hello everyone,

just something i was cogitating on while I lay in bed, resting, experiencing a twilight state of consciousness:

It's not 'Who am I?' that I wish to figure out.
For surely, I am everyone who has ever lived.
It's 'What am I?' that I deeply desire to answer,
sometime before this body dies.

So, anybody have any thoughts on this?  Intense self-reflection is required in order to truly understand and appreciate the 'I' that I'm talking about.

The Bhagavad Gita ventures forth an answer, quite an interesting one actually, but it still doesn't satisfy my longing to find an answer to the above question, in part, because I'm not completely satisfied with the answer 'I' am God (or I am Brahman), because it doesn't really tell me anything new.   Might as well say 'I am Tewoifalskdfjajs'!  The point being that just tagging on a name and equating it with 'I' is not an answer, it's not even close.

So, what is the answer?  What am 'I'?

looking forward to any replies.

take care,

Shawn

part of a disease thats killing mother earth.

or just a great guy, or a small piece of hope in a world of hell with no escape, or a tool of life, or a reproductiive organ in the human race body, energy, a beautiful snowflake, a concious being, jesus, old sole, tweeker, crack head, a%#hole, morpheus,  god, a muse, light, flesh and blood, poet, lover giver winner smart mad happy high crazy  a dove a raindrop in the desert at high noon ice in the summer ----im buggin

thank you for the poetic flare, jypsi
.
.
the problem with the objective world is that its basis resides in subjectivity.

hmm, i feel inclined now to go read some schopenhauer.

take care,

Shawn

My own view is that each 'I' is the universe (the Absolute, Totality of Being, Brahman) aware of itself.  In that sense, I agree with the Gita and the Upanishads that Atman equals Brahman, or aham Brahma asimi.  And while I can't prove it, I do experience it.

Nonetheless, this answer still does not completely answer 'what am i?' because it equates 'i' with Brahman, Totality of Being, the universe, and the Absolute.   But it begs the question: what is Brahman, Totality of Being, the universe, and the Absolute?   To avoid circularity, they can't be defined as 'i', and so what's left is to define them in terms of other things, which must also be defined, and so on and so forth.  So, how do we break out of this vicious cycle?  

something to think about when i sleep tonight.

namaste,

a sleepy Shawn

You asked the question, how do we break out of the vicious cycle...In my belief system, there is no way out except thru death. Maybe if one got to the heart of matters, we could figure the perplexity out and stop the madness. Until then, I suppose the souls live on..........

That's a very thought-provoking reply, Lindsey, and it's a pleasure to have you here, but what do you mean and understand by death?  Death of ego, personality, self or part of self, brain, body?  I'd be interested in hearing more about your belief system.  

How about this answer, which has some experiental support:  'What am I?' is a question that is seen as meaningless and misdirected in a sufficiently transcendent state of consciousness and Being.  The only valid statement that really comes to mind is 'I AM'

Namaste,

Shawn

I do think a lot, but this really makes the old tinker upstairs go haywire! "Death" in essence, can mean many things. My belief system and how I was trying to come across was simple. Death of life. All living perishes and the "great revelation" is then truly revealed. Can the vicious circle really be stopped? I don't really have an answer to that one. When the earth goes void, theres nothing to question. In comparison it's like the soul within our being shuts down and we no longer question the realm of existence. We die spiritually, we die mentally, we even die physically. Do I make sense here?We are in peace and we don't need the answers to the greater heights of consciousness.

I'm not sure what you mean Lindsey, though on the face of it, the death of all life, which Schopenhauer advocated (to cease suffering), is very gloomy and pessimistic.

Perhaps we can get some clues from Spinoza and answer the 'What am I' question with the reply, 'a being whose essence necessarily involves existence.'  

From Mellen-Thomas Benedict's report of his near-death experience in 1982:

"What mystics call the Void is not a void. It is so full of energy, a different kind of energy that has created everything that we are. Everything since the Big Bang is vibration, from the first Word, which is the first vibration. The biblical "I am" really has a question mark after it. "I am - What am I?"

So creation is God exploring God's Self through every way imaginable, in an ongoing, infinite exploration through every one of us. Through every piece of hair on your head, through every leaf on every tree, through every atom, God is exploring God's Self, the great "I am". I began to see that everything that is, is the Self, literally, your Self, my Self. Everything is the great Self. That is why God knows even when a leaf falls. That is possible because wherever you are is the center of the universe. Wherever any atom is, that is the center of the universe. There is God in that, and God in the Void. "

I don't necessarily see alot of godlike things in the modern 'I'...
but anyway...
God is the universe and it is in me

What am I= What is Love? (Since God is and his philosophy is Love)
Is there a relationship between them

forgive me. I'm just a student (17) with not such a great horizon... yet

care to reply?

