The Hard Problem of Gravity

[LightningStrike]

"we can logically infer that the 'objective' external world has existence prior to our existence and perception of it." Posted by Akumanimani

Existence appears to be a continuity to the mind. The mind (self) gets used to it appearing when I come to my senses but in pure perception it appears now every moment. Without my perception of it existence doesn't exist. That is the logical truth. Logic puts first thing first. The first thing in everybody's experience is the state of consciousness, that perception that knows whether something is true without thinking or reflecting on the memory.

In my own case I am living a life of being directly responsible for the circumstances of my life and I base this on the logical perception that "I" am the cause of existence. A demonstration of this is when I go to sleep there in deep dreamless sleep when I have left my senses existence disappears and when I come back to my senses existence appears.Though in deep dreamless sleep "I" do not disappear it is just that there is nothing there and when I awake I have the knowledge I have slept well .

An extrapolation of this is extraordinary if you follow it through in your own experience.

A question you might ask..." How could I be the cause of existence and keep the sun rising every morning and make sure that the swallows arrive here on time when I am so unconscious and ignorant of this magnificently complex existence?" ... well that is because that "I" is the one in inner space that has projected this 'man made' world. When one sees the sordidness of the world we have created one can now know where this came from. "I" made it. Consciousness is the creator.

" How does it all appear and perpetuate?" this you will all be very interested in I am sure and for this I must direct anyone to " The Origins of Man and the Universe" by Barry Long an Australian mystic who's genius is bringing the realisation of consciousness down through all the levels of existence and being able to describe it in down to earth terms. Another of his books is " Knowing Your Self " a definitive guide that you can use to dismantle the self and experience the pure state of consciousness that you are.

 

[LightningStrike]

Barry Long held a perspective on the Big Bang Theory, of which the following quote is quintessential:

“ It (the Big Bang theory) would be really effective, and an astonishing scientific advance, if the theorising observer realised that as intelligence he is reducing all that he is seeing and imagining, including himself, to within a split second of the non-existent now-point in his own brain, the point of reality and the emergent point of the whole universe as far as man and sense can perceive it. Then the theory would be absolutely correct.

The scientist would not be concerned with a fabricated beginning billions of years ago but with himself, intelligence, being only a split second away from the pre-existent state, his own and everything's source - the motionless pure intellect or consciousness. Universe and man as intelligence would then unite in one sublime realised truth and the way would be open for scientific entry into the new epoch of time and knowledge beyond light-speed, sense and past.”

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

"we can logically infer that the 'objective' external world has existence prior to our existence and perception of it." Posted by Akumanimani

Existence appears to be a continuity to the mind. The mind (self) gets used to it appearing when I come to my senses but in pure perception it appears now every moment. Without my perception of it existence doesn't exist. That is the logical truth. Logic puts first thing first. The first thing in everybody's experience is the state of consciousness, that perception that knows whether something is true without thinking or reflecting on the memory.

In my own case I am living a life of being directly responsible for the circumstances of my life and I base this on the logical perception that "I" am the cause of existence. A demonstration of this is when I go to sleep there in deep dreamless sleep when I have left my senses existence disappears and when I come back to my senses existence appears.Though in deep dreamless sleep "I" do not disappear it is just that there is nothing there and when I awake I have the knowledge I have slept well .

An extrapolation of this is extraordinary if you follow it through in your own experience.

A question you might ask..." How could I be the cause of existence and keep the sun rising every morning and make sure that the swallows arrive here on time when I am so unconscious and ignorant of this magnificently complex existence?" ... well that is because that "I" is the one in inner space that has projected this 'man made' world. When one sees the sordidness of the world we have created one can now know where this came from. "I" made it. Consciousness is the creator.

" How does it all appear and perpetuate?" this you will all be very interested in I am sure and for this I must direct anyone to " The Origins of Man and the Universe" by Barry Long an Australian mystic who's genius is bringing the realisation of consciousness down through all the levels of existence and being able to describe it in down to earth terms. Another of his books is " Knowing Your Self " a definitive guide that you can use to dismantle the self and experience the pure state of consciousness that you are.

Are you honestly claiming responsibility for serial killers, vegimite, late night infomercials promoting the one true source of my future income and how to develop killer abs in just five minutes a day, Britney Spears and the Ice Capades?

You are one sick SOB.

 

[Dancing David]

Barry Long held a perspective on the Big Bang Theory, of which the following quote is quintessential:

“ It (the Big Bang theory) would be really effective, and an astonishing scientific advance, if the theorising observer realised that as intelligence he is reducing all that he is seeing and imagining, including himself, to within a split second of the non-existent now-point in his own brain, the point of reality and the emergent point of the whole universe as far as man and sense can perceive it. Then the theory would be absolutely correct.

