What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18541 - 18560 of total 18679 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Dec 6, 2017 - 07:49pm PT
One slowly wakes up to the fact that our cognitive and sensory take on reality is like mistaking a shadow show for the real deal


And this is why you get accused of religious beliefs. Fact? Real Deal? Never a hesitation to avoid the possibility that what you experience may be illusory, a trick of the mind. Oh, I forgot, millions of practitioners and 3,100 years of discipline can't be wrong.

About time for a little shot of quantum juice here. Ed has seen many of these tiny critters, no doubt:




Quantum Bug
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Dec 6, 2017 - 11:08pm PT
Nice post Mike L.
Dingus McGee

Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
Dec 7, 2017 - 04:09am PT
MikeL,

Get clear on this: there is no achievement. There is nothing to achieve, and no one to realize the achievement. Like Werner intimates, everything is completely normal—and completely unique. There is nothing that one does. There’s no doing. No doer, nothing done, and no recognition of doingness.

This too is merely another way to set up your stream of consciousness and I choose not reside here fulltime a long time ago. But I can revert to this non dual state at will.

MikeL,

To this point, btw, flow has an achievement dimension to it that emptiness assuredly does not. Flow can be defined and described. Emptiness cannot. Flow concerns the individual, whereas emptiness does not. Furthermore, there is a social dimension with other beings that flow appears to completely ignore.

Your POV of Flow comes from your very dualist mindset. Flow does not need an element of achievement. One can get into flow in social settings and in fact Mihaly has a chapter, Enjoying Friends. Your earlier on this thread post, professed knowledge of Flow seems rather limited. Is this the way of academicians?

MikeL,

The man or woman who is resonating (experiencing atonement) with the Tao is a magnet for others, a guiding star charismatically because they are spontaneously consonant with the dharma / tao.




I suppose the "guiding star" could be the charismatic Donald Trump too. Every cult has its followers.


MikeL,

Dingus: But a worthy question: does Zen achieve anything?

it’s not worthy, respectfully—not in a Zen sense. The answer is “mu.” When you (and Jgill) see that it’s really the wrong question, then you’d have a glimpse into another understanding.

When you get to where you can hold the global vantage point of where you can see Zen and beyond to the Elsewhere my question will again become meaningful.

Oh the highway is for gambles, you better use your cents [sense?] -- you choose how you want to ride this high-way.
sycorax

Boulder climber
Yoknapatawpha County
Dec 7, 2017 - 05:07am PT
Both Dinguses need to cut back on posts as well as consult spell check and Grammarly. Sentiments like "Give me a brake" and the other fellow's inability to distinguish between its, its' and it's prove comical.

These gents dominate threads, even post to themselves. Masturbatory posting versus dialogue.
Dingus McGee

Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
Dec 7, 2017 - 05:14am PT
Ms.Psycoax,

Sentiments like "Give me a brake

your ability of metaphorical literary interpretation seem somewhat low. I want a brake for stopping not a break to get a time gap from someone else's nonsense. You don't always get the metaphors from me you might expect.

Ms. Psycoax,

Both Dinguses need to cut back on posts as well as consult spell check and Grammarly.

You seem to have never figured out how threads work at this site? There has been an active dialogue going on between MikeL and me. You can ignore our writing if it so disturbs you and in fact you can turn it off. I would like to hear some rationale beyond mere assertions from you why both Dinguses need to cutback?

BTW: how is your Grammarly doing?

On second thought -- do not take the time to tell me.

Ms. Psycoax,

Masturbatory posting versus dialogue.

I doubt I will get into a Harvey Weinstein moment in front of you at my whine cellar. Nor attempt to touch you with a ten foot pole. I have already visited Yoknapatawpha County and once was enough.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Dec 7, 2017 - 07:34am PT
Jgill: And this is why you get accused of religious beliefs. Fact? Real Deal? Never a hesitation to avoid the possibility that what you experience may be illusory, a trick of the mind. Oh, I forgot, millions of practitioners and 3,100 years of discipline can't be wrong.
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1)  – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”  (Nikola Tesla)

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

“If you want to know the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla.