17 is young!  But no matter, you've much to look forward to.  Your mind, your consciousness, is your most precious thing.  You must optimize, enhance, and expand it, because that is what gives meaning to life, to enlarge one's ken (ken=mental vision).  You ARE your mental vision, your consciousness.  Look, I love, and in fact I love to love, but I don't think God is love.  Saying God is love amounts to saying very little.  So, God is love means that God is a human emotion or something?  And if not, then what do you mean by love?  It must be some sort of human experience, since that's all we know, but surely God is beyond human experience, or is He?  Or perhaps we are all just the Universe, or God, conscious of Itself.  This makes the most sense to me, and is what I profoundly experience, and so that's what I believe, and is also the reason why I don't believe God is love.

Fran, I did enjoy your post, and hope you'll post more of your thoughts here, or any questions even.

take care,
Shawn

I didn't exactly say God is Love,
well .. yes I did.  
but I was focusing on the question What is Love? as well.
In a way it's a myth... although we know its around us so it could be an idea...
What am I
What is Love
both questions seem to be, sound very complex in a way..
and I was wondering if they have a connection somehow..
but you've already explained yourself earlier.... (and that very well  :D)
ANYWAY
we are conscious of the universe's presence/being....
would you mind explaining this....
the universe... is one great IT ...
truly we are part of it.
but are we concsious of the universe's presence/being?
what is this new dimensional feeling...
there is more behind it I'm sure...

or is there a misunderstanding?

yes,  some people are very conscious of the universe's presence/being.  You ask, what is this new dimensional feeling?  Let me try to explain.

Every legitimate mystical experience invariably involves the intensely profound experience of 'Presence', but what do we mean by 'Presence'?  When one dissolves dualities such as object/subject distinctions, then experience becomes Being, and the 'Presence' we experience, this mystical/religious feeling, is a natural consequence of this.  But what is 'Presence'?  Unfortunately, the best I can do is say that you must experience it to understand.  This is not a cop-out, but just reflects the fact that I can't put it into words any better (i.e., when dualities are dissolved, then you experience 'Presence' and Being).  And so, I'll leave off by saying the experience of 'Presence' requires the dissolution of dualities such as object/subject.  And that if you think you're experiencing 'Presence' as the mystics speak of it, but you still experience the subject/object dichotomy, then you're not really experiencing 'Presence'.

QUOTE

the experience of 'Presence' requires the dissolution of dualities such as object/subject.

like this?

"When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara."

"Was Coursing in the Deep Prajna Paramita."

"He Perceived That All Five Skandhas Are Empty."

"Thus He Overcame All Ills and Suffering."

"Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness."

"Sariputra, the Characteristics of the
Voidness of All Dharmas
Are Non-Arising, Non-Ceasing, Non-Defiled,
Non-Pure, Non-Increasing, Non-Decreasing."

"Therefore, in the Void There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness."

"No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness."

"No ignorance and Also No Ending of Ignorance,
Until We Come to No Old Age and Death and
No Ending of Old Age and Death."

"Also, There is No Truth of Suffering,
Of the Cause of Suffering,
Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path."

"There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

"Because There is Nothing to Be Attained,
The Bodhisattva Relying On Prajna Paramita Has
No Obstruction in His Mind."

"Because There is No Obstruction, He Has no Fear,"

"And He passes Far Beyond Confused Imagination."

"And Reaches Ultimate Nirvana."

"The Buddhas of the Past, Present and Future,
By Relying on Prajna Paramita
Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment."

"Therefore, the Prajna Paramita is the Great Magic Spell,
The Spell of Illumination, the Supreme Spell,
Which Can Truly Protect One From All Suffering Without Fail."

"Therefore He Uttered the Spell of Prajnaparmita,
Saying Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha."

http://www.buddhanet.net/heartstr.htm

An interesting post I came across:

The unconscious mind is the area of no thought, but of feelings or vibration, it is the un-manifested potential. The conscious mind reflects the feelings of the unconscious mind and manifests the potentials. So to think is to manifest self in a viable form of expression, of experience. One can be the witness of self and have no thoughts, but what are they witnessing? They are witnessing their expressed thoughts of themselves. To witness is to no longer create or manifest self, (there is nothing to witness until one creates a thought). In the witnessing one can then enter into the state of being, or feeling all that they are. The observer can begin to understand what they observe and not re-act, but they can respond. The responding brings one into alignment with total self- acceptance, in which the housed thought can then be expanded, back into the harmonic flow of self.
Consciousness is simply the creator of self. It is the intellect, the thinker, who, in turn, is the feeler, who expresses what they feel into a viable thing. There is truly no differentiation of the two; one is just the canvas, and the other the artist. The paint, and brush, is the tools of expression, the picture the manifested form. So, the canvas is the unconscious mind of unlimited potential, the conscious mind is the artist, manifesting the potential, the Paint is the feeling, the brush the intellect, the picture is the combined form of the two. All is pure consciousness existing, in order to know thyself.
I feel, therefore what am I?.I think therefore I am..I am, that I am, that I am. I exist from form that is no-form, I express all that I am, and I know that I am from experiencing my expression. Gently, I expand back into no form, knowing that I am.

from http://www.plotinus.com/wwwboard/messages/217.html

personally, i agree with the fact that "what am i?" is the better question because there is no "who"...- and the answer?

Part of a void- a viod without any type of stimulation or purpose or being, that at some point cried out for life, for a reason to be, for stimulation (be it good or bad).

