bought that book! Looking forward to reading it. On the Am I conscious now? question, I came across that on Blackmore's website, and when I try it I have pretty much the same reaction as you. I ask myself Am I conscious now? and I find myself looking around, a bit like Michael Palin doing the shifty eyes thing, but no particular experience of waking up. Geoff
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coulsong2001 ge...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coulsong2001 geoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: ... I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell. This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. She asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if there were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they think the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be nothing that it was like to be it. The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ other ones). I'd strongly recommend the book. Geoff Sounds good Geoff. Am currently reading her 10 Zen Questions. Brilliant in some ways. OTH I can't quite *get* some of the ways she sees some things. Early on she discusses trying to ask yourself the question Am I conscious now?. When you ask yourself that question, she says, it feels as though you just suddenly wake up. Mmm... is that right? Seems to me you're lost in something (e.g. typing a post), then you ask her magic question, and... You're just focussed on something else! (The crazy coot describes how she has all sorts of post-it notes with the magic question stuck everywhere - on her fridge, in the car, whatever). Am I conscious now? Am I conscious now? Ah, I've just bought that book! Looking forward to reading it. On the Am I conscious now? question, I came across that on Blackmore's website, and when I try it I have pretty much the same reaction as you. I ask myself Am I conscious now? and I find myself looking around, a bit like Michael Palin doing the shifty eyes thing, but no particular experience of waking up. Geoff ;-) Well that's you and me both then - still asleep!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: .By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. I think the insolubility is the attraction. I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from nonliving being? I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper experience for a better perspective. Is way more than speculation. Do you meditate? Have you had your meditation checked recently? Sat with a Sat-guru any time? May be go ask the knows-it-alls over on the experiential list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a friendly bunch and from some lay experience might help you towards the experience you seek. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: .By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. I think the insolubility is the attraction. I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from nonliving being? I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper experience for a better perspective. Doug, I'm going to respond to this because even though you *might* have been parodying the TM TB Party Line by saying this, you also *might* have been either serious or partly serious. It's hard to tell with you. Why I'm replying is that you did in your reply *exactly* what I've been talking about -- you took a discussion about *ideas* and reduced it to a discussion about *people*. In Eleanor Roosevelt's terms, you took it from a discussion among great minds and tried to transform it into a discussion among small minds. First you portrayed the author's position as due to a lack of experience that, coincidentally, you and others who believe like you have had. At the same time you demeaned him by calling him son, and then by saying outright that your position (the one you suggest he should adopt) is both better and deeper. Is way more than speculation. No, it's really not. You are speculating based on 1) your subjective experience, and 2) what you have been told that subjective experience means. Neither is anything *more* than speculation. Do you meditate? Have you had your meditation checked recently? Sat with a Sat-guru any time? More demeaning. If he *hasn't* done these things, he's obviously lesser than you are. May be go ask the knows-it-alls over on the experiential list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a friendly bunch and from some lay experience might help you towards the experience you seek. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s Yeah, just do what we who are far more advanced and knowledgeable than you are tell you to do, and someday you will understand The Truth about conscious- ness the way we do. Doug, again it's difficult to tell whether you really believe this elitist crap you spout from time to time or are parodying it. Either way, someone needs to point out that it *is* elitist crap. No matter how much you'd like to believe it, your sub- jective experience of something does *not* make it true, let alone Truth. It's just a subjective experience. And when you have spent decades being indoctrinated with dogma telling you what such subjective experiences mean, it's even less true. Dogma -- even dogma that seems to explain subjective experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never has, never will. At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number, something to keep you from pondering the great questions of life because you've convinced yourself that you already know the answer to them. At worst it's blind adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. You're smart enough to know, and to handle being told if you don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
