BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> On the Mental Representation of the Objective World, the stubborn illusion of the external world
lucid_dream
post Oct 28, 2007, 02:18 PM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



Mostly everyone operates/navigates in this world as if their mental representation of it were synonymous with the objective world. Few stop to think about the fact that their 'objective world' is merely their mental representation and wonder over the nature of mental representation in general.

Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such an not otherwise?

Let's forget about ontologies and metaphysics for the moment; we don't care about the thing-in-itself if such a thing exists, at least for the purposes of answering the above questions. The concern here is the nature of the mental representation itself.

Thoughts?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 28, 2007, 08:05 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 28, 2007, 10:18 PM) *

Mostly everyone operates/navigates in this world as if their mental representation of it were synonymous with the objective world. Few stop to think about the fact that their 'objective world' is merely their mental representation and wonder over the nature of mental representation in general.

Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such an not otherwise?

Let's forget about ontologies and metaphysics for the moment; we don't care about the thing-in-itself if such a thing exists, at least for the purposes of answering the above questions. The concern here is the nature of the mental representation itself.

Thoughts?

If you remove metaphysics/ontology, then perception of any object is simply psychological predetermination. A separation of what is and isn't according to determination in quality and point of reference.
Ergo, ego.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Oct 28, 2007, 08:21 PM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Dianah @ Oct 28, 2007, 08:18 PM) *
Mental representation is of that which is felt and unknown (unconscious) or not yet understood, thus through image all potential can be explored/ experienced and brought into understanding (consciousness)…through the experience/exploration/mental representation of it.

that sounds Freudian. I agree that speaking of an unconscious determining our conscious awareness is useful but would like to understand more about the unconscious, preferably not in terms of archetypes or similar devices.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 09:05 PM) *
If you remove metaphysics/ontology, then perception of any object is simply psychological predetermination.
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 09:05 PM) *
Ergo, ego.

are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

To elaborate a bit more on the original post, it can be broken down into two parts: 1) answering the question, "what are mental representations?, and 2) examining the illusion of the external objective world.

1) is very difficult to approach, though it seems safe to say that unconscious processes play a role. Further details would be nice, though.

2) is interesting because it seems the designation of our percept of the world as "objective" and "external" to us is implicit knowledge that underlies our awareness, though we are not usually directly aware of this. It's also interesting to consider the consequences of switching this implicit knowledge off, so that our percept of the world is no longer external.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 28, 2007, 10:45 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

No it doesn't but if you narrow thoughts so that they are exclusive rather than inclusive your bound to run into dead ends.
QUOTE
are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

What are objects but a collection of molecules. Their grouping and identity is relative to spontaneous recognition or association to the object through memory.
QUOTE
To elaborate a bit more on the original post, it can be broken down into two parts: 1) answering the question, "what are mental representations?, and 2) examining the illusion of the external objective world.

So 1) Are you particular about the answer to the question?
2) in examining any illusions you would have to be free from any conditioned reaction to an object. This would mean you would be able to multi-dimensionally perceive the object rather than through one avenue of interpretation, see it in different levels of being, or first recognize the difference between illusion and reality.
This is going to necessarily be divided in the mental constructs of perception based on levels of accepted awareness.

QUOTE

1) is very difficult to approach, though it seems safe to say that unconscious processes play a role. Further details would be nice, though.
Then one would have to be familiar with the unconscious to understand any underlying influence.

QUOTE
2) is interesting because it seems the designation of our percept of the world as "objective" and "external" to us is implicit knowledge that underlies our awareness, though we are not usually directly aware of this. It's also interesting to consider the consequences of switching this implicit knowledge off, so that our percept of the world is no longer external.

Find a way to do that and the door opens to greater awareness and experience, but then would you accept something that wasn't fitting into your habitual recognition patterns.
Wouldn't you have to be willing to leave your house to experience what is not confined within its walls?
If the walls are the illusion then everything you haven't experienced isn't hidden, just ignored.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Oct 28, 2007, 11:09 PM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *

QUOTE
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

No it doesn't but if you narrow thoughts so that they are exclusive rather than inclusive your bound to run into dead ends.

I'm seeking understanding and explanation without regard for exclusion or inclusion.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *

QUOTE
are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

What are objects but a collection of molecules. Their grouping and identity is relative to spontaneous recognition or association to the object through memory.

