Mind from Matter

I'm interested in both positions and you are correct that I see you as taking postition 1. and I'll take postition 2. with some adjustments.I'll quote Shri Ramana Maharshi one of my favorite awakened sages: Or as the Zen Master Huang-po puts it: This Capital M Mind is not the memories and skills of any individual brain. Those are things that arises and fade but capture our attention so firmly that it's very difficult to be aware of the substrate of consciousness. The Tibetan's are fond of the using the metaphor of space or emptiness for this Mind. The notion of emptiness is a key concept in Buddhism. Things, that is to say forms are said to be empty of self nature, that is somethings come together and then move apart.The interdependent arising of all forms in the universe leads to a perception of singularity. Nothing in the universe exists of itself but is just a transformation and that is observably true of ourselves.These transformations are of something or taking place in something that we can call emptiness, space, or Mind. This awareness of existing is primordial. Only later does the notion arise of existing AS some form. In the east this identification with form is called ignorance and is one equivalent of the western notion of sin or the fall I suppose, karma being another idea that corresponds to that.So we have an organism, me or you, that functions and it arises as a process of this system and then eventually it dissipates and becomes part of other processes. The identification and attachment of awareness to this process results in mind and suffering, mind being the experiences and functions of this local process.So in this approach consciousness is the entire system. Our self awareness is the source of this system. The error is when it "forgets" it's the source and thinks it's some part such as the neurological function of temperment, memory, and conditioning of a specific organism.So the conclusion is that consciousness is not OF existence but existence IS consciousness ITSELF, they are different names for the same thing and then there are all the apparent forms arising and dissolving.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 12-21-2004 02:11 AM

But that is not all you are doing, you said: Thereby implying that mental processes are a fundementally different stuff from physicality - which is the essence of Dualism. I don't deny the existence of subjective experience; to do so is, IMO, absurd in the extreme. What I'm saying is that the Dualist position, even if true, could never tell us anything useful about the world - all it says is that there's this "stuff" that we can't know anything about, can't interact with and has no knowable properties which "does consciousness" - we can't predict anything from it, we can't know anything about the mental processes of other humans or of animals, we can't understand it. In this it is very like Creationism - even if true, it does not allow us to understand the world.

Just to follow up on this message..From my perspective, asking if these images "exist" isn't really useful or meaningful. It's just not knowable. We can't get outside of our own experience, in order to try to talk about it. This is along the lines of what I was talking about with lfen.I do think that science can work on parts of consciousness. I'm quite certain we can even identify what neural circuits are crucial to it, and to simulate it. What we can't do, however, is to know WHY those neural circuits generate such experience. And we can't predict, then, whether simulated systems (or simply other humans) have that private experience--thus the purpose of the Turing test. We assume it's true for other humans; we would be less willing to do so for other simulations (as evidenced by your reaction to the "irrigation" system example).Ben

Just to follow up...with your newer posts, I'm STARTING to understand where you're coming from. I've got a long way to go... it will take time to really appreciate the view that you're espousing.I'm looking forward to it.Ben

Maybe you noticed I'm catching up on stuff this evening I would just say... yes. I agree. However for me, it's not so strange how mentality can occur from biology. That's due to my own assumptions. It's not surprising to hear what you already believe.Maybe the position you're bringing up, that this type of conscious experience is fundamental to our universe, then kind of makes some sense. I still don't know how to make it a scientific proposal (i.e. operationalize it) though...Ben

Lfen,I am kind of working through my position rigorously for the first time here. So thank you for that, and for bearing with me.I'm interested in collecting my posts and putting together a summary about it. In the meantime, I think I'm not saying anything relevant to this thread. I think I'm talking about epistemology and ontology--purely philosophical subjects.So my proposal is to drop it, and I'll send you a note when I pull together a summary. Sound good?Ben

quote:

---

Ben, are you saying that all that matters is that the set up is an algorithm? Irrigation tubes? You've got to be kidding.

---

Why? That is the central claim of consciousness as an emergent property of matter - that the hardware is irrelevant, only the organisation of the hardware is relevant. And rather like an abacus and a silicon chip can both be seen as calculating machines, there seems to be no special reason to thib=nk the material of which the system is composed is important at all.

I dont believe this for the minute in the morning I usually drink coffee rather than tea. I think society has simply not tried to make a mathematical structure by refusing to accept Russel's assertion that Cantor DID NOT proove a limit connectivity binding two copies (not identical in the 3rd cycle of same) of real numbers. This place in thought enables me to respond to Ben topobioloigcally if the pure math applies but it might take me some time to swim through his many posts. I used to post like this when I was on True Seekers.

I think I understand. What you are saying is that my calling something "mental" doesn't really mean anything in a scientific sense. I might as well call it "X." This is because science deals with the physical and only the physical.But I am just wondering if the corollary of science dealing only with the physical is the idea that there is nothing but the physical.If there is nothing but the physical, that means that the physical itself is able to perceive truths (mathematical truths, for example).But these are not really "truths." What they really are are propositions that aid in our evolutionary survival, whether true or not. It might aid in our evolutionary survival to believe in a god, for example, whether the god exists or not. So we can't really depend on our so-called truths being true. The only way we could depend on our truths being true is if there was an X that was not a technique of evolutionary survival but something extra that really could perceive truths.What I am suggesting (foolishly, no doubt) is that no-X is inconceivable to our experience.

Well true means what? That our predictions always hold? That measurements are repeatable? At this point I don't think we know what anything is, only that it is and we can predict things about it. How could we know essence? I've some ideas on how.Since you teach English here is something literary rather than scientific by Chuang Tzu (369? - 268 B.C.) Shakespeare had thoughts along those lines. One of my favorites I have as my signature. lfen

---

the great globe itself, yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve; and,
like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind. We are
such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a
sleep. -- Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act IV

You know if there's anything EvC has taught me, it's that I'm apparently incapable of getting other people to understand what I'm talking about when posting on the internet.Quick question, do you understand what I mean when I talk about 'Dualism' and 'Monism'?

Sorry. Yes, I am acquainted with the terms you mention.

What are you apologising for? If I can't make you understand what I am saying then that is my failing not yours.

It's a two-way street.

I was under the impression that you were using "monism" to mean that there is one and only one type of reality and "dualism" to mean the idea that there are 2 types of reality. When I used the word "mentality" I was introducing another type of reality. The trouble with this term is, however, that mentality cannot be studied, so it's no good introducing it. I haven't really said anything, you suggest, other than to say that there is a reality we can know nothing about, which does no good. I thought that's what you were saying.Now as regards this nihilistic stance, suggested by the quote from the Chinese writer and the one by Shakespeare, I understand that to mean that we have no grounding for logic as a whole, since we cannot get outside of logic to inspect it. I agree, and ultimately I accept the nihilistic idea (see the topic "Non-Belief and Nihilism," original post).But nihilism cannot be lived. We live "as if." I wanted to assume, for the sake of argument, that we can perceive truths. If we can do that, then I think that some extra-physical faculty is logically necessary.Your reference to "essence" is a little unclear to me, but if you have some answers I'd like to hear them.