plato...the cave...merle


  
Real world is the illusion seen as illusion rather than reality.. I certainly 
agree with your comments below too...

Edgar




On May 25, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Merle Lester wrote:

  
>
>
>edgar
> then where is the real world?????????
>
>
>and where is reality?
>
>
> what amazes me is how adults have such pre-concieved minds states.
>..that once they have made their minds up..it is set in concrete and very hard 
>to shift.
>.you need a jack hammer to get through.
>.and in many cases the concrete is rotten with "cancerous" growth  of 
>bullshit, half truths, prejudices, and lack of insight.
>
>
>.. going zen opens the mind..so one is fresh alert and prepared for the 
>unexpected...
>just as a young child is before they are fed "how to think and feel"..through 
>the education system
> happy "zenning"!
> and long live zanism
> cheers merle
>
>
>>and don't actually exist out there in reality...
>
>Then again, Zen is very pragmatic and would say you'd best duck when an 
>'object' comes hurtling your way. This is why, after all, mountains really are 
>mountains...
>
>Mike
>
>--- On Sat, 26/5/12, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>
>>Subject: Re: [Zen] The Self Illusion
>>To: [email protected], [email protected], 
>>[email protected], [email protected]
>>Date: Saturday, 26 May, 2012, 2:38
>>
>>
>>  
>>ED,
>>
>>
>>The self we are all familiar with is as you say a mental construct in our 
>>mind's simulation of reality. Actual sensory input comes into organisms in 
>>fragmented bits such as color, motion, shapes, etc. As the mind develops in 
>>infancy these sensory bits are gradually organized by the mind into larger 
>>more persistent constructs such as objects, one of which is the self. There 
>>is a lot of research by cognitive scientists on how and when this occurs in 
>>childhood but cognitive scientists assume mind just begins recognizing the 
>>objects that actually exist out there in reality. Buddhist on the other hand 
>>claims that the objects are all mental constructs and organizations of raw 
>>input from external reality and don't actually exist out there in reality...
>>
>>
>>There is also a lot of information about how the concept of objects arises 
>>from developments in robotics. It turns out it is very very difficult to 
>>construct (robotics calls it identify) objects from raw sensory input.... For 
>>example most objects produce very very different sensory input depending on 
>>their orientation and distance from the eyes so it takes very sophisticated 
>>mental software to identify all those different perceptual views as the same 
>>object, especially against all sorts of different backgrounds...
>>
>>
>>So direct experience consists solely of sensory input momentary in the 
>>present moment. The whole idea of persistent objects including the self is a 
>>mental construct and as Zen would say an illusion not actually present in the 
>>external (real) world.
>>
>>
>>Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On May 25, 2012, at 10:29 AM, ED wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Excerpt:
>>>"In what sense is the self an illusion? 
>>>For me, an illusion is a subjective experience that is not what it seems. 
>>>Illusions are experiences in the mind, but they are not out there in nature. 
>>>Rather, they are events generated by the brain. Most of us have an 
>>>experience of a self. I certainly have one, and I do not doubt that others 
>>>do as well – an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of 
>>>free will. But that experience is an illusion – it does not exist 
>>>independently of the person having the experience, and it is certainly not 
>>>what it seems. That's not to say that the illusion is pointless. 
>>>Experiencing a self illusion may have tangible functional benefits in the 
>>>way we think and act, but that does not mean that it exists as an entity. 
>>>If the self is not what it seems, then what is it?
>>>For most of us, the sense of our self is as an integrated individual 
>>>inhabiting a body. I think it is helpful to distinguish between the two ways 
>>>of thinking about the self that William James talked about. There is 
>>>conscious awareness of the present moment that he called the "I," but there 
>>>is also a self that reflects upon who we are in terms of our history, our 
>>>current activities and our future plans. James called this aspect of the 
>>>self, "me" which most of us would recognize as our personal identity—who we 
>>>think we are. However, I think that both the "I" and the "me" are actually 
>>>ever-changing narratives generated by our brain to provide a coherent 
>>>framework to organize the output of all the factors that contribute to our 
>>>thoughts and behaviors. 
>>>I think it helps to compare the experience of self to subjective contours – 
>>>illusions such as the Kanizsa patternwhere you see an invisible shape that 
>>>is really defined entirely by the surrounding context. People understand 
>>>that it is a trick of the mind but what they may not appreciate is that the 
>>>brain is actually generating the neural activation as if the illusory shape 
>>>was really there. In other words, the brain is hallucinating the experience. 
>>>There are now many studies revealing that illusions generate brain activity 
>>>as if they existed. They are not real but the brain treats them as if they 
>>>were. 
>>>Now that line of reasoning could be applied to all perception except that 
>>>not all perception is an illusion. There are real shapes out there in the 
>>>world and other physical regularities that generate reliable states in the 
>>>minds of others. The reason that the status of reality cannot be applied to 
>>>the self, is that it does not exist independently of my brain alone that is 
>>>having the experience. It may appear to have a consistency of regularity and 
>>>stability that makes it seem real, but those properties alone do not make it 
>>>so. 
>>>Similar ideas about the self can be found in Buddhism and the writings of 
>>>Hume and Spinoza. The difference is that there is now good psychological and 
>>>physiological evidence to support these ideas that I cover in the book in a 
>>>way that I hope is accessible for the general reader."
>>>Source: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>

 

Reply via email to