After the general revelation of said viod that stimulation and purpose is better than a smooth being of nothingness, a spark of life and differenciation began-- and thus the world.

so what you are is the product and somewhat experiment of nothingness. Sort of a "the grass is greener on the other side" approach.

Some people are content, while others wrench in pain and wish for the nothingness again. But in truth, pain is better than nothingness.

so, we are simply one big viod with nothing better to do than walk around in fleshy bodies to pass the time of forever.

i'm a newbie at thinking out of the box, so enlighten me if i sound like an idiot.

-Cheyenne

I am the designer of myself.
I am the maker of myself.
I am the reproducer of myself.
I am the designer of myself thought processes.
I am the developer of myself thought processes.
Myself thought processes attempt to understand the design I have made of myself, and don't realise that they are subservient to myself design capability.
I and myself sometimes get confused and have illusions of a duality, not helped by my concept of my subconcious and concious states.
I believe concious states are models of our subconciousness (and the world around us).

I am not a particularly religious person in the sense of believing in a traditional superpower or God.
This is purely a personal situation I have arrived at, and not a criticism of Religions or peoples' beliefs.
I, like a lot of other people, religious or otherwise, have many unanswered questions about life and being.
I also come up with many ideas to try and answer these questions. They usually don't stand up to scrutiny.
Unfortunately for me, I have difficulty understanding the ideas of other people, so I am probably light-years behind in the search for the Truth.

The one idea I have had (which I cannot assess through lack of knowledge) involves rercognition of the fact that in life (or nature) most things seem to be cyclical.
It occurred to me that maybe there was not a 'big bang' ie., a one-off generation of orbiting bodies.
Maybe there is a cycle (exceptionally long) of 'all-material' followed by 'all-spirit', adinfinitum.
Halfway between these two extremes we have 'half-material / half-spirit'; the phase in which we now live (approximately).
'All-material' and 'all-spirit' each include vacuum.
Whilst each material has basic structure, it requires some spirit to attain higher levels of organisation and structure (life) .
Maybe all materials are the remains of or by-products of living organisms.

If there is scope in this construct, then God, for me, would be the Thing that can be spirit or material or any combination of them and control their existence.

Fundamental questions:
What purpose has the existence of any life-form on Earth fulfilled, other than its own reproduction and comfort?
Why do we have mines and quarries ie., why are ores and minerals usually found in concentrations around earth? ( I know that deposition explains some of them - but the rest seem 'magnetic')

If this post is off-topic, could a moderator please rectify the situation.
best regards, Bill.

You are a collection of experiences - impressions and ideas - memories and current experience. I think that comes from Hume. As far as i can tell, that's the simplest expression of what a mind is. You are you. You cannot infinitely define something. You can say "matter is energy." But that is easily followed by "what is energy." Whatever you define, you then must define the definition.

A thought:  

If we really are the universe conscious of itself (individuality and the ego being an illusion, of course), and the universe is infinite (an infinite multiverse, universes within universes ad infinitum), then what does that say about consciousness and the true identity of 'I'?


btw, seanf, about your post above, I love Hume, but certainly don't believe that we're simply a collection of experiences, impressions, and ideas because in the absence of such things, we still are, are we not?  I mean, a computer hard-drive full of data can be considered a collection of experiences, impressions, and ideas, but certainly that doesn't define a sentient being in the sense that Hume was attempting.

since we are born in this human type body, and no other species of animal ask such question, we have to examine the history of mankind and the difference between we, the human beings,  to other animal species and the chemical universe that surround us. through out the history of earth, we, human, possess the "free will" or the creative power that no other animals possess, therefore we transform the universe before our eyes, some heroes sacrafice their life to make it better , some villans make it worse.no other beings we know in this universe can transform the universe so much as we do whether for the better(easier labor) or the worse. philosophy ask such question start searching for wisdom and happiness in the world which appear like a dream. For more understanding yourself and the world "Plato's dialogues" is a must read.

Hey Shawn

First off, I want to say that I am jealous of your intelligence and wish to be better than you.  And any other smartypants who hang with you

second, I think I am better than you and you should know this

now that I've set the record straight, here's the secret key of realitea:

time-division multiplexing


yep, you heard me

The universe has but a single awareness, and internal structure is the cause of a state of consciousness.  
This consciousness, however, fluxes from coherence to coherence (a coherence being a 'consciousness'), visiting some number of disjoint coherence regimes per master cycle.  (this defines the number of 'beings' in the universe)

So, you (shawn) probably consist of a total of 10^-50 of the total time of a master cycle, but you would know it because while you are 'you', it all seems continuous but when you are not 'you' (and you are 'me', which is much better), your brain isn't freaking out about it

8)

there at the end, I meant

[glow=red,2,300]but you wouldn't know it because blahblah....[/glow]


but, of course, you know it now, now don't you  ???