TurquoiseB wrote That's the True Believer phenomenon in a nutshell... Don't you just hate those 'True Believers'. Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt A long but well-written essay from Slate that ponders some of the same ideas I've been trying to bring up *as* ideas here lately. So many on this forum assume that certain questions have been answered, at least to their satisfaction. I join the author in suggesting that says more about their low standards than it does the accuracy of their imagined answers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. [/snip] Yes, very interesting article. Thanks. Mysterian - I like that. - What are you? - Advaitan Tibetan Triple-Buddhist Yogi with well- developed lower absortions. You? - Me? Oh I am a mysterian. Yes - that'll do nicely! The problem of consciousness is sooo difficult to think about. Like lighting a match in the dark to see the dark... The article refers to the philosopher Nagel. Nagel I think gets it down clearly for me in his piece What Is It Like To Be A Bat. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2183914 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel It goes something like this as I recall (but best to read the original!): Consider these two propositions: 1) There is such a thing as a bat (true) 2) There is such a thing as being a bat (true?) Quite simple if put that way. Belief in the truth of(2) is belief in consciousness. Hard core scientific materialism is in great difficulty over (2) - unless, as some would argue, all statements such as (2) are in fact false. I don't think there IS such a thing as being my computer (and never will be I suspect). I DO think there is such a thing as being Barry although I can't possibly claim certainty for that belief. Maybe I CAN claim certainty for there is such a thing as being Me - a bit of Descartes' Cogito there... I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap composent...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. [/snip] Yes, very interesting article. Thanks. And thank you for following it up with a post about ideas. I think that the author would like that. Mysterian - I like that. - What are you? - Advaitan Tibetan Triple-Buddhist Yogi with well- developed lower absortions. You? - Me? Oh I am a mysterian. Yes - that'll do nicely! Absolutely. I think I'll start using it in exactly those situations. It really captures things better than Anarcho-Tantric Buddhist, which I've used to fill in the Religion blank on another forum. :-) Plus, it suggest things that the other description does not. Hearing Anarcho-Tantric Buddhist, one might be led to think that I *believe* in either anarchy, tantrism, or Buddhism. I do not. I *like* aspects of each of these things, and find much of value in them. But the bottom line is that pretty much the only thing I really believe in the essential Mystery of it all. The problem of consciousness is sooo difficult to think about. Like lighting a match in the dark to see the dark... The article refers to the philosopher Nagel. Nagel I think gets it down clearly for me in his piece What Is It Like To Be A Bat. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2183914 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel It goes something like this as I recall (but best to read the original!): Consider these two propositions: 1) There is such a thing as a bat (true) 2) There is such a thing as being a bat (true?) Quite simple if put that way. Belief in the truth of(2) is belief in consciousness. Hard core scientific materialism is in great difficulty over (2) - unless, as some would argue, all statements such as (2) are in fact false. Absolutely fascinating analysis. I *love* it, because it gets down to essentials, to the things that we assume as givens. Most people would assume (2) to be true such that they would never question its truth. But is it? I don't think there IS such a thing as being my computer (and never will be I suspect). If there is, mine must be quite bored with me by now. :-) I DO think there is such a thing as being Barry I'm leaning in that direction myself. ...although I can't possibly claim certainty for that belief. Maybe I CAN claim certainty for there is such a thing as being Me - a bit of Descartes' Cogito there... Or at the very least the *perception* that there is such a thing as 'being You.' I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - Some here would disagree even with that. :-) ...but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell. And yet so much of spiritual and religious belief is based on the idea that one can not only possibly tell, but be *certain* about such things. Just today we've had a post suggesting that the question of consciousness can be resolved by simply having the right subjective experiences. I think that if pressed, you would find many on this forum who would admit to believing that they consider that which they exper- ience subjectively to be true. But is it? Or is it merely Just Another Subjective Experience? Could the experience of enlightenment -- and one's view of what constitutes reality and Truth from the *standpoint* of enlightenment -- be Just Another Subjective Experience? Much of spiritual practice and religion is predicated on a No answer to those last two questions above. They envision the world as a series of hierarchical truths, the highest of which is enlightenment. Anything per- ceived from that level *must*, in their view, be equivalent to Truth. I don't believe this. I think that the view from enlightenment is Just Another Subjective Experience. And I'll continue thinking this even if someone enlightened claims to know for sure that there is such a thing as being Barry. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: ... I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell. This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. She asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if there were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they think the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be nothing that it was like to be it. The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ other ones). I'd strongly recommend the book. Geoff
