Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
capseeboy
Social climber
portland, oregon
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2019 - 08:09am PT
|
That our individual consciousnesses, perceptions, and mental state are even in remotely the same ballpark is simply astounding.
Amen to that Brother. Carry on.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2019 - 08:39am PT
|
individual consciousnesses, perceptions, and mental state are even in remotely the same ballpark is simply astounding.
By dovetailing ones individual consciousness with the original supreme consciousness that is the actual source of all life it is done.
Just as we see the individual consciousness of modern science dovetails their consciousness with the general consciousness of materialism.
Gross matter is driven and animated by consciousness itself which is NOT material ever.
When consciousness leaves the material body it becomes inanimate (dead).
The gross materialist cannot revive it unless the individual living entity returns to.
No modern medical science can return the living entity without the higher power.
Without consciousness itself all matter is dead .....
|
|
Hwy41
Social climber
Bay Area, CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 12:43am PT
|
Of all the things I’ve lost in my life, I miss my mind the most.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 03:01am PT
|
Every day is a brand new mind - don't weep for the last one...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 07:12am PT
|
healyje: I'd disagree, the brain does live in a vacuum, . . . .
I'm sure we're passing each other on this issue. The brain is an element in perception, but it is not the only element, wouldn't you say?
("Universal consciousness" is not any concern for me; I think it's a red herring in conversations here.)
. . . our minds evolved in lockstep with brains.
Sure, fine. You're pointing out an apparent association.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 07:42am PT
|
"Universal consciousness" is not any concern for me; I think it's a red herring in conversations here.
If that were true you wouldn't even exist in this thread and be nothing but dead stone in a field somewhere .....
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=04340947871607587293
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 02:47pm PT
|
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-are-smart-about-science/
“In reality, Americans have pretty decent scientific literacy. What’s more, even if more of us did score better on quizzes of science facts, that wouldn’t necessarily result in any changes in our beliefs about science.”
““Turns out the relationship between what people know about science and their attitudes about science … is pretty small.” That is to say, Americans who know more science facts don’t necessarily hold the science policy beliefs actual scientists would prefer, nor do Americans who know the least have the least trust in science.”
Our science of the mind is pretty cool stuff, and I admire it, but maybe don’t expect those stoopid Americans to believe that you know what you’re talking about. They prolly have some thoughts of their own, that we then interpret as stoopid for reasons of our own.
Material scientists, mind scientists, whatever... If we want to draw a distinction for reasons of our self-appointed-uber-scientist own, from either side, I wonder what our reasons are? Our real reasons, not just the ones of which we convince ourselves that we’re conscious.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 08:07pm PT
|
Our science of the mind is pretty cool stuff, and I admire it, but maybe don’t expect those stoopid Americans to believe that you know what you’re talking about.
It was put more succinctly back in the day; "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 08:47pm PT
|
The only fact you have is that you are mental speculators ......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2019 - 09:36pm PT
|
MikeL wrote: I'm sure we're passing each other on this issue. The brain is an element in perception, but it is not the only element, wouldn't you say?
Possibly. I'd say that depends on whether or not you think something other than individual brains are responsible for perceptions. I'd say beyond that what is created by multiple brains communicating their perception is again more a matter of explicitly shared content in Largo's parlance.
("Universal consciousness" is not any concern for me; I think it's a red herring in conversations here.)
I don't, I think it is the conversation. You either believe brains are solely responsible for consciousness and mind or you think something external it invoked/involved is which case I can't really think of any other label for that outside agency.
Sure, fine. You're pointing out an apparent association.
I'm saying you can trace the genomic, neurological, and behavioral features of an organism after organism up the chain and it becomes far more than an apparent association. Just studying mentally ill and brain damage patients alone tell you it's more than a passing relationship.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2019 - 08:53am PT
|
Healyje,
If an individual brain is the only thing one needs for perception, then the gates are wide open for any "sense" or "reality" to show up in front of one. The only sense of reality that could coalesce would do so by rough or loose consensus.
