--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Judy why do you think it's not useful to try to make any > connections or draw parallels between the "hard problem" > approach to consciousness and any Eastern system? Is it > that their respective definitions of consciousness are too > different?  Â
(How ya doin' on those extra spaces, Share?) Well, I thought I'd already explained this, didn't I? Maybe you missed it. They are two very different systems based on different assumptions, asking different questions, looking at different things. It doesn't matter how many times you ask, the answer is going to be the same. The question comes from the erroneous notion that Maharishi's teaching covers everything. It does not. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 9:22 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness > > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > For someone like Guilio Tononi and his Integrated Information > > Theory, ALL possible states that a conscious entity can be in > > are qualia, contentless or not. > > OK. The term is used in different ways, but this one is > pretty nonstandard. In any case, according to David > Chalmers, IIT is an ingenious theory but doesn't get at > the "hard problem" of consciousness. As I understand why > Chalmers identifies qualia as the "symptom" of the "hard > problem," Tononi is going in quite a different direction. > > I just don't think--at this stage of the game, at any > rate--that it's at all useful to try to make connections > or draw parallels between the "hard problem" approach to > consciousness and any Eastern system. > > > > > > > So you first have to decide what a qualia is at some deeper physiological > > level before you can answer the question. > > > > Currently, qualia are thought to be associated with activity of the > > feedback loops between the cortex and the thalamus. The current theory of > > how PC works is that TM helps set up/enhance a filtering system in the > > thalamus that allows the brain to maintain alertness while reducing the > > feedback loops to a minimum, thereby reducing qualia towards zero. > > > > There's no direct evidence of this that I am aware of, because it would > > require using brain imaging hardware that costs more than the entire worth > > of MUM to purchase and maintain, on people with regular PC episodes (up to > > $6 million for the equipment, and there's a reason why they charge $1000+ > > per test -it's expensive to run, also). > > > > And thus, the difficulty: Tononi's model can't conceive of qualia being > > non-existent, and to acknowledge that, he'd have to change definitions or > > the definition of qualia needs to be changed, or something. > > > > Other non-TM models of brain functioning and qualia have similar issues: PC > > just doesn't enter their world-view when devising their models. > > > > > > So, until definitions firm up, its hard to ask, letalone answer, the > > question. > > > > L > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > [...] > > > > Does someone in PC experience qualia? > > > > > > > > It's a tricky question to ask, letalone answer. > > > > > > Not if you're talking about PC-by-itself during > > > meditation, no thoughts, no mantra. Why tricky? >