It's an intriguing idea, Dan.   I certainly agree with you that 'The universe has but a single awareness, and internal structure is the cause of a state of consciousness', but your other notion of 'consciousness fluxing from coherence to coherence', now this is very interesting.  To be honest, I've thought along these lines before, though I've admittedly kept such ideas to myself; it's an amazing notion, I think.  However, I've never heard of this notion referred to as time-division multiplexing before, though, which makes me wonder what your background is and why you chose that particular phrase for it.  

I'd be interested to hear more of this time-division multiplexing.  How did you come up with this notion?  What alternatives have you considered?  I mean, you can't be absolutely certain of this cosmic 'time-division multiplexing', can you?   Personally, I'm very attracted to the idea.  I have a gut-feeling that it's right.  But I still retain an open mind about things, about the possibility that my gut feeling may be misleading.  What do you think about this?

hope to hear from you soon.

namaste,
Shawn

p.s. I'm glad you think you're better than me, but you should know that this thought is reciprocated to the extent that I differentiate my 'I' from yours, though in reality, I don't maintain such distinctions.  So, there you have it!  :)

before I pontificate, I just want to take this opportunity to say 'GO SOONERS!'

anyway,

you know I'm right about the 'multiplexing'.  Awareness is a property of the universe, not an object in it.  Brains, on the other hand, are objects in the universe. Somehow, brains can set up patterns that ultimately define such instantaneous states as "Me watching OU kick UT's ass in football yet again" and "Shawn creating novel models of human nerual networking".  Of course, there are many brains but only one I, which begs the question "how???!#@#@!#?>?"

well, divided in time!

You don't have to own a very big time slot to be 'separate inside', but your time slot does require a certain degree of disjunction in order to support the necessary mental continuity.  

it's in the physics

8)

hello Dan,

Very interesting, but perhaps you could offer a point of clarification: are you saying 1) that there is one cosmic 'I' rapidly oscillating thru everyone's consciousness, this thing you call time-division multitasking, or 2) that there is one cosmic 'I' that looks thru everyone's consciousness all the time (in which case, I'm unclear on the meaning of 'time-division multitasking')?

I'm also not sure what you mean by, 'your time slot does require a certain degree of disjunction in order to support the necessary mental continuity'.   What 'time slot'?  And why does it require some disjunction for mental continuity?

namaste,
Shawn

'sup Shawn

I am saying there is just One (perceiver)

period



and that when you are 'it', I am not

and that when I am 'it', you are not

(i.e., that awareness sees the "Shawn" experience alone, and then the "Dan" experience, etc...)


the time slot stuff has to do with the physical nature of this action.  Structure is a consequence of units and interactions.  Units define quals, are in 'existential' oscillatory motion ('energizing' and 'deenergizing'), and interact by energy-transfer.  Qual families set up spaces, and phase difference sets up 'distances'.  Interaction will depend on qual similarity, phase difference and energy difference.  I am guessing that the 'zero degree' position is the 'communal point', where the particle qual is 'loud' and interactivity is possible

In order to set up particular stable patterns of perceptual meaning using a small subset of units (say, a mind from brain), the influence of the particle complement (everything else) must be minimized in the qualia sense (meaningfulness can be delicate, noise = bad).   Significant separation in phase takes care of this, only those particles in phase with each other will work together to form the coherent perception (as they pass through zero together).  The interactive position will have to be zero +- tiny bit, this tiny bit is the 'window' I suppose

one last idea

I don't know how we can identify these, but, in the brain there must be some number of nodes that constitute the in/out 'ports' so to speak.  
I presume that the various brain modules define 'node families', where specific low-order perceptions are formed.  Then the brain itself is a giant 'module' family, where the final high-order product is bound (specifically, states of human consciousness).  
The nodes are either linking to lower-order structures (sub-brains) that lie outside the realm of the known physical interactions, or are themselves sufficient in spatial and temporal relation to bind a functioning psyche.  I'm betting on some variation of the former, with the 'sub-brains' being what is commonly referred to as a 'soul' and the associated fields of physical interactivity being a tantalizing prospect for physicists.
These sub-brains may develop after the main brain, sort of a backward organization, in which case they are bound by brains and evaporate when brains are disrupted.  There may be persistence of such structure afterward, though, and there may even be the possibility to reattach to a new brain (in a fetus) for another go-round.  Also, sub-brain fields may allow information exchange between brains, thus a real 'psychic' phenomenon.

8)

hopefully you noticed that I changed my 'revised again' post significantly.  smoke a doobie, read haphazardly, and let me know what you think I am saying.  Or maybe just smoke a doobie and let me know what you are thinking

Or maybe just smoke a doobie

;D

Hey dude, I just read your theory of conscionsness.  Do you have Asperger's syndrome or something?  just kidding...
I want to try to get some stuff straight, it seems we are nearly in contact with each other on this hard problem issue.  And since you are the brain man and I am a recovering stoner, I should spill my beans and be happy.  

You seem basically recognize that physical structure binds psychic structure directly, thus mapping physical traces of conscious activity gives a way to map the structure of psyche.   That's an easy one.  
 On the issue of the hard problem, where do you locate the subjective with respect to the universe?  Is this a nonlocal 'property' as I say, or are you undecided or just confused?  And how can you conceive to allow simultaneous disjoint subjective experiences?  