I'd say consensus (even among academic or scientists) is untrustworthy. People here parade religion as a deceiver for much the same reasons.
Should we assume there is only one reality, whatever it is? If it only takes an individual brain to perceive reailty, then how is it that we are so often at-odds with one another? Instead, one could easily argue that individual brains perceive different realities in great detail. Which is it? Is reality clear and unequivocal, concise and detailed, and singluar and unyielding; or is reality infinitely maleable, impossible to define or pin down, ever-changing, and essentially indescribable? (I suppose there are other alternatives or notions, e.g, "the excluded middle".)
One way or the other (at least by your experience), let's assume that brains are centrally and critically involved in perception. Sadly, that would not appear enough to ensure that we can know what reality is with great confidence. There are way too many exceptions and differences of opinions. Those should make us hesitate that we know what reality is. Play.
Scientific dialogues give us confidence that we know what we're talking about empirically, but there are holes in our theories philosophically that could use addressing.
Once again, either reality is singular, clear, and unyeilding to manipulation, or reality is any damn thing one can possibley imagine. We cannot find the *proof* for the former (other than by temporary consensus), while the latter (any damn thing we can imagine) offends our modern sensibilities and beliefs in our capabilities.
We appear to be at an impasse intellectually, spiritually, and scientifically. Nothing really converges.
Reality appears to be wide-open, ambiguous, undefinable wholesomeness, and it implies much about our ability to perceive reality accurately, finally, and completely.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2019 - 05:44pm PT
|
Nothing really converges.
Because you all stuck in your own self-made brainwashed ruts ......
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2019 - 07:49pm PT
|
Reality is one thing
Fantasy is an island
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2019 - 08:34pm PT
|
"We appear to be at an impasse intellectually, spiritually, and scientifically."
The Royal We perhaps.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I personally consider external reality to be one thing and consensus around our individual perceptions of it as another.
Some realities are easy; some are hard. We all generally come to the individual conclusion fire is hot fairly early in life and by a variety of means which all lend to an unambiguous consensus. The consensus that two-plus-two-equals-four, where the edge of the cliff is, and the idea rattlesnakes are dangerous similarly do not engender much dispute among individuals. Sure, there may be edge cases where individual minds differ with the group consensus, but Darwin is generally always on call to help resolve such disputes.
Overall as a social animal, we tend to strive for consensus and agreement as to the nature of reality and science has been an enormous help in that regard compared to religion and/or magic. But developing and arriving at a consensus on the nature of reality is a process as can be seen in science when there are dueling theories as to the nature of this or that phenomenon which is all to the good as that's how science works.
So I would say yes - reality is singular, clear, and unyielding, but a consensus among our individual perceptions of many aspects of it are not. And that's one thing, where suggesting reality is somehow created by individuals, or by consensus as to its nature, or by a fundamental/universal consciousness, then that would be a different thing altogether.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
healyje: I personally consider external reality to be one thing . . . *Some* realities are . . .
??? You're conflating. Pick one: one, or multiple realities.
. . . suggesting reality is somehow created by individuals, or by consensus as to its nature, or by a fundamental/universal consciousness, then that would be a different thing altogether.
Yeah, this rubric seems to be the core of the disagreement here: the unfaithfulness of perception vs. whether or not an external reality is independent of perception or not (e.g., socially constructed). Most folks (you perhaps included) are very concerned if underpinning of an external, independent reality is in jeopardy. While these same folks will give way to perceptual conundrums or issues of fidelity, they refuse to make any connection between the two (epistemology to ontology). That looks to be ideological rather than empirical in my eyes. I mean, my god, if you read any journal articles about perception and *don't* come away with major doubts as to "what's obvious" (cliff edges and rattle snakes not withstanding), then I doubt you've done the reading. There are so many disciplines that point to the same thing. Our perceptions and abilities to properly describe are greatly flawed.