“Space is just a construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects”
(me)  

“Those who dance are considered insane by those who can’t hear the music” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

“Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance” (A.R. Dykes, Scottish Branch, Institution of Structural Engineers (1946))

EDIT:

"Math was always my bad subject. I couldn't convince my teachers that many of my answers were meant ironically." —Calvin Trillin

"In mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them." —John von Neumann

"It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious." —Alfred North Whitehead

"I have hardly even known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning." —Plato

Be well.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Dec 7, 2017 - 07:38am PT
Dingus,

If you don't see it, you don't see it. There is generally nothing whatever that one can do to allow another to see for themselves.

And, yes, who knows?
WBraun

climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 08:09am PT
“If you want to know the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla.

Just see. Just the same I've been saying this for years here.

The scientific test is to take a Vedic mantra and sound vibrate it.

You will not be able to vibrate a material mantra for long without getting sick of it because it has a beginning and end whereas the Vedic sound vibration has NO beginning nor end.

But the gross materialists will never do a simple test.

Instead, they just post endless links to YouTube videos and links to so-called experts who never do any such test either.

Some gross materialist scientists also heavily attacked Tesla in their brainwashed ignorance.

Energy, frequency, and vibration ARE both material and spiritual in their nature.

The material energies are inferior to the superior spiritual energies.

The gross materialist scientists never do any tests on the superior energies.

All they do is scoff and wave it off as non-existent.

Any fool can do that .......
Dingus McGee

Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
Dec 7, 2017 - 08:10am PT
MikeL,

you have quoted many relic outstanding people of science & math out of the past. I enjoyed their comments and especially the one from Nietzsche as it seems to be time invariant.

As for the rest of them, rather than laugh at 'em, I do ask, if that person were alive today would he change his statement?

I very well suspect that A.R. Dykes would because we now have finite elements and computers.

We do get a feeling of just where you are at with respect to modern science when you post these relics. But as you have said:

If you don't see it, you don't see it. There is generally nothing whatever that one can do to allow another to see for themselves.

And, yes, who knows?



Que Sara, or Che sara





High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 09:24am PT
"We do get a feeling of just where you are at with respect to modern science when you post these relics." -Dingus

Perfect!
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 7, 2017 - 11:52am PT
Scientists 'inject' information into monkeys' brain
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Dec 7, 2017 - 01:11pm PT
"I have hardly even known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning." —Plato


Well, that certainly puts me in my place. I am humbled. I must go back and re-read your posts to understand how reasoning really works. Thanks for the nudge.


;>(
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Dec 7, 2017 - 01:57pm PT
Largo: Now Dingus McGee is blubbering,


You are the sadsack, JL. The little man behind the curtain.
moosedrool

climber
Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Dec 7, 2017 - 02:55pm PT
Free choice.

(Sorry for reheating this old dish, but I’d like to share my fresh thoughts on free will/free choice).

Imagine we program a computer/robot to be able to make decisions. Lets say, we ask the robot to grab a package, go outdoors, and place the package on one of the two shelves. The decision on which shelf to put it is up to the robot, but the preferred outcome is to place the package on the top shelf. The whole operation should take 10-15min.

The robot has several sensors:

1. Sensors to weigh and measure dimensions of the package.
2. A wind speed sensor.
3. A battery charge sensor.
4. A weather sensor.

Based on the input from its sensors, the robot needs to determine whether its battery has enough energy to complete the task. If the wind is strong, it may not be able to lift the package safely. If it rains, the robot can’t be outside.

The final decision is made by robot by taking into account all those variables:

The wind has a 25% chance to top over the robot if it tries to place a package on the top shelf.
The chance to rain is 25% within the next 15 min.
The battery may have not enough charge to complete the task if the package is heavy and the robot needs to hurry before the rain.

The robot will make its decision if its chance for success is more than 50%.

