Hmm...why do you say that the distinction between "absolute" and "subjective" is synthetic, OM?
Re global beta maps, i was loosely referring to the frequency and structure of integrated neuro-electrical activity which would correlate with that state of awareness i'm referring to as the "organic self"; my point is that we could reproduce, for example, a connectionist network to simulate these system-wide electrical characteristics, yet derive no mind. So, is it misdirected and misleading to wonder why we have mind in one and not the other? On Jul 23, 7:14 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I see no contradiction paradox. > > A few observations: > Any bifurcation of the absolute/objective and relative/subjective is > synthetic. > We weren’t born with thoughts (words/concepts). A return to the > absolute is always possible, thus ‘accessible’. > Yes, we have what you call an organic self. We also have other ‘self’s > along with the unity of all of them. > > I’m not clear at all about your views on what a global beta map is nor > how it ‘works’ in this context. More unpacking may help. > > Yes, I agree that we all have a ‘spark’ within. And the notion of a > source for the One is at once misdirected and misleading. > > And, as we know, we can experience all of the relative aspects of > consciousness too…consubstantially. > > On Jul 23, 4:13 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > > > > "more" comes from? > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the ‘more’ > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm > > > > > > on > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith). > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox. > > > > > > > > I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question. > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of mind’, > > > > > > > what, > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question? > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we watch; i > > > > > > > > was re- > > > > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our neuro-physiological > > > > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an > > > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the quality of > > > > > > > > sheer > > > > > > > > presence of mind. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, apparently … > > > > > > > > > since you > > > > > > > > > broached the notion. > > > > > > > > > > As to ‘movie’ etc., perhaps you are asking as to its > > > > > > > > > locality? Here > > > > > > > > > I’m guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual > > > > > > > > > movies we > > > > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for me. An > > > > > > > > > unpacking > > > > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > OM > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no reference > > > > > > > > > > intended), > > > > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? Both? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain, > > > > > > > > > > > subconscious, True > > > > > > > > > > > Self etc., it is all too easy to get lost in semantics > > > > > > > > > > > and personal > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs based on limited experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some skeptical materialists demand that, in a sense, we > > > > > > > > > > > are our > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts…our thoughts are entirely electrochemical > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms…thus, we > > > > > > > > > > > are only physical ‘beings’. This is understandable. There > > > > > > > > > > > is plenty in > > > > > > > > > > > current day realms of science to keep them busy. On the > > > > > > > > > > > other hand, > > > > > > > > > > > for those who have experienced that which is not thought, > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > awareness prior to thought or the unity of this emptiness > > > > > > > > > > > and relative/ > > > > > > > > > > > subjective thinking or the infinite, radiant oneness that > > > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimate Ground of existence, simple mental constructs > > > > > > > > > > > are known for > > > > > > > > > > > what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Molly has this one right…’right’ in the sense of knowing > > > > > > > > > > > a larger > > > > > > > > > > > view. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:09 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am suggesting that unless you clear the mind of > > > > > > > > > > > > thought, feeling, > > > > > > > > > > > > sensation, belief, image - and allow it to be filled > > > > > > > > > > > > only with the > > > > > > > > > > > > eternal presence that is you - your experience and mind > > > > > > > > > > > > will preoccupy > > > > > > > > > > > > itself with the limits of mind and nothing more. There > > > > > > > > > > > > is more to > > > > > > > > > > > > life. There is more to me. All ways more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:42 am, Lee Douglas > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Molly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed there are many parts of the human > > > > > > > > > > > > > dedicated to keeping it > > > > > > > > > > > > > alive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is a function of the brain though isn't it, > > > > > > > > > > > > > rather like > > > > > > > > > > > > > running is a function of the legs and the heart and > > > > > > > > > > > > > the lungs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So without the legs, heart and lungs, there will be > > > > > > > > > > > > > no running. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > without the brain there would be no mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not hard to see that we use our intelect to > > > > > > > > > > > > > study; intelect a > > > > > > > > > > > > > funtion of the mind, which in turn is a function of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the brain, so as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > say I see no problems in seeing that the mind is used > > > > > > > > > > > > > to study the > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, yes even our own minds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree that there exists an awareness beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, I have > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout my short span of life experianced all > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorts of weird and > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonderfull things, yet still I say that all awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > takes place in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mind. When I have had periods of expansion of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mind, it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > still all taking place in my brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think of it this way,I am dyslexic and this is > > > > > > > > > > > > > because something about > > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain causes certain senseory inputs to be > > > > > > > > > > > > > inturpreted in a way > > > > > > > > > > > > > that differs from the non dyslexic. This is most > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidant in my > > > > > > > > > > > > > spelling and if you read through enough of my posts > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice > > > > > > > > > > > > > things like the way I often write 'Form' instead of > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'From' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you suggest that my dyslexcia stems form a > > > > > > > > > > > > > place independant of > > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope I don't think it would be correct to suggest > > > > > > > > > > > > > such a thing. Yet > > > > > > > > > > > > > dyslexcia is a huge part of who I am, it has shapped > > > > > > > > > > > > > my mind since my > > > > > > > > > > > > > birth, it forces me to approach things in ways that > > > > > > > > > > > > > the non dyslexic > > > > > > > > > > > > > would not consider, I need to think about things in > > > > > > > > > > > > > certian ways to > > > > > > > > > > > > > ensure that my dyslexcia does not hinder my day to > > > > > > > > > > > > > day life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying here is that my dsylexic experiances > > > > > > > > > > > > > which we could > > > > > > > > > > > > > say take place in my mind, are a function of my > > > > > > > > > > > > > brain. If these > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiances take place in my brain, so have all of my > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiances, > > > > > > > > > > > > > includeing all of the trances, and dream states, all > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > meditations, all of the high magiks and ceremonies, > > > > > > > > > > > > > all of this has > > > > > > > > > > > > > taken place in my brain, the home of my mind. I have > > > > > > > > > > > > > not encountered > > > > > > > > > > > > > one iota of evidance nor experiance to suggest other > > > > > > > > > > > > > wise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps though the most telling is in the use of > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