The scientist would not be concerned with a fabricated beginning billions of years ago but with himself, intelligence, being only a split second away from the pre-existent state, his own and everything's source - the motionless pure intellect or consciousness. Universe and man as intelligence would then unite in one sublime realised truth and the way would be open for scientific entry into the new epoch of time and knowledge beyond light-speed, sense and past.”

Welcome, another analogy breakdown but some interesting metaphors.

The BBE is a hypothesis, it is just made from taking observation and then running the model backwards. The conclusion of what the BBE is, is not warranted because the model breaks down at that point.

But metaphorically you raise the point that is important to me.

I believe that the 'self' is an illusion (I blame the buddha), it does not truly exist. It is a rubric for a series of transitory states that are discrete and spate and there is no real place for a self to exist.

What we do appear to have is a continuing series of discrete biological states.

Now I also believe this is true of consciousness, it does not exist as a discrete object of reference, it exists as a rubric for other processes.

Which is also why I disagree with the use of the word 'qualia', so far the best definition of it is something like 'subjective experience', so I argue that the word perception already exists and is being explored.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Welcome, another analogy breakdown but some interesting metaphors.

The BBE is a hypothesis, it is just made from taking observation and then running the model backwards. The conclusion of what the BBE is, is not warranted because the model breaks down at that point.

But metaphorically you raise the point that is important to me.

I believe that the 'self' is an illusion (I blame the buddha), it does not truly exist. It is a rubric for a series of transitory states that are discrete and spate and there is no real place for a self to exist.

What we do appear to have is a continuing series of discrete biological states.

Now I also believe this is true of consciousness, it does not exist as a discrete object of reference, it exists as a rubric for other processes.

Which is also why I disagree with the use of the word 'qualia', so far the best definition of it is something like 'subjective experience', so I argue that the word perception already exists and is being explored.

It seems that the conception of self as being existent is based upon frame of reference. One could use the same reasoning you have to consider any entity or process to be illusory. But, upon dispelling one thing as being illusory, one inevitably must assume another non-illusory reality upon which to base the conclusion. Such a basis could, itself be dispelled by the similar reasoning, leaving another assumed basis, and so on. Its like playing metaphysical whack-a-mole.

I find it more convenient to consider all veridical entities as being 'real' in some sense or another. Illusion only arises from misinterpretation of naive perception, but perception itself must be considered real -- elsewise one cannot speak of there being any illusion.

 

[dlorde]

First I would like to apologize. There's a lot more rationale behind my apparently odd statements than I've elaborated on; I've a habit of taking them for grated and neglecting to sufficiently clarify.

An easy mistake to make. I have no formal philosophical background, so I'm often unfamiliar with the concepts and idioms, but I do have a useful knack of spotting apparent inconsistency, fallacy, and contradiction, which helps. The problem is to understand not what is said, but what is meant by what is said...

As you can see, I can't quite let go of the discussion...

Its basically the philosophical distinction of noumena and phenomena. ... Depending on one's conceptual frame of reference one may consider a process as object, and vis versa.

AIUI, noumena are conceptual objects, the intellectual idea of some object (from 'nous' meaning mind or intellect), and phenomena are sensed, perceived objects. So which is the process and which the object in different frames of reference (for example)? And what benefits does this approach have, other than obfuscating the discussion? You say these objects/processes need scientific investigation, but your approach appears to be to take the concept of an internal process which we agreed to be subjective by definition, call it an object and say that therefore it is objective and observable (potentially, in some unspecified way). I don't buy it. It's a lot of hand-waving - and when we get to the science, it seems to evaporate - leaving what?

So, being as how they are the basis of world we experience, we should at least attempt to better understand what they are.

We know what the senses are, they are the inputs to the CNS from specific sets of sensory receptors. All measurable and quantifiable. The changes in the patterns of processing in the brain occasioned by these sensory inputs ('qualia'?) are also, in principle, open to investigation. At some point we may be able to instrument the parts of the brain to the level of individual neurons or clusters of neurons without disturbance. Then play with the senses, and measure the effects in the brain against the reported sensations - when this light turns from red to blue, these areas become more active and those areas less active, there is more traffic between these areas than previously, etc. We may even be able to identify characteristic features in the patterns of activity that correspond to particular sensory stimuli... it would be an interesting scientific exploration.

But that doesn't seem to be what you're after, and I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to achieve, let alone how you hope to achieve it through abstract metaphysical transformations. What are the scientific questions you want answered that are not answerable by the kind of scientific approach I outlined above? What do you suppose an answer or answers to those questions might look like?