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coulsong2001 ge...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: ... I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a regular human being - but the question of whether there IS such a thing as being Barry is a fact about the world (either true or false) regardless of whether or not anyone can possibly tell. This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. She asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if there were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they think the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be nothing that it was like to be it. The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ other ones). I'd strongly recommend the book. Geoff Sounds good Geoff. Am currently reading her 10 Zen Questions. Brilliant in some ways. OTH I can't quite *get* some of the ways she sees some things. Early on she discusses trying to ask yourself the question Am I conscious now?. When you ask yourself that question, she says, it feels as though you just suddenly wake up. Mmm... is that right? Seems to me you're lost in something (e.g. typing a post), then you ask her magic question, and... You're just focussed on something else! (The crazy coot describes how she has all sorts of post-it notes with the magic question stuck everywhere - on her fridge, in the car, whatever). Am I conscious now? Am I conscious now?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
I'm verging on giving up here, every time I spend more than a few minutes on a post my computer crashes when I press send. Does anyone else get this problem? It never crashes with other programmes so I think it must have something to do with the yahoo software. Shame as defending Richard Dawkins against the narrow-minded bigto label he gets pinned on him is something I'm always happy to do. He strikes me as someone who stands awestruck and humbled before before the majesty of nature. His whole credo is 'let the evidence speak for itself' if it turns out that consciousness is unexplainable except by supernatural means so be it. He won't have been proved wrong. But in a nutshell: Dawkins would be thrilled if conscious- ness was external (or eternal) to the mind because it might mean we survive death which is something everyone wants and is the main reason Darwinism doesn't get the take up it should and why creationists have to invent concepts like intelligent design to get their voice into schools. ID is bollocks BTW, may risk an explanation later if you like. Give science a chance, it has only just started probing the brain and it's a joyous and strange machine to be sure but already we know that consciousness arises somehow in the reticular activating system. Knock out the RAS and you knock out the person whether they are thinking about being a bat or not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: A long but well-written essay from Slate that ponders some of the same ideas I've been trying to bring up *as* ideas here lately. So many on this forum assume that certain questions have been answered, at least to their satisfaction. I join the author in suggesting that says more about their low standards than it does the accuracy of their imagined answers. My favorite quote from the essay is, When I say the mystery of consciousness is a dangerous one, what I mean is that nobody wants to admit they don't have things All Figured Out, and it's particularly destabilizing not figuring yourself out. That's the True Believer phenomenon in a nutshell. The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness We still need answers.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. I think the insolubility is the attraction. Historical and literary mysteries: What was the origin of Hitler's hatred? Did Shakespeare revise Hamlet? And I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from nonliving being? I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. The failure to solve it without resorting to religion or quasi-religious intelligent designwhich offers no real resolution since it doesn't explain what created the consciousness behind the intelligence of intelligent designstrikes many observers as dangerous. Dangerous because it threatens the foundation of scientific rationalism and materialism. Dangerous because it disrupts one's sense of any order in the universe and opens the floodgates of chaos. Consciousness is the only thing in the world and the greatest mystery. This was Martin Amis at recent prepublication celebration of Nabokov's The Original of Laura http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307271897?ie=UTF8tag=slatmaga-20lin\ kCode=as2camp=1789creative=390957creativeASIN=0307271897 , at the 92nd Street Y, paraphrasing Nabokov, whose ability to evoke the tenor and texture of consciousness may be one of his most distinctive talents as a writer. Did it come from the fact that Nabokov was gifted with synesthesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia itself a mystery of consciousnesswhich he experienced as the ability to see sounds as sight, as colors? The sound made by the letter K for instance, is something he said he experienced as the color of huckleberry. What an extraordinary, colorful spectacle his own words on the page must have been to him. If only we could reproduce it as he saw it. (By the way, one of the reasons I had reservations http://www.slate.com/id/2185222/ about the publication of Laura was that I worried people would review it as a finished book when in fact it was an early draft. What I didn't expect was that people who claimed to share these concerns went ahead and reviewed it as though it were a finished book, gleefully heaping scorn on Nabokov's less well-turned phrases.) But even for those of us who don't have synesthesia, the pageant, the palette of consciousness is one of life's great unsolved
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: I'm verging on giving up here, every time I spend more than a few minutes on a post my computer crashes when I press send. Does anyone else get this problem? Is your computer male? It's quite a common problem with the male of the species. [snip] Give science a chance, it has only just started probing the brain and it's a joyous and strange machine to be sure but already we know that consciousness arises somehow in the reticular activating system. Knock out the RAS and you knock out the person whether they are thinking about being a bat or not. Is that last point significant? The fact RAS is a necessary condition doesn't make it a sufficient condition, does it? As per the The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness article - an eyeball is a necessary condition for sight. But is the eyeball what sight IS? (Or even if you add in all the optical nerves and other mush)
