Orn, do you prefer to be called Orn or something else?
Here is an attempt to explain my position on this more clearly. In one approach to thinking about these things, I consider mind different than consciousness. Mind can be seen from the outside, by mindful actions. Mindful actions are responses to differences in the environment. For example, a heat seeking missile detect differences in air temperature and steers itself towards the source of the heat which. This action is mindful in that it is not directed by forces an impacts acting randomly on the missile. The forces and impacts are controlled by a goal (follow the heat to its source). Another example of mindful action is the idea that if slap a dog on the nose, the dog will move a bit from the impact following the laws of physics, but will probably move a great deal more using its own energy and mindful action to get away from the source of the pain (or else move towards you and attempt to bite which also a mindful action). >From the first example, the heat seeking missile, I believe that most people would say that the missile is not conscious, meaning for the moment that it has an inner experience. I would say that I don’t know. I also believe that some people, perhaps most, would also say that it has no mind. But I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that anything that acts to achieve a goal as mindful. In the second example, I believe most people would say that the dog is conscious, that it has an inner experience. I also believe that the dog has an inner experience, but I have no way to know for sure. Now here is the point of all this, I don’t how see that consciousness arises simply from more complex behavior or from the same sort of organization that makes more complex mindful behavior possible. It might arise from this, but I don’t see how it could. To me this is like saying a wheel arises merely from the circular shape. But will a wheel work if it is not also rigid, to a degree. If matter was like bosons, an elementary particle in which more than one particle can occupy the same place. Then a wheel made out of this sort of matter would collapse and not work. But fermions, from which matter is made, or usually associated, cannot share the same space. In quantum mechanics experiments have been run where one photon seems to “know” what another photon is doing. As an aside, this happens at distance and speeds that seem to require faster than light communication. That is another mystery and it leads most physicists to acknowledge that there are problems with our idea of location and reality. For my point, is this “knowing” what the other particle is doing analogous to the partial rigidity of matter due to the fact that two or more fermions cannot occupy the same place at the same time? Does consciousness build from the “communication” between photons in the same way that a wheel and rolling build from the fermions? If so, then at the base of it what gives rise to consciousness is non-local and perhaps in some way consciousness is also non-local. Orn, please tell me what you think? On Nov 11, 12:05 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...all credit for the above philosophy is given to it's originator, > Ichazo > > .“… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > such. > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > omniscient, among other attributes. > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > – Mike > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue > here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it > is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as > they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. > Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes > that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. > > “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING > AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike > > Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance > or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. > > “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT > EXISTANCE.” – Mike > > Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from > Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative > ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ > is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. > That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the > relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… > seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. > > On Nov 10, 10:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > > such. > > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > > omniscient, among other attributes. > > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > > – Mike > > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > > point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue > > here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it > > is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as > > they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. > > Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes > > that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. > > > “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING > > AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike > > > Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance > > or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. > > > “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT > > EXISTANCE.” – Mike > > > Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from > > Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative > > ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ > > is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. > > That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the > > relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… > > seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. > > > On Nov 10, 7:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > > > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > > > Mike > > > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > > > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > > > I AGREE THAT FOR ME CONSCIOUNESS IS NO MYSTERY, SINCE I EXPERIENCE IT, > > > BUT FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM. iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST > > > WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES. ALSO WE CANNOT > > > EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE > > > YOU CAN). THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST > > > IT IS CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS > > > ALSO SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE > > > MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS? > > > THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS ONLY > > > SECONDARY. BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND > > > EXISTING AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER. AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT > > > MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EXISTANCE. > > > > On Nov 10, 6:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > > > > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > > > > Mike > > > > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > > > > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > > > > “….THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. > > > > FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I > > > > CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON > > > > HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY > > > > CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY > > > > EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT > > > > LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS.” – Mike > > > > > Ahhh, I see. For me, I don’t make the full link between concepts and > > > > matter. However, I can see how one could make such a link. But, of > > > > course, again, even using concepts the notion of matter sort of > > > > disappears upon full analysis. > > > > Oh, for me, ‘intuitively clear’ and ‘relatively clear’ of entirely > > > > different substances. The former has to do with the absolute and the > > > > latter with the relative. > > > > > “…BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY > > > > WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS > > > > POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS.” – > > > > Mike > > > > > So, this is what you mean by being able to speak meaningfully about > > > > something? The only use of ‘meaningfully’ I could find at the web link > > > > was “For example, the meanings of words like “feelings,” “emotions,” > > > > or “consciousness” seem so natural, clear, and direct to us that we > > > > cannot see how to start thinking about them.” > > > > I agree with this. > > > > > And, yes, I meant quarks. And, while I do appreciate your speculation > > > > and attempts at description, I don’t find it necessary to revert to > > > > any type of ‘atomism’. > > > > > For both, mind and what appears to be matter, in fact all being mind, > > > > I find that looking at process including functions and results are > > > > quite useful for describing all things. > > > > > Again, Mike, I greatly appreciate your true humility when it comes to > > > > such lofty notions!!! It makes interaction a joy and a mutual > > > > exploration. Thanks again! > > > > > On Nov 10, 2:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:- Hide quoted > > > > text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