 

[Dancing David]

It seems that the conception of self as being existent is based upon frame of reference. One could use the same reasoning you have to consider any entity or process to be illusory. But, upon dispelling one thing as being illusory, one inevitably must assume another non-illusory reality upon which to base the conclusion. Such a basis could, itself be dispelled by the similar reasoning, leaving another assumed basis, and so on. Its like playing metaphysical whack-a-mole.

I find it more convenient to consider all veridical entities as being 'real' in some sense or another. Illusion only arises from misinterpretation of naive perception, but perception itself must be considered real -- elsewise one cannot speak of there being any illusion.

Nope, the body exists, the thought, emotions, perceptions and habits exist. the self does not.

 

[Apathia]

Nope, the body exists, the thought, emotions, perceptions and habits exist. the self does not.

I prefer sweeping it all away!
http://www.lamrim.com/hhdl/heartsutra.html

 

[AkuManiMani]

Nope, the body exists, the thought, emotions, perceptions and habits exist. the self does not.

Please elaborate. I think I may have some idea of what your rationale is but I want to be sure before replying.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please elaborate. I think I may have some idea of what your rationale is but I want to be sure before replying.

Just wanted to note that I actually agree with you here.

 

[Dancing David]

Please elaborate. I think I may have some idea of what your rationale is but I want to be sure before replying.

I will try later but I recommend the buddha. "Turning of the Wheel" at Benares/Deer Park (Sarnath?)

 

[AkuManiMani]

An easy mistake to make. I have no formal philosophical background, so I'm often unfamiliar with the concepts and idioms, but I do have a useful knack of spotting apparent inconsistency, fallacy, and contradiction, which helps. The problem is to understand not what is said, but what is meant by what is said...

I just took my first formal philosophy class this passed semester. Most of what I know about it is from my own investigations and personal reflection. Like you said, all one really needs is a knack for critical thinking

As you can see, I can't quite let go of the discussion...

We're all trapped *_*

AIUI, noumena are conceptual objects, the intellectual idea of some object (from 'nous' meaning mind or intellect), and phenomena are sensed, perceived objects. So which is the process and which the object in different frames of reference (for example)?

We tend to think of atoms as being objects, IAOT, but on further reflection it is clear that they are just patterns of oscillating fields. On one level of consideration, they can be viewed as processes; they are analogous to eddies or ripples in a pond. The same is true of their sub components. They are contiguous with their surrounding environment.

Even so, they can also be treated as discontiguous objects that have discrete existence from other objects -- with which they may interact. This is possible because they maintain a relatively stable set of properties and conformations thru time that allow us to distinguish them from the backdrop of their surrounding environment.

Even tho one can validly argue that the mind and mental phenomena are processes, they have a sufficiently stable conformation and integrity to be considered objects in their own right, for the very same reason why we may consider atoms [and conglomerations of atoms] as objects. On a post in another thread I defined matter as being atoms and objects composed of atoms since the term loses useful meaning if extended beyond this definition.

The thing is, thoughts and other mental abstractions, are not composed of atoms. They are patterns with conformational integrity that is incidental to the media on which they are carried and conveyed [which is also true of atoms themselves]. By the definition of matter I'm utilizing, the mind and mental objects are immaterial -- yet they are real veridical entities that have causal relevance on the world.

And what benefits does this approach have, other than obfuscating the discussion? You say these objects/processes need scientific investigation, but your approach appears to be to take the concept of an internal process which we agreed to be subjective by definition, call it an object and say that therefore it is objective and observable (potentially, in some unspecified way). I don't buy it. It's a lot of hand-waving - and when we get to the science, it seems to evaporate - leaving what?

The point is that subjective experiences necessarily have an objective reality. There is no logical way of getting around it.

We know what the senses are, they are the inputs to the CNS from specific sets of sensory receptors. All measurable and quantifiable. The changes in the patterns of processing in the brain occasioned by these sensory inputs ('qualia'?) are also, in principle, open to investigation. At some point we may be able to instrument the parts of the brain to the level of individual neurons or clusters of neurons without disturbance. Then play with the senses, and measure the effects in the brain against the reported sensations - when this light turns from red to blue, these areas become more active and those areas less active, there is more traffic between these areas than previously, etc. We may even be able to identify characteristic features in the patterns of activity that correspond to particular sensory stimuli... it would be an interesting scientific exploration.

But that doesn't seem to be what you're after, and I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to achieve, let alone how you hope to achieve it through abstract metaphysical transformations. What are the scientific questions you want answered that are not answerable by the kind of scientific approach I outlined above? What do you suppose an answer or answers to those questions might look like?