It makes no sense to me to say that subjectivity is nonlocal and then conceive that many subjective experiences can exist in the same universe simultaneously.  Subjective is necessarily synthetic/holistic, all 'input elements' at any instant are bound to the same whole 'view'.  Therefore, any subjective experience in my universe that is simultaneous with mine must also be my experience.  So do you see the beauty of the 'time division' idea?  It fits perfectly with physics, too.  (that is, my own genius theory of physics; Wolfram be damned)



For your pleasure and my needs, I think that maybe identifying the in/out nodes in brains might offer a new avenue for physics to probe.  Personally, I think we'll need nanobot STMs to go in there and identify them, but hopefully I'm wrong (nanobots are too far down the road for my tastes)

talk to me boy!  we need to make sure you know what I'm saying (we also need to make sure that I know what I'm saying), so that I can stop worrying about this nonsense and get high on your designer hedonichals


8)

In clarification of my previous post, I was trying to say what a mind definitely is. In any particular instant, all you can know is your mind in that instant - what your senses are currently telling you, what your memories currently are, what your thoughts currently are. You may have come into existence that instant, and you may be gone the next - a mind may simply be an instantaneous flash, and continuity an illusion.

P.S
I don't think I expressed myself very well there - if anyone understands and has a better way of putting it I'd be very grateful - I'm 15 and I feel a bit out of my depth!

In clarification of my previous post, I was trying to say what a mind definitely is. In any particular instant, all you can know is your mind in that instant - what your senses are currently telling you, what your memories currently are, what your thoughts currently are. You may have come into existence that instant, and you may be gone the next - a mind may simply be an instantaneous flash, and continuity an illusion.

P.S
I don't think I expressed myself very well there - if anyone understands and has a better way of putting it I'd be very grateful - I'm 15 and I feel a bit out of my depth!

SeanF,

I am 27 and I have a hard time understanding this...lol! You are doing fine, your posts make sence to me my friend!

Love,
Dara

Oh, we are condensations of infinite vastness
the mind is the post-office of the unconcious
the unconcious is the departure lounge to back home.
PJ

sean

I think you're fitting with what I'm saying.  The sensation of continuity is not itself actual continuity.  I say that you in fact are a flicking scene on the movie roll of consciousness.  And that in between every picture that is you, lies everybody else's picture

that way, the One thinks there is Many.  What an interesting delusion, no?

8)

yes, Dan, very interesting delusion indeed!   Schopenhauer noted this too, and said something to the effect that the hunter and the hunted are one and the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by in/out 'ports' in the brain.  The brain is composed of multiple interconnected distributed networks; it's just a question of determining connectivity.

Asperger's Syndrone?  Nope, but I'm curious why you'd bring this up.

I'm glad you read my theory on consciousness.  It's the most satisfactory theory I've come across.  In a nutshell, it says that structure of neuronal interactions is isomorphic to the structure of conscious experience, and that this structure 'uniquely' determines the 'contents' of consciousness (i.e., the qualia and phenomenal content).  Even though it's my favorite theory, I still have problems with it.  For example, there are many 'Gestalts' in perception that complicate the determination of a 'structure' for conscious experience.  Also, many different structures can be derived for neuronal interactions and conscious experience, and it's not evident what is the best definition of structure to be working with.  

Schopenhaur, eh?  never heard of him, but then I don't read much of that kind of stuff as I am already far more crazy than I need to be.  

as for the 'in/out' ports, let's stick to the idea of nodes first.  [glow=red,2,300]The brain is composed of multiple interconnected distributed networks; it's just a question of determining connectivity[/glow]
what exactly is being connected?  Surely all this connectivity is not spurious, something is being routed.  Info perhaps?  from nodes?

as for Asperger's, I often wonder this about those proficient in mathemeticians and science.  Your case is interesting, what with the strange brain distortion and the consequent array of hyperconnectivity.  It's just a standard q, sort of a psychological profiling for my leisure.   :

[glow=red,2,300]structure of neuronal interactions is isomorphic to the structure of conscious experience[/glow]
I don't know if isomorphism is evident, although certainly there is morphism

[glow=red,2,300]this structure 'uniquely' determines the 'contents' of consciousness (i.e., the qualia and phenomenal content)[/glow]
I would say that the neural structure serves as a latticework that supplies 'meaningful' orders, but it is not evident to me that the neural patterns are isomorphic to the total structure of psyche.
The lattice nodes are the nodes I am talking about, they are the points of exchange of information (although I don't know if they are trivially related to the perception or are passing a partially processed signal for further processing in other fields of interaction.  

What is clear to me is that these nodes exist, even if they are trivially connected to consciousness.  All the nerual patterns you are watching on the brain-thingy are the patterns that inform at these nodes and are informed by these nodes.  