So you don't think ego is necessariliy at work in the mental representation of objects?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
1) Are you particular about the answer to the question?
like I mentioned, I'm just seeking understanding and explanation, without regard for much else.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
2) in examining any illusions you would have to be free from any conditioned reaction to an object. This would mean you would be able to multi-dimensionally perceive the object rather than through one avenue of interpretation, see it in different levels of being

In this case, I don't agree that perceiving the world percept as "external" is a conditioned reaction (at least not in the typical meaning of conditioning). It seems rather a default mode of perception that's the issue, that involves implicit knowledge that the world percept is "external".

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
Then one would have to be familiar with the unconscious to understand any underlying influence.
And being familiar with the unconscious makes it conscious and thus is no longer the unconscious; kind of a dilemma. You don't recognize the unconscious, do you?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
Find a way to do that and the door opens to greater awareness and experience
Ok

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
would you accept something that wasn't fitting into your habitual recognition patterns.
If it didn't fit into my recognition patterns, that is, if it wasn't recognized, I would be blind to it and would not have the opportunity to accept or deny it. If I had the opportunity, I would accept.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
everything you haven't experienced isn't hidden, just ignored.
this hearkens back to your suggestion that conscious awareness is changing but not consciousness itself. Interesting idea.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wafa..
post Oct 29, 2007, 01:11 AM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
From: Cairo, Egypt
Member No.: 5448



Did anyone knows about the claim that consciousness leads to the "Wave function collapse"!??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse


If you hear about the famous virtual experiment of Schrodinger, "the schrodinger's cat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

according to the consciousness claim, the cat will stay in a state not dead and not alive until you open the door and your consciousness collapses one option (alive or dead) over the other!


Is observability is a property of the observed item or the observing individual?

In a broader sense, does reason makes the sense or the sense makes the reason?????


Wafa
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 29, 2007, 10:58 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 28, 2007, 03:18 PM) *
Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such and not otherwise?

There are two distinct kinds of mental representations of objects. Consider the experience of holding a book, looking at it, hearing the sound of flipping through the pages, the feel of the paper. Then consider the memory of that experience. The second representation is more dream-like with much lower fidelity of representation, but with most experiences, we cannot repeat them in real-time at will, we must make do with memories.

Most people equate "reality" with the experience of the first type, real-time sensing. And they consider memories of experiences as a kind of abstraction for thinking about the world. However, real-time experience is also as distinct from the physical world of things in themselves as are memories.

A bat has a sonar-built model of the world it flies in. An intelligent robot will certainly have a different conscious experience of both the world and memories, and will certainly have vastly different mental representations.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Oct 29, 2007, 11:01 AM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



mm this is dependent on a number of factors. Neurologically the brain does not distinguish the difference between real and imagined experiences. Instead it is the conscious mind which uses its intellect to deduce what is real and what is imagined.

This may also be the reason why we do not remember all of our dreams, perhaps it was an evolutionary trait designed to avoid confusing the conscious minds concepts of reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:17 AM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE

I'm seeking understanding and explanation without regard for exclusion or inclusion.
Then you won't leave out what what you would label metaphysics/ontology.

QUOTE

So you don't think ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?
Of course it is, the refinement of the senses include taming the ego and its layered physical and psychological stresses that are habit, judgment, belief, projections based on belief, fear and expectations.
In responding to your first statement seeking explanation; what you really want is satisfaction. If you had the answers then you would take the answer and create more questions. One thing leading to another the endless supply of questions and answers engages the mind into the mechanical nature of reality but may distract you from actually experiencing why you are here and what you can do with what you have created.
The ego seeks mental explanations and representations of reality which is why it will accept and altered state such as an entheogen inspired hallucination as expanded awareness.
The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness but it can contain its conclusions and temporarily satisfy the mind with illusions. This is why we stay stuck in illusions, because the ego accepts them as reality.
The part of you that knows there is more is colored by the ego and by habit is seeking to add another answer or conclusion to the box you already have built. It will continue to distract you with questions and answers until the body grows old and dies.

QUOTE
like I mentioned, I'm just seeking understanding and explanation, without regard for much else.

If you had understanding would it have to be explained? If understanding could not be contained but experienced and expressed in words that would not contain it could you live with that?
An example would be love. If you are in love you can express your feelings about what you are experiencing but you could never express an explanation that could give the experience to someone who has never experienced it. Then there is the difference in emotional attached love and unattached, unconditional love. The second being the natural playground God creates so that all desires/thoughts are manifest, even the desires/thoughts of war, disease, and suffering.