IMO, its not enough just to catalog what particular neural processes are correlated with particular sense impressions. The fact that our subjective experiences are of sensory information is a no brainier [pun intended]. There must be some theoretical means of explaining why those particular processes give rise to the experiences they do.

Information processing, IAOI, is not a sufficient explanation because [as demonstrated earlier] every physical process and interaction is informational. What must be understood is what physical or metaphysical principle makes specific processes produce the experience of information as a particular quality, or combination of qualities. The theoretical grasp of such a principle is the only means by which humans will be able to reliably reproduce qualitative experiences synthetically -- perhaps even devise ways of 'designing' novel experiences never before imagined.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Just wanted to note that I actually agree with you here.

Seems there may be hope for us yet

 

[AkuManiMani]

I will try later but I recommend the buddha. "Turning of the Wheel" at Benares/Deer Park (Sarnath?)

Hmm...I'll definitely look into it :O

 

[dlorde]

Even tho one can validly argue that the mind and mental phenomena are processes, they have a sufficiently stable conformation and integrity to be considered objects in their own right...

I'm not sure quite what you mean by their having a "sufficiently stable conformation and integrity to be considered objects in their own right", e.g. what kind of conformation and integrity are you referring to, in what medium, and what evidence is there of it ? Are you just saying that they are consistent features of our subjective experience?

The point is that subjective experiences necessarily have an objective reality. There is no logical way of getting around it.

You make the assertion as if it is self-explanatory, but it isn't. I sense a category error. The concept of subjective experience is an objective reality - we can discuss in abstract and metaphorical ways what it is like, but the experience itself is, by definition, subjective - there's no logical way of getting around it. Your subjective experiences are uniquely yours and we can only share your description of them. You could expose me to an almost identical set of stimuli in an effort to give me the same experience, but it would be my experience - processed through my brain, eliciting sensations unique to me.

There must be some theoretical means of explaining why those particular processes give rise to the experiences they do.

As we've already agreed (didn't we?) those processes are the experiences.

 

[Belz...]

As I said already; that reasoning simply does not follow. I suppose the point of confusion lies in how I've phrased the argument so I'll attempt to clarify by rephrasing it thus:

So in effect you are retracting your earlier claim that you can have qualia about qualia ?

If so, then what is a qualia, exactly ? And how do we know they exist ? And how can we distinguish them from one another ? What is it made of ?

I ask these because, to me, consciousness is neither seamless nor particularily focused.

[C] Given that conscious thoughts are necessarily qualitative, and many conscious thoughts are about [or in reference to] other thoughts and sense impressions it follows that qualia can be in reference to other qualia.

Necessarily qualitative, why ?

Belz, that's exactly the point. Nothing in any current physical theories explains what they are physically, or exactly how they are produced.

Aku, the point, rather, is that because YOU can't explain what they are physically, you think that no one can.

Look Belz, lets put it this way. Qualia are analogous to phonemes. Conscious thoughts are analogous to sentences, paragraphs, etc.

Sounds like yet another turtle. If qualia are analogous to phonemes, then you can't have qualia about qualia.

Could you atleast bother trying to understand what is being proposed before you try to critique it? You're far from dimwitted and such is well within your capabilities. So far, almost all of your responses have been knee jerk rebuttals. Are you looking to have a reasoned discussion or are you just out to beat your chest?

I'm simply trying to show you that the concept of qualia is incoherent.

Just to highlight the absurdity of your rebuttal:

[Belzebub]: That only follows from YOUR definition of [codon], which is circular. Obviously, if [codons] are the basic elements of [genes] then without them one cannot [have a genome] or, more precisely, if one [contains genes] he necessarily has them.

Nice try. The point is you're ASSUMING that qualia exist because you define them as the basic element of consciousness. But there is no such need for them.

qua⋅le: a quality, as bitterness, regarded as an independent object; a sense-datum or feeling having a distinctive quality.

Really, Aku. What you're saying is that ice is cold, but when a human touches it it produces a quale of cold ? Don't you see that it's unnecessary ? The damn thing's already cold. We're just processing the information.

I didn't say that they are objects independent of the laws of physics. I said that they are not predicted or accounted for in our current physical models. Period.

You forgot to adress what I said. "Experiences are not independent objects with their own laws of physics. They are actions." I didn't say they were independent of the laws of physics. I said they were independent objects. But they're not. Experiences are actions. They have no more physical presence than running.

If we had such knowledge we would not only be able to have an accurate objective criteria for determining what entities are conscious, but we would know how to reproduce subjective experiences synthetically in artificial constructs. As of now, humans do not have such knowledge.

