--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Judy I was replying to the phrase something it is like to be you.
Yes, Share, I assumed that's what you were replying to. > That's what reminded me of Iness Amness Isness. And as I said, I don't think that has anything to do with the "hard problem." > Thanks for the article about the hard problem. I've read it > a few times now. My first response is that we don't know > enough about the brain to understand how we experience qualia. Yes, that's why it's called "the hard problem," you see. > But my speculation is that it might have something to do with > the vibratory nature of energy and matter, something yet to be > understood by modern science. That the experience of qualia is not understood by modern science is not speculation, it's a fact. On the other hand, just about everything has "something to do with the vibratory nature of energy and matter" one way or another. So you're not really saying anything of any interest. > Though I think ancient rishis experienced it and wrote > about it. Experienced what and wrote about what? Everybody with a functioning mind experiences qualia, and loads of people, philosophers and scientists, have written about them. > But they did so in code. Of course at this moment I remember > no titles of what I've read about this but maybe some of the > Vedic scholars here can help out. It's not going to help with the hard problem. You're just on the wrong track with this, Share. You can't get there from here. > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:23 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness > > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Judy what this reminds me of is Maharishi's explanation that > > the three deepest levels of individuality are what he calls > > Iness, Amness, Isness, the latter being the deepest.ÃÂ I like > > the word Isness because IMO it best avoids the connotation of > > an object, which so many phrases used in this context are > > unable to avoid. > > Honestly, Share, I don't think the "hard problem" has much > of anything to do with this explanation of Maharishi's. I > think you miss what the discussion is about and thoroughly > confuse the issue if you try to see it in those very > esoteric terms. > > Again, I'd recommend you have a look at Wikipedia's page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness > > > ________________________________ > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 1:24 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > What the "hard problem" is *about* is something very > > simple, very immediate, very transparent--that there is > > *something it is like* to be you, to be me, to be Dennett. > > You may have to sit with that phrase for awhile before it > > makes sense; but once it does, a whole lotta crap just > > falls away. > > >