QUOTE
In this case, I don't agree that perceiving the world percept as "external" is a conditioned reaction (at least not in the typical meaning of conditioning). It seems rather a default mode of perception that's the issue, that involves implicit knowledge that the world percept is "external".

To know about conditioning one has to have the direct experience of creating the external or experiencing the external manifest through thought.
This requires a discipline to turn the mind inward and to clear the nervous system of its attachment to beliefs or the mind and body of psychological and physical stresses.
QUOTE
And being familiar with the unconscious makes it conscious and thus is no longer the unconscious; kind of a dilemma. You don't recognize the unconscious, do you?

I recognize consciousness, whether it is experienced or not it is the same. There are certain impulses created by desire/belief that remain unfulfilled and they can be circumvented, such an impulse is physical death. Other conditions such as illness and separation from God are stress related and can be easily removed by removing stress.
QUOTE
If it didn't fit into my recognition patterns, that is, if it wasn't recognized, I would be blind to it and would not have the opportunity to accept or deny it. If I had the opportunity, I would accept.

You always have the opportunity but you do not always make the choices to pave the way for greater experience.

QUOTE
this hearkens back to your suggestion that conscious awareness is changing but not consciousness itself. Interesting idea.

Awareness is simply consciousness, but the ego is stuck in the relative world and conscious itself/you, are not limited to the relative.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forgottenpresence
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 AM
Post #10


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Member No.: 12281



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 30, 2007, 07:08 PM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 30, 2007, 06:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.
The container is an illusion.
Unity still carries the remnants of the illusion and connects it to the one. This is called in sanskrit, leshavidya, one lives life with one foot in the manifest and the other in the absolute. When one transcends duality, duality still exists. The differing layers are duality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 07:12 PM
Post #12


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



Joesus, do you call the manifest the objects of dual consciousness and the absolute a unitive state of consciousness? Is this all you recognize in consciousness, is dual and unitive? Don't you think infinite consciousness would have more than merely dual and what you call absolute?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 30, 2007, 08:00 PM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE

Joesus, do you call the manifest the objects of dual consciousness and the absolute a unitive state of consciousness?

The manifest is more than the objects of dual consciousness, it is active awareness, Also called God.
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

QUOTE
Is this all you recognize in consciousness, is dual and unitive? Don't you think infinite consciousness would have more than merely dual and what you call absolute?

More, meaning extrapolations of God/the absolute? There are as many ways to experience it as there are thoughts about it but then if you follow experience or thought to its source, you end up at the same place.

To quote scripture

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

So what I think, appears as movement of consciousness, and what supports the movement is an infinite field of stillness.
Some think thought precedes the infinite stillness and without thought the stillness could not exist, but one can transcend thought into stillness and then rise again into thought bringing with them the experience of having left thought and the awareness of stillness behind.
The fact that consciousness can do this means that it doesn't disappear or end in the lack of experience.

Stillness is a word, and the stillness is not completely still or empty, it often eludes the range of the relative senses and experience. In other words what it is cannot be brought into the subjective experience of awareness that is fixated on a level of reality that is rationed.

"I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."


More could be, anything that means the same as God/the manifest or the absolute.

If one could elevate the senses beyond the relative as it appears in this world one would experience another world that is invisible to the physical eye of the waking state.
IF one could transcend the boundaries of relative awareness, the stillness would be full of manifestations of an even greater presence that is transcendental to the manifest at that level, and so on and so on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 08:25 PM
Post #14


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:00 PM) *
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not? Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still. It can never be at rest. What you call a still mind is an illusion. The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:04 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:25 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:00 PM) *
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not? Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still. It can never be at rest. What you call a still mind is an illusion. The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.


Ever study Zeno's arrow paradox? Maybe your perception of motion is false--ever consider that?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:29 PM
Post #16


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



I'm talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity. Besides, Zeno's paradox is not a paradox if you take space to be discrete instead of continuous, which many physicists believe to be the case.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:35 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 PM) *

we're talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity.


What is activity?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:37 PM
Post #18


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:35 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 PM) *

we're talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity.


What is activity?

in this context, changing electrochemical gradients and energy potentials.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:39 PM
Post #19


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



How can change exist independent of time?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:43 PM
Post #20


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:44 PM
Post #21


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:46 PM
Post #22


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:44 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?

change occurs when a cause produces an effect. It's intimately related to causality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:48 PM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not?