8)

I changed that one above again, Shawn

this isn't my field, trying to invent b.s. like this gives me a headache.  anyway, do you see what I'm trying to say about the 'node' idea?  It's an ontological angle, I admit, but I do ontology; what can I say

my interest lies in identifying the ontological connection between matter and mind.  If the brain is the whole structure, the problem is reduced to identifying the properties of nodes that makes them nodes.  But if the brain is more like a superstructure, some new physical fields await investigation too

8)

Two cents as a flovoring to the soup.
I have been trying to explain consciousness so that I know which vehicle to take when I take the next train out of town..
I think everyone here is looking from their own perspective and I like the way people are not trying to create one language to communicate.  Thanks Shawn for having your own current take on things and allowing other discourse.  So, now that I have set up the field for my landing here goes.
Isomorphic is the key word of current science as it peers at the problem and attempts to intelligently understand what consciousness is.  I think that stance from that viewpoint hides the problem.  Yes, I know that I will be regarded as a barefooted dreamer that I am.  But trying to look for consciousness in this manner is akin to the old Sufi tale of Nasruddin who had lost his keys and was searching for them under the streetlight.  When asked where he last remembered having them, he responded, over there in the dark, but the light is better here.
By seperating out the features of the mind from that of the brain, instead of thinking of the relationship to them in any other manner, i.e. on top of, a part of, a characteristic of, or a one to one correspondece to each other, is to rapidly move ahead in this field.  To break the logjam with fresh new thinking.  First you differentiate out the parts to understand the whole.  This is not being a heretic, this is the spirit of true science.
There are people who have intuited this seperation.
The difficulty is the general tools of present day science are not adequate to discern the mind out from the brain wiithout introducing new tools.  
That is the heresy, the general body of any guild like organization is in lockstep and will give a very hard time to anyone that theatens the old traditions.  Science is threatened but should not be as it is perfect for research on the particle side of the equation but not the waveform side where the mind resides.
A table is not mostly empty space with a tiny portion of particulate matter in it.  That is the illusion, it is nuclei held together with intervening compressed energy that we cannot see.  Get next to a nuclear explosion and then talk about how empty the space was in the materiel exploded.  This is a crude metaphor for the brain and its intimately associated-but not integral to-mind.  The spirit and the body.  Each one seperate and distinct but intimately entwined.  The brain a limited copy of the mind.

'What am I?'

-'God's' self-imposed delusion (thats my guess), from what I hear from reading 'enlightened' accounts- this question cannot bee awnsered using words/language as they are products of the mind, and the only thing that the mind can do is create separation.  The awnser lies in non-dualistic 'knowing'.

As a side-note: yeah, psychedelics might take you there, but without superior concentration, the info gets lost to the wind (encoding)- specially if there are fast changes in state (going in, or coming down- look at how they induce amnesia in hypnosis).  IM(un-edjumicated)O, it looks like meditation is THE awnser (right here, right now- 'just this').  Look at the esoteric (mystical) practices in nearly every major religion...self-trancendance via meditation= 'cosmic consciousness'.  Insights gained via meditation are more apt to bee sucessfully integrated and remembered/realized.

Great site BTW.  Psychedelics, consciousness, spirituality... these are a few of my fa-vor-ate things!

What does isomorphic mean, anyone? Does anyone else's brains fry trying to follow this?

Ahh, here we have a series of excellent posts, which I'll try to take up in my following post  :)

seanf - isomorphic means having the same connectivity, and is used often in the mathematical field of topology.  In topology, they say that a donut is isomorphic to a coffee-cup because the former can be continuously transformed into the latter.  However, a donut is not isomorphic to a sphere because there isn't a smooth transformation that changes a donut into a sphere.  

When I say above that the structure of neuronal interactions is "isomorphic" to the structure of conscious experience, I mean that they have the same connectivity.  For example, since the conscious experience of auditory  sensations is completely different from the experience of visual sensations, we would expect that the neuronal activity representing the auditory sensation would be completely different from (or nonoverlapping with) the neuronal activity representing the visual sensation.


-MrMonkey, I think that's a brilliant response to "what am I?"  God's self-imposed delusion.  

I agree with you that psychedelics are not sufficient for cosmic experience.   I do believe, however, that some combinations of psychedelics, only when coupled with the proper environmental setting (including audio and visual stimulation), mental set (preparedness, beliefs, and expectations), and strong powers of concentration, are ideal for inducing cosmic experiences.   I don't think meditation alone is sufficient to exhaust all the varieties of cosmic experience, but it doesn't mean I don't think meditation isn't useful (at the very least, it can be used to strengthen your powers of concentration and to still your mind).  Thank you for your comments over this site.  I hope you enjoy it here and I look forward to your posts.


Synchronox-  I agree with you for the most part that "By separating out the features of the mind from that of the brain, instead of thinking of the relationship to them in any other  (i.e., one to one correspondence to each other), is to rapidly move ahead in this field", but I think it's fruitful to think in terms of correspondence for the purposes of inferring properties of one from the other.   For example,  Freud and Jung said some very interesting things about the structure of the psyche.  Shouldn't we find corresponding systems in the brain for these structures of the psyche?  I think, yes, if the structures of the psyche of Jung and Freud carry any validity.  Similarly, we know quite a bit about the structure of the brain, and I think these things have great relevance to our understanding the structure of the psyche, though I can assure you that the full implications for the structure of the psyche (as inferred from the structure of the brain) have not been worked out yet.  

I'd be curious to hear more about why and how you think the brain is a limited copy of the mind.


-Dan,   individual brain areas are being connected, but at a smaller scale, it's individual neurons that are being connected.  What is it, something like 100 billion neurons in the human brain, each one receiving connections from tens of thousands of others and projecting to tens of thousands too?  The complexity of the brain is utterly astounding.  Thinking in terms of connectivity of individual brain areas simplifies things, but we have to keep in mind that at the simpler level, we're talking about the interconnections between 100 billion neurons!   These connections route information, but more generally, neuronal activity (it's often hard to associate measures of 'information' with neuronal activity, particularly when you don't know what type of information you're dealing with).

I believe isomorphism to some extent.  It may not be a one-to-one mapping, and as I noted earlier, there are problems with determing what 'structure' means and how it should be evaluated, which in turn would influence the question of isomorphism vs simple morphism.

Perhaps you would consider individual neurons as nodes?  Or are you thinking larger scale?

Ok, I just read your 2nd post above.  Very interesting!  "But if the brain is more like a superstructure, some new physical fields await investigation too."   A superstructure?  I now better appreciate what you mean by simple morphism (as opposed to isomorphism).  I hadn't thought about the brain in terms of a superstructure (as opposed to an isomorphic structure).  Very interesting indeed!  I'll need to let this idea incubate in the recesses of my consciousness for a bit, and see if it yields any worthwhile associations.   Thank you, Dan, for your thoughts on this matter.   I respect very much the fact that you're trying to identify the ontological connection between matter and mind.   Indeed, Spinoza (16th century jewish philosopher of mind and God) stated a similar, heartfelt desire in his "Improvement of the Understanding".   I can certainly sympathize strongly with such a desire.   You needn't worry if you don't consider neuroscience your field.  I and others would still be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.


-Piratjenny,  do you mean that we are condensations of the infinite unconscious?  Or perhaps, we are condensations of reflective consciousness within a sea of infinite non-reflective consciousness.

I'm thinking that nodes are on the atomic scale, and that neurons probably contain them.  Not all neurons, though (in fact, maybe only a tiny portion).  Much of the neural structure can be 'unconscious', as it processes information that is then passed to the 'nodes'.  

varieties of cosmic experiences... yes, there seem to bee an infinite quantity of those running around

I should have prefaced that statement: I have given up on using psychedelics for that purpose.  I have explored just about every nook and cranny- from mega-doses, to combinations, mind machines and even sensory deprivation tanks.  For ME- after I got the initial 'peek' into what its like to bee infinity...it was all mostly downhill from there.  Not to say I stopped learning, but all I was doing was downregulating receptors and re-inforcing something I already 'knew'.  I got lots and lots of practice learning to 'let go' (of fear mostly) and surrendering my ego, but the experiences became darker and darker.  I dont remember who said it, but I agree with them (probably Timothy Leary) 'once you get the message, hang up the phone'.  This was my experience mind you- of course ymmv, but others that I have met who have gone through the same 'search' have reached nearly the same conclusion after a period of time.  

There are many lessons to bee learned, but the problem is (well was for me) that although I learned to handle my sh@t whilst on the drugs/entheogens- other than intellectual brain-candy, I couldnt really integrate much of what I was shown into my 'normal' life.  With the drugs, you have this perceptual filter which interferes with memory as well as the damage it does to your brain chemistry (even though I was taking some nootropics/antioxidents etc, there was still quite a bit of damage).  I got those peaks, but my real-life states became downregulated.  The same message (for me once again) can bee found meditating (letting go, ego deflation, learning the inner workings of the mind (for metaprogramming etc)) with the bonus of not doing any damage (provided you stay away from kundalini).  With meditation as well, you have instant integration as well, after a while- one learns to carry the act of meditation into normal life (mindfulness)- one begins to truly and fundementally transform (ego deflation etc) in a lasting way, not just for the duration of the drug.

Having experimented with many types of hallucinogens/combinations I can say that I was able to tailor the high that accompanied ego deflation/trancendance -but as far as visiting differing states of cosmic consciousness- they where all the same...self trancendance is self trancendance regardless of wether my body happens to bee buzzing pleasantly, or Im hearing auditory hallucinations, or if Im more or less confused (which is bad for integration later) or if Im seeing elves.  Connection is connection.  The point Im trying to make is that in order to have that 'cosmic' experience, one needs to bypass the self- anything else is just candy (and its really easy to get hung up on the candy- spiritual materialism).  Trancendence is trancendance regardless of its packaging.  Sure, there are supposivly varying stages of trancendance, but they are all on the map which can bee reached via meditation.  Let me rephrase that, I never encountered a state under the influance (c.consciousness-wise) that I couldnt referance to a state that could bee attained by meditation.

Once again, I am not saying that you are wrong regarding this, and I am infinitly greatful for what I have experienced/seen- but for me, the drugs eventually became a hinderance to my true objective.  I dont want to just visit every once and a while and have to pay for it with braindamage, I want to LIVE there- and I want to have access 24/7 (this is where concentration comes into play).  It can bee done, and there are many people who will testify to that fact.  For me, the psychedelics were a form of McSpirituality.