Now, the sensors are not perfect, the readings may vary by 5%. Thus, if you perform the same experiment many times, even if you keep the same conditions, the reading from the sensors will vary and the robot my put the package on a different shelve. Sometimes a heavier package will end up on the upper shelf.

Without knowing the design of the experiment, one may think the robot has free choice.

I propose that our “free will” works the same way. Our “sensors” (including experience) influence our decisions in unpredictable ways. Our neurons talk to each other calculating an optimal outcome. The moral compass might be challenged by our self interest, i.e. Even simple things like the color of the room, or the comfort of the chair may influence our decisions, not to mention how much time we spend weighting our options. We have an illusion of free choice, but in reality, its only our imperfection that make us take different paths in similar situations.

That’a all.

Moose
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 7, 2017 - 05:38pm PT
Moose. Exactly right, IMO! I would just add that, one of the main differences between us and robots is that we have feelings that go along with these (automatic) responses. The fact that feelings and mind arose when evolution could have evolved a bunch of un-feeling, mindless robots is one of the tougher problems in this subject arena.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2017 - 05:44pm PT
And this is why you get accused of religious beliefs. Fact? Real Deal? Never a hesitation to avoid the possibility that what you experience may be illusory, a trick of the mind. Oh, I forgot, millions of practitioners and 3,100 years of discipline can't be wrong.


A classical, common sense understanding of the universe and reality says that the "red" in an apple is an objective quality in the apple itself. Science tells us all the apple objectively admits is light waves in a certain frequency. Our minds provide the "red." They also provide a bunch of other qualities not inherent in the stuff "out there." And yes, as most any life scientist can tell us, that, ladies and gentleman, is a fact having nothing whatsoever to do with “religious beliefs.”

This fact was, centuries ago, part of the old Zen training in the form of a koan asking: What is the reality of the moving flag? The reality is our mind is not only moving the flag, our image of the flag is also mind, when what's out there is likely just dancing energy.

The mind is totally capable of misrepresenting what might or might not be "out there." That's why forms and our interpretations of them are always debatable.

The larger question is why we are aware of anything, "real" or imagined, and what that awareness IS.

But one wonders, when John lampoons: "Millions of practitioners and 3,100 years of discipline can't be wrong," what, exactly is the grand illusion that he believes all these millions are dupes to? Since it clearly is not the stuff or forms of the world, which are empty and impermanent, what do you suppose John is imagining is our collective "trance" or illusion? Specifically.

One thing this thread has made perfectly clear is that most have no capacity to even broach the question: What is mind? That is, what is mind itself. The question quickly gets translated into a physicalist's causal search for the believed or hoped for physical agents that "cause" or produce or source mind, and in this way, mind itself can finally be entirely be “understood.” And the subjective adventures are of no use here because they provide no data per the physical causal agents most pray will one day show that mind is nothing more than brain output. This allows one to ignore the original questions as immaterial, putting the inquiry back on a graspable form: The brain. So what is mind becomes what is brain.

Except that's not the question.

It's a little like asking, what is Sheila? And then doing a full objective break down on Shelia's parents, believing that if one knows all per who birthed Sheila, they know all about Sheila. Problem is this leaves out the very aspects of Sheila that distinguishes her from a rock, namely her subjective reality. What it's LIKE to be around her, and what it's like to be Sheila. The fall back position here is to insist that what she is like is entirely determined by physical drivers, so again, there is no need to actually meet Sheila, since we can study her brain which will tell us WHY and how she does what she does. Entirely. Again – physical causation explains all. To some ... Others say, not so fast, Eddie.

The fly in the ointment is awareness. And even this, perhaps the one aspect of reality that has no qualities, can for some only be fathomed in terms of forms, stuff, feelings, content. Or as some magical “non-thing” equal to ether or some other form we can label and argue about.