Probably an illusion? Some say everything is an illusion. But that is a relative determination.
QUOTE
Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still.

I take it you don't believe in a consciousness extending itself beyond the physical brain.
QUOTE
The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Mind is the manifest and the manifest is consciousness in activity.
QUOTE

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.

Stillness and activity being relative, would then be subjective. Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?
QUOTE

Ever study Zeno's arrow paradox? Maybe your perception of motion is false--ever consider that?

Ever study Eastern philosophy which includes the idea that all manifestations of motion are illusion?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 09:57 PM
Post #24


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:46 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:44 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?

change occurs when a cause produces an effect. It's intimately related to causality.


In order for there to be causality, there must be an action. In order for there to be am action, there must be a reaction. In order for there to be a reaction there must be time. In order for there to be time there must be motion. In order for there to be motion there must be change. In order for there to be change there must be a cause (energy). Ultimately causality from what I can observe is derivative from energy. This to me is the basis of most eastern philosophy. In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:01 PM
Post #25


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:48 PM) *
Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?

Yes, if you're talking about non-dual consciousness since there are no subjective points of reference in that mind-state. But even in non-dual consciousness, there is activity. I can't accept the notion of an absolute still mind because every mind-state is dependent on activity, and is thus the embodiment of activity. So why bother stilling the mind if the experience of stillness belies the great activity underlying your mind-state? Instead of trying to still the mind, we should go in the other direction, not by inundating it with petty distractions that serve to fragment the mind and weaken it, but with creating great maelstroms of the mind to maximize its power of activity.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:06 PM
Post #26


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:57 PM) *
In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?
from a preceding cause
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forgottenpresence
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:11 PM
Post #27


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Member No.: 12281



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 08:08 PM) *

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 30, 2007, 06:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.
The container is an illusion.
Unity still carries the remnants of the illusion and connects it to the one. This is called in sanskrit, leshavidya, one lives life with one foot in the manifest and the other in the absolute. When one transcends duality, duality still exists. The differing layers are duality.


The container is illusion, that is why I stated it is of ego-consciousness. When perceiving through unity-consciousness, illusion is that which is a manifestation of ego-consciousness. When one transcends duality, duality exists in the lower layer: ego-consciousness. This layer is fully realized and it is this realization that allows one to transcend illusion and attachment to manifestations of egoic projections.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:25 PM
Post #28


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 11:06 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:57 PM) *
In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?
from a preceding cause


What was the first cause that triggered the Universe? This cause must always have existed no?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Oct 30, 2007, 10:50 PM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 31, 2007, 06:01 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:48 PM) *
Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?

Yes, if you're talking about non-dual consciousness since there are no subjective points of reference in that mind-state. But even in non-dual consciousness, there is activity. I can't accept the notion of an absolute still mind because every mind-state is dependent on activity, and is thus the embodiment of activity. So why bother stilling the mind if the experience of stillness belies the great activity underlying your mind-state? Instead of trying to still the mind, we should go in the other direction, not by inundating it with petty distractions that serve to fragment the mind and weaken it, but with creating great maelstroms of the mind to maximize its power of activity.

I prefer focusing it, rather than trying to pump it up with whirlwinds of delusions in interpretations of mind.

QUOTE
When perceiving through unity-consciousness, illusion is that which is a manifestation of ego-consciousness.

When perceiving reality through Unity consciousness there is only God, inside and outside.
QUOTE
When one transcends duality, duality exists in the lower layer

When one transcends duality, duality is God made manifest..Consciousness in action
QUOTE

What was the first cause that triggered the Universe? This cause must always have existed no?

Yes, that'd be God or the absolute, One, consciousness.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forgottenpresence
post Oct 30, 2007, 11:46 PM
Post #30


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Member No.: 12281



QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 11:50 PM) *

When perceiving reality through Unity consciousness there is only God, inside and outside.


God consciousness is all-knowing. This kind of knowledge includes knowledge of lower layers of consciousness - ego consciousness. When one perceives reality through God consciousness, there is everything.

QUOTE
When one transcends duality, duality is God made manifest..Consciousness in action


When one transcends duality, duality does not manifest, as unity-consciousness is transcendental of manifestations of duality.

Excellent discussion, by the way.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th November 2017 - 02:59 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles