Hi Marsha,
Mark On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:20 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > The radio show, 'To the Best of our Knowledge', ran a program called 'Meet > Your Mind' on the topic of consciousness which included the six segments > listed below. The six items were not book titles. I thought it was an > interesting show, but if it didn't interest you that's okay too. I was only making a point about SQ. modeling the mind using the mind is like the sun shining on itself. The items were interesting in their own way. I was simply using the principles of MoQ. > > You state that you are more interested in what makes a consciousness yours. > Well, what makes a consciousness yours? _To possess?_ What makes a heart > yours? What makes a motorcycle yours? What makes knowledge yours? What > makes righteousness yours? What makes an experience yours? Possibly > patterns of thought? It's _yours_ because you think it??? It's mine. It's > mine. It's mine. It's mine. It's mine. It's mine. Or it's not mine. > It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not > mine. I don't think you understood my interest. It has nothing to do with possession. It had to do with the singularity of being. When I say "mine", I am referring to DQ, not some static hypothetical. It is important not to confuse DQ with SQ, otherwise one exists only in object/object metaphysics. > > The Buddhists have perception divided into six senses: eyes, ears, nose, > tongue, body(touch) and mind (awareness of mental phenomenon.) I didn't > think anyone could yet explain seeing, let alone consciousness. But isn't it > better to consider such things then to take them for granted? Within the MoQ > aren't the sensual experiences considered biological in what they value? The senses are our physical connections with existence. For the Buddhist they were doorways. The biological is an intellectual construct and has nothing to do with connections or doorways. Again you seem to be imposing object/object metaphysics onto DQ/SQ. this will never lead anywhere. If you call them biological, what more does that tell you about the senses? You are imposing a concept as if real. > > RMP: "Consciousness can be described as a process of defining Dynamic > Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no > longer apply to Dynamic Quality." > (LILA's Child). Well, that is certainly not the standard definition of consciousness. Pirsig is referring to thought here, which is why he qualified with "can be described". this implies there are other ways to describe it. it is that point that is important. descriptions are SQ, and not the real thing. if we think they are the teal thing, they no longer apply to DQ. there is nothing wrong with definitions unless they entrap us in SQ. but we already know that from MoQ. Consciousness is more than thought. However, if this is how you see consciousness, are you defining DQ as you listen to Wagner? If so, what kind of definition is that? I don't see enjoying Wagner as SQ; it cannot be defined. Yet we are conscious as we do so, even if we are not thinking, but instead dancing. Cheers, Mark > > > > Marsha > > > > On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:47 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> Good for them neuroscientists. Consciousness under a microscope. >> >> The nature of consciousness is not that important to me. What is >> important, is what makes this consciousness mine. >> >> That is one question which will never be cracked by science, at least for >> the time being. Perhaps in time they will discover the planet which is >> broadcasting the avatar. A little spirit chucker somewhere out there. >> >> Since the Self cannot be found through science, or any form of logic, that >> puts it outside of the realm of those researchers. I guess we will just >> have to guess on that one. >> >> By the way, have you come across any good hypothesis in your research on >> this one? I have lost interest, and am not sure what the flavor of >> consciousness is these days. Maybe I should pick up one of those books. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:49 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> To the best of our knowledge... >>> >>> Neuroscientists have made remarkable discoveries about the brain, but >>> we're not close to cracking the mystery of consciousness. How does a >>> tangle of neurons inside your skull produce...you? >>> >>> >>> http://ttbook.org/book/mind-and-brain >>> >>> >>> 1. David Chalmers, the Hard Problem of Consciousness >>> >>> 2. David Eagleman on Brain's Secret Life >>> >>> 3. Steve Paulson on Why Consciousness >>> >>> 4. Sy Montgomery on Octopus >>> >>> 5. Alva Noe on Embodied Consciousness >>> >>> 6. Vijay Iyer on Music & Science > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