Abbreviated message.  Following everything-nice string.
Shawn, may have to do this in short messages-intermittent failures of the computer.
You said:
"Synchronox-  I agree with you for the most part that "By separating out the features of the mind from that of the brain, instead of thinking of the relationship to them in any other  (i.e., one to one correspondence to each other), is to rapidly move ahead in this field", but I think it's fruitful to think in terms of correspondence for the purposes of inferring properties of one from the other."

Agreed, Exact registration between us.

  For example,  Freud and Jung said some very interesting things about the structure of the psyche.  Shouldn't we find corresponding systems in the brain for these structures of the psyche?  I think, yes, if the structures of the psyche of Jung and Freud carry any validity."
They do, Jung goes much further than Freud. have to skip this part of the interesting discussion and do it later.

" Similarly, we know quite a bit about the structure of the brain, and I think these things have great relevance to our understanding the structure of the psyche, though I can assure you that the full implications for the structure of the psyche (as inferred from the structure of the brain) have not been worked out yet. "

Agreed, same position we share except for the last sentence, I have worked out the fundementals here over the last twenty years of private research.  No arrogance-come over and I will demonstrate this, I have been doing this work for the past three years live.  Have sixty volunteers I work with on a daily basis.    

I'd be curious to hear more about why and how you think the brain is a limited copy of the mind.
Brain=~10% grey matter, our work in process consciousness. (WIPCON)
90% white matter, who we are to become, when the unconscious is made conscious, the white matter will turn into grey matter.  Comes from the accompanying mind (HICON).  Conversion by special understanding of the brains imaging system, language, and operating instructions, easily comprehended by the intelligent person.  No esoterics necessary.
 This is a new field of the "Visionary Scientist".  Two fields of science: one new, the second one old-Newton, who knew of this existance of both worlds but could not articulate it because of the restrictive nature of his society.  He was a practicing Alchemist and discovered the roots of his physical science there.
And then a blending of both.
One of the fields of my study to understand this.
Will post this now and then edit and add.
John

about this

[glow=blue,2,300]I have worked out the fundementals here over the last twenty years of private research.  No arrogance-come over and I will demonstrate this, I have been doing this work for the past three years live.  Have sixty volunteers I work with on a daily basis[/glow]

can you explain further?  sounds interesting....

8)

To Dan,
About the invitation to come over, I'm on the Big Island of Hawaii.
I don't charge.
I spend about 40 hours a week in conducting meetings and private counsel.
Meetings are:
Monday:  All women session on advanced Imaging, including dream analysis.  My wife conducts these.
Monday:  I have to get out of the house since I am no longer an honorary woman.  (I started it so then I got kicked out for not having the right credentials)  Started a Boy's club in retaliation.  All men, requirement is to bring a specialty food dish to the Warm Ponds.  Eating, Swimming in a natural warm pond~100 degrees, on the ocean face. no structure usually a topic takes us over.
Sort of like the Stoics or Parapetetics but without label as yet. 3 'til dark.
Tuesday:  7 to 10Pm.  Fundementals of dream analysis.  We teach people to analyse their own dreams so they are not beholden to someone else, avoiding the tyranny of having to have a dream analyst for the rest of one's process/ life.
Thursday.  Meeting in one of finest environments I have ever been.  On a property owned by Mango John.  Under the stars, fireplace, 7 'til 10 PM.  Three miles from the active volcano.
Sunday:  We have a booth at the market to introduce imaging techniques to the general public.
Various private sessions during the week
Occasional special program meetings.  The last was a comparison of the Castenada Toltec tradition with Jungian fundementals showing the registration and similarities.
I don't charge for any of this, everyone understanding that I am pushing the envelope on the borders of this research, most claiming great benefits and change for their part.
The idea is to change the world by first changing yourself.
John

dude it sounds cool

but I can't come, I'm poor and in Oklahoma dodging tornadoes

so you are a psychoanalyst?  are you a graduate of some school, or are you a 'freelance' to the core?

I want to hear much, I'm afraid you're telling me I need to come see if I want to know

this sux


8)

Dan,
You asked, I answered.  It was not my intentionality to recruit.
I was offering Shawn, to emphasis that as the majority of people you encounter talk a good game and many have wonderful imaginations there are few that can produce, I can produce.
If you can get here , great.  If not, not.
Words are pale copies of the actual practice.  So if interested, I would fold you in.  I performed all the tasks required of becoming a Jungian dream analyst.  I did not file for my deploma as I did not wish to hang out a shingle.  The more papers that hang on my wall, the more I have to live up to them.

Sorry, your problem is your problem, even though I sympathize.  Sounds harsh, I don't know what else to do.  Many times just articulating something starts the ball rolling though.
Sincerely,
John

a Jungian, eh?  I've wondered about these archetype thingies, are they like 'platonic ideals' where they literally exist as specific potentia while being is unformed?  

and certainly you could talk about the practice of your art or conclusions you have come to, without performing it directly; no?

8)