If we had any idea how cells are built we'd be able to construct new ones, too. Does that mean that biology is wrong ?

By that reasoning gravity and electricity were 'mystical' before humans gained a scientific understanding of them; atoms were 'mystical' until Boltzmann

They didn't invoke fairies, however.

The distinctions are not arbitrary but logically, and necessarily, follow from the reality. I stated much earlier in this thread that qualia and quanta [subjective experience and objective existence, respectively] are complementary aspects of reality. Objective reality is veridical which means that, by definition, it can be observed. Observations themselves are, by definition, subjective and are necessarily qualitative; however, the act of observation itself has objective reality as well.

That's far from obvious. Please tell me what a "quale" is made of, then. You're adding a useless layer.

As of now, its abundantly clear that you're simply reacting, knee-jerk, to how how I'm using terminology and that you have no rational objection to the concepts themselves.

That's odd, because I keep voicing those objections.

If I had come along using the words 'private behaviors' instead of 'qualia', and stated that we need 'a more comprehensive model in order to reproduce them artificially' rather than pointing out that they are not accounted for in current physics you wouldn't be nearly so combative.

No, it would be quite different, because a behavior is simply an action performed by an entity. It is not a thing in the proper sense. It's like "running". What you are proposing is quite different.

 

[Belz...]

Of course it does "stuff". It even has tiny electrical currents.

The pieces aren't even connected, West.

Observation. Have you not observed [qualia]?

No.

 

[Nick227]

Nope, the body exists, the thought, emotions, perceptions and habits exist. the self does not.

Well, the self exists as sets of representations stored in the brain. It also exists, to a degree, as the body.

Thus, one might consider that the self "does not exist." But then many other things technically only exist as representations in the brain. It's just that for sensory representations we appear to have a common external source, and for thoughts and feelings we appear to have an inner source.

I think one can validly consider that the self exists or doesn't as one wishes (or appears to wish!)

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

I will try later but I recommend the buddha. "Turning of the Wheel" at Benares/Deer Park (Sarnath?)

Okay, I am not enlightened nor do I play a buddha on TV.

The alleged historic buddha was a very wise person who carefully reasoned many arguments. The AHB also had many contemporaries who helped generate the buddhist oral canon (notably Sariputta), it was written ~500 years later. This is the Pali canon, now there is a huge diversity of buddhist beliefs and I do not claim nor want to defend them.

I have studies buddhism since 1976 and have only in the last 10 years come to understand the teaching of anaatta (no-self). Not really understand but just begin to comprehend it. I did not really like it at first either.

In context of history it has many meanings, first is the atman which is a very spiritual concept from hinduism (which Gautama was raised in.), this is the soul or spirit and that which is the seat of hindu karma. The AHB mainly taught against the particular concept, as he stated 'if there is a seer behind the seeing then why not pluck out your eye, would you not see more clearly?' And there are many arguments about this particular concept.

Now the AHB also appears to have been a pragmatists, they never argued that reality is an illusion (at least in the Pali canon). They did argue that the notion of a ‘self’ is not a very well constructed one. Pragmatically the AHB states that there appears to be a world and there appear to be objects and beings in this world. Very little would ever even imply that the world is illusion.

However in most of the suttas/sutras there is a continual thread. There is a body, there are thoughts, emotions, sensations and habits. These are the things that we can pragmatically say appear to exist. Whatever the components of them may be.

However they are all transitory, each one is in flux, they change on a regular basis and are ephemeral, so as the AHB put it “Where then is the self to live?” And this line of reasoning fits very nicely with many forms of materialism, in that it recognizes the self as something that is conceptual but not something you can point to as having an actual continuity. Much like the boat of Praxis or the sword of Gryfindor. They are rebuilt and pieces replaced, so where is the original object after each piece is replaced?

Now according to poster Elohim (Jasosn) who expressed it much better than I there is the ‘common self’ or pugala that recognizes that in common usage we do view the body and it’s attendant processes as having something like continuity.

So in very short form that is the argument about ‘not-self’ or anatta.

We cab start another thread if you wish.

 

[Nick227]

Yes. Mystics have also claimed that they can fly to the Moon on dewdrops and talk to dead lizards. Mystics are stoned out of their minds most of the time - an occupational hazard - so they say a lot of stuff like this.

Are you claiming that philosophies derived from drug-induced states are inherently flawed? Just to check you're not drifting towards dualism here, Pixy.

I occasionally have to pull up over-zealous Jrefers for asserting dualism with notions like psycho-somatic healing.

Nick