The question of an external,, independent, abiding reality of "objects" may irrelevant in the last analysis . . . but to see that, one needs another attitude about living and life other than what is bourgeoise or instrumental.
A few of us here are getting old and infirm. I just got out of a 5-day stay in hospital, which was supposed to be an in-and-out patient procedure. An error occurred peripherally in the procedure, and it gave rise to painful unintended consequences which may finally be resolved in 4 more days. I think most people would be very concerned about individual responsibility, technical competence, and proper procedures. Me, I see other things . . . my own mortality, remarkable differences in consciousness (content), and the extent to which people showed themselves as human. I don't really need to know any of those techncial, responsibility, and procedural issues to see the shifts in perception in me. I see that the experience is what I made of it.
Hey, you know . . . sh!t happens.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
MikeL wrote: ??? You're conflating. Pick one: one, or multiple realities.
Not conflating, I sense you're simply confusing external reality with human perceptions - one is what it is and the other is, by definition, subject to a raft of human foibles.
Yeah, this rubric seems to be the core of the disagreement here: the unfaithfulness of perception vs. whether or not an external reality is independent of perception or not (e.g., socially constructed). Most folks (you perhaps included) are very concerned if underpinning of an external, independent reality is in jeopardy.
The very last thing I worried about in this life is external, independent reality being in jeopardy as I'm pretty sure it does just fine without us. In fact, the very idea seems a lot like falling unroped from the top of El Cap and worrying about the effect of one's impact is going to have on the ground.
And that human perception of reality is less than 100% reliable or that consensus can sometimes be hard to achieve despite multiple parties observing the same event is also part and parcel with being human - i.e. external reality isn't unfaithful, but rather human perceptions are often unreliable. And one really doesn't have much to do with the other beyond our lives depending on us individually and collectively maintaining at least a marginal grip on the former.
While these same folks will give way to perceptual conundrums or issues of fidelity, they refuse to make any connection between the two (epistemology to ontology). That looks to be ideological rather than empirical in my eyes. I mean, my god, if you read any journal articles about perception and *don't* come away with major doubts as to "what's obvious" (cliff edges and rattlesnakes notwithstanding), then I doubt you've done the reading. There are so many disciplines that point to the same thing. Our perceptions and abilities to properly describe are greatly flawed.
Look I get it, you're a [post-modern] skeptic, but again, differences and flaws in human perceptions and descriptions of reality are a human problem which essentially has nothing to do with the state of external reality. Folks operating with a significant perceptual delta from external reality is the very reason Darwin endures.
The question of an external, independent, abiding reality of "objects" may irrelevant in the last analysis . . . but to see that, one needs another attitude about living and life other than what is bourgeoise or instrumental.
Why would that be?
A few of us here are getting old and infirm. I just got out of a 5-day stay in hospital, which was supposed to be an in-and-out patient procedure. An error occurred peripherally in the procedure, and it gave rise to painful unintended consequences which may finally be resolved in 4 more days. I think most people would be very concerned about individual responsibility, technical competence, and proper procedures. Me, I see other things . . . my own mortality, remarkable differences in consciousness (content), and the extent to which people showed themselves as human. I don't really need to know any of those techncial, responsibility, and procedural issues to see the shifts in perception in me. I see that the experience is what I made of it.
Sh#t does happen for sure, sorry to hear you've had a rough go of it and hope you're feeling better soon. I will agree that, internally, reality is always a matter of what we make of it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
:-)
Cheers.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
"And that human perception of reality is less than 100% reliable or that consensus can sometimes be hard to achieve despite multiple parties observing the same event . . ."
Much of that is not so much due to immediate perception as to memory processing and reproduction. The mind plays so many tricks, from the Art of Dreaming to Zen Satori to Witness Variation to Multiple Personality Disorders to The Sense of Time Passage to Auditory Hallucinations to . . .
Hope you are feeling better, Mike. Health care seems a little disorganized and error prone with providers not talking to one another in my experiences.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And that ....
Proves the Absolute Truth exists!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!