Screwy thing is that when science finally looked very closely at the physical world and QM was found, the classical descriptors and causal relations and logical factors were nowhere to be found. And yet when we move into subjectivity, many insist that a far more exotic world then quarks and bosons should and can line up and be describable in classical terms. What’s more, instead of realizing that using QM as an example is not an effort to promote woo or prove non-classical ideas in the subjective world, rather simply to point out that when serious folk look closely and discretely at both objective and subjective worlds, counterintuitive findings are the norm. QM doesn’t “prove” anything about the subjective world, it only points out that the closer we look, the more ungraspable that forms become.

And Dingus McGee, it's clear that you do not understand what Mike is actually saying and are groping around trying to cram his words into your own concepts and experiences, which are drawn from an entirely different well.

To be perfectly clear, "flow" is NOT emptiness, and insisting it is only betrays your misunderstanding. You COULD talk about flow in terms of the immersion states that occur during certain kinds of advanced meditation, but the "flow" itself is not the end game, rather to realize that the content of flow is empty, and the experiencer himself is as well. The whole damn show is dead empty, is ungraspable because there is no "thing" there to quantify, grasp, measure, mull, codify, etc. In this sense there is no doing, no achievement, no coming and going, no life or death because there was never any THING here to die in the first place. Our grief for our dead friends is no less because we realize his body was startdust, figuratively speaking. We think the tabletop is solid though it's mostly empty space (which itself is pulsing with potential energy). But it still works as a table just fine.

The question is: How do we square life and death, forms and emptiness, duality and non-duality, brain and mind, the finite and the unborn (infinite). One can construct a model of reality based on either pole much gets left out or explained away. The great irony here is that both poles are exactly the same – “exactly." That is, there are no poles.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:00pm PT
The question is: How do we square life and death, forms and emptiness, duality and non-duality, brain and mind, the finite and the unborn (infinite). One can construct a model of reality based on either pole much gets left out or explained away. The great irony here is that both poles are exactly the same – “exactly." That is, there are no poles.

If you could have just said this in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing.
Dingus McGee

Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:22pm PT
Largo,

And Dingus McGee, it's clear that you do not understand what Mike is actually saying and are groping around trying to cram his words into your own concepts and experiences, which are drawn from an entirely different well.

To be perfectly clear, "flow" is NOT emptiness, and insisting it is only betrays your misunderstanding.


I never ever said flow was emptiness. How lame can you get? Do you have a reading comprehension deficiency?

How long did it take you to bellow out this stream of consciousness chatter [below]? It doesn't sound very peaceful to me. MOVE ON ... You are overwhelmed by the glitz of what lies ahead with unbound mind experiences. Been there, done that, so forget it or do you want to have another hang up?


Largo,


To be perfectly clear, "flow" is NOT emptiness, and insisting it is only betrays your misunderstanding. You COULD talk about flow in terms of the immersion states that occur during certain kinds of advanced meditation, but the "flow" itself is not the end game, rather to realize that the content of flow is empty, and the experiencer himself is as well. The whole damn show is dead empty, is ungraspable because there is no "thing" there to quantify, grasp, measure, mull, codify, etc. In this sense there is no doing, no achievement, no coming and going, no life or death because there was never any THING here to die in the first place. Our grief for our dead friends is no less because we realize his body was startdust, figuratively speaking. We think the tabletop is solid though it's mostly empty space (which itself is pulsing with potential energy). But it still works as a table just fine.

The question is: How do we square life and death, forms and emptiness, duality and non-duality, brain and mind, the finite and the unborn (infinite). One can construct a model of reality based on either pole much gets left out or explained away. The great irony here is that both poles are exactly the same – “exactly." That is, there are no poles.


I suppose it was great training to get your mind setup to bellow such non-sense? I never bit on that samsara. COSMIC -- but you are lacking integration.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
Moose, nice illustrative example.

It's too bad more of this thread couldn't be along the lines of your post.

Maybe in time. After more people acquire a basic education in computers, information, electronics, control systems.
Dingus McGee

Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
Dec 7, 2017 - 07:12pm PT
Largo,

which are drawn from an entirely different well.

It is interesting that you chose "which" as opposed to "that" as there is a difference in meaning between these two clause introduction methods.

see

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w022.html
Messages 18541 - 18560 of total 18679 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews