Subjectivity and Science

[Dancing David]

You know...I spent about an hour staring at that post and searching out the terms I was unfamiliar with. Turns out it was only the terms and not the basic concepts that were a stumbling block.

Mind you I'm still hung up on 'pattern recognition' paradigm.

How would you describe your mysticism and it's relationship with the material world ? From reading your post I'm under the impression that there isn't much of, if any relationship and your mystic explorations are more geared to examining your own perceptions about how you, personally view things and, by extension, how others view things.

I find intuition to be rather straight forward there's certain clues given off by people and situations that one can be sensitive to but not necessarily identify on the spot. maybe, in retrospect one could think about those "clues" and rationalise their feelings.

However, at the time one is making a decision based on intuition it can seem like "the vibes" are being communicated to you from an outside source.

Depends on the variety of mysticism, I grew as the religous one in a religously preoccupied household (I'm feeling better, I think I will go for a walk.), then got into shamanism, paganism, wicca and ceremonial magic and buddhism.

There are different aspects to human existance and mysticism allows you to dialouge with certain ones. When you invoke a diety it doesn't matter if they are real or not, you will have certain effects. The real rpoblem is that most people don't foolw the traditiona guidelines for the practice of magic. What happens in the circle stays in the circle, it is like electrical insulation. You do not want to confuse the real and spiritual realms, that is like gounding out a high voltage wire. Ouch.

 

[martu]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.
Nick

Hello Nick

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

One further question:
Are you so sure "you'll never die" that you'd kill yourself*?

*or whatever it is you think that mass of carbon\water\iron etc is

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Nick... please read some books on the subject of conciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness", edited by Susan Blackmore, is an excellent starting point...

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

I also agree; Blackmore’s book is a good introduction. For people coming from the Advaita Vedanta (or neo-advaita) tradition, the chapter with Metzinger can be a real eye opener.

 

[volatile]

Hello Nick

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

One further question:
Are you so sure "you'll never die" that you'd kill yourself*?

*or whatever it is you think that mass of carbon\water\iron etc is

Might I also add the somewhat contentious but incredibly well written "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett to that list. In fact, there's a whole chapter in there called "The Reality of Selves" where he outlines the problems with your lines of thought, Nick.

 

[martu]

Oops yes forgot Dennet very good call volatile.

 

[Stout]

David, that's an impressive collection of disciplines to study

So are you saying that your mysticism has zero effect on the material world and is something you do strictly for emotional reasons ? You do it to make yourself happy, or simply because you want to and you're not actually seeking out super powers in your study of Magick ?

 

[John Freestone]

Hi Nick, I've been enjoying your posts, trying to work out what you mean (what you know or believe, etc.), from my limited knowledge of this subject. I was very glad you got what I was talking about. We're rather outnumbered here, but not quite so rare generally. It was good to read your reply to Joe

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant!

but that's the problem here - we're talking about something experienced, which is ubiquitously reported as beyond ordinary reason, so when we try to 'point to it', anyone who hasn't experienced it is going to dismiss it as irrational. Sometimes the term transrational is used.

I was amazed to read

One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

I'm dubious of this, but don't discount it, because of that 'transrational' problem. You may have experienced this. I may experience this. Everyone may experience this, or only some people. Your experience may be real, it may be illusion. There might be no difference between the two...

Anyway, I just wanted to support you in sharing the view, and let you know that some members are happy to hear unsubstantiated opinion or reports of subjective experience and not demand proof or evidence.

Your statement did put a spanner in the works, though, for me. I was just thinking how similar some of the transrational/spiritual/phenomenological ideas were to the materialist/naturalist/p-zombie ones. The Buddha's doctrine of "no-self" seems to be close to the mechanism of some naturalists here, where the subject is all but refuted, or absolutely refuted.

I've read Susan Blackmore's overview of consciousness studies, and it all pointed to the 'hard problem' still being as hard as ever. I read the other day on her website again, where she describes a theory of consciousness as narratives constructed from different strands of experiential data in memory, for instance, which challenges the common assumption that we have a single 'stream of consciousness' being absorbed and proposes instead a multiple or mixed repository of data in the brain from which a narrative is constructed in answer to a biological need to use certain information (a 'probe' I think the word is, I suppose like a query to a database). This helps to explain the way we are mostly unconscious, but can catch ourselves and learn to develop mindfulness by asking ourselves regularly "What am I conscious of now?" We then construct a narative backwards out of memory that was not in consciousness.

However, such theories always leave a little gap (IMHO) between bio-mechanical functioning and what I understand as subjectivity, rather like very complex versions of the homunculus inside your head watching the screen of your vision...the question of how the little men feel they are living entities requires more little men inside their heads ad infinitum. In this example, I would ask what it means that a 'narrative is constructed' when the real question of consciousness that I believe we are really trying to get to the bottom of is - who is relating a narrative to whom? Of course, you can, and maybe Blackmore would, say 'no-one'.

I vaguely understand and accept people believing that intentionless - I'm trying to think of a better term - oh yes, Spiritless, unconscious matter can do such clever computations that it ends up 'reflecting' to itself in its dead universe and thus causes what we, 'possessors' of a human brain, experience as being alive. I just don't find it convincing.

I am wondering whether these are quite different selves that are being negated, however, by Buddhism and materialism. I daren't speculate further, not being an expert in either. A massive complication comes from the multiplicity of different views I am artificially grouping into a dualistic framework. The 'scientists' here keep surprising me by how different their views are, and the range of ideas of a 'spritual' nature is also massive. Furthermore, since each of the dual views are made up of hundreds or thousands of different ideas (like 'identity', 'birth', 'mind') and their relationships (like 'each body has a separate mind'), that discussions of this sort are almost impossible even ignoring the transrational problem!

Then there's someone like Dancing David - you make my head hurt!

I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.

You see it's that last bit I just can't imagine anyone saying, feeling or believing. I can only imagine that their worldview is so gripping that it has overshaddowed their immediate, absolute, subjective knowledge of existing. Again, no problem that we're different, just can't get my head round "I am not conscious". How do you know you're not conscious unless you're conscious of having some grasp of that knowledge? - - - No, I think I do understand how you could answer that. Is it that there's a kind of not-you that is an illusion of being a subject caused by physical brain matter (but you have seen through it, thanks to science)?

AND you believe in a non-real spiritual realm that shouldn't be mixed up with reality? Ouch indeed.

 

[PixyMisa]

It was good to read your reply to Joe
but that's the problem here - we're talking about something experienced, which is ubiquitously reported as beyond ordinary reason, so when we try to 'point to it', anyone who hasn't experienced it is going to dismiss it as irrational. Sometimes the term transrational is used.

If it's not rational, it's not rational.

I've read Susan Blackmore's overview of consciousness studies, and it all pointed to the 'hard problem' still being as hard as ever.

"Hard problem" consciousness is a problem with philosophy, not a problem with understanding consciousness. All it is, is idealists mistaking language for reality.

We then construct a narative backwards out of memory that was not in consciousness.

This explanation is supported by experimental evidence.

I would ask what it means that a 'narrative is constructed' when the real question of consciousness that I believe we are really trying to get to the bottom of is - who is relating a narrative to whom? Of course, you can, and maybe Blackmore would, say 'no-one'.

Not quite. The narrative is you.

I vaguely understand and accept people believing that intentionless - I'm trying to think of a better term - oh yes, Spiritless, unconscious matter can do such clever computations that it ends up 'reflecting' to itself in its dead universe and thus causes what we, 'possessors' of a human brain, experience as being alive. I just don't find it convincing.

Why not? What phenomena does this fail to explain?

No, I think I do understand how you could answer that. Is it that there's a kind of not-you that is an illusion of being a subject caused by physical brain matter (but you have seen through it, thanks to science)?

I think David is wrong here. Consciousness can be described as an illusion, but illusions are real; they're just not what they appear to be. But as I said earlier, an illusion of information is information; an illusion of consciousness is consciousness, just misunderstood.

 

[Stout]

By questioning the nature of consciousness, are we really questioning the existence of the soul ? Is there a fear that science may eventually learn enough to reduce the idea of belief to biochemistry? That belief might somehow end up termed "treatable" ?

Just thinking out loud here, but if ethnogens can be used in ritual to bring the practitioner "closer to God" and invoke spiritual experiences, why couldn't the opposite chemistry be used to "take one further away from God", or suppress belief in the soul ?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?

I'm almost late for a great discussion!! Of course you can deny consciousness, you can deny anything but things are a bit more complex than what materialist are able to think.

I have argued extensively here with some hard core materialists, exposing all their weakness and rendering their beloved materialism as what it is... SIMPLY WOO. Yet, as I believe you know by now, they keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over just like every other woo.

Anyway, I will read here and there and post comments soon.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm almost late for a great discussion!! Of course you can deny consciousness, you can deny anything but things are a bit more complex than what materialist are able to think.

I have argued extensively here with some hard core materialists, exposing all their weakness and rendering their beloved materialism as what it is... SIMPLY WOO. Yet, as I believe you know by now, they keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over just like every other woo.

Anyway, I will read here and there and post comments soon.

LMAO!!!!

Tell me, what is the difference between what the world appears to be, and what you claim is some sort of "deeper" reality? Anything? No?

That's where you fail: your inability to show the difference between your claims about reality, and what could just be your imagination. You have already lost, and you just started!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You obviously weren't paying attention to what your sister said, or, for that matter, high-school biology. Consciousness is a function of the brain, of which you have one. You are that particular consciousness because it is generated by the brain you have in your head...

... The question, to a materialist, is trivial. No-one gives it serious attention because it doesn't deserve serious attention.

Ahh the good old pixy, hard core materialist and obtuse like few. I don't have a lot of time to answer properly but here are just two fast things.

1) Your first sentence is babbling, you are saying exactly zero, "you are you... because you are you". In reality, what we call "consciousness" (let me draw to your attention that we even lack a proper definition for such a thing) is related to the brain. To say that it is a "function" of it would require us to have the ability to make a WORKING MODEL. This would demonstrate that it is, indeed, generated by the brain. If you don't have this all you have is wishful thinking... or woo.

2) The question is not trivial, it is simply (and conveniently) ignored, like when certain authorities didn't want to look through the telescope, because they didn't need to. Fact is that every materialist who denies it, does it from the very same platform he/she is denying. Blatantly absurd.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ahh the good old pixy, hard core materialist and obtuse like few. I don't have a lot of time to answer properly but here are just two fast things.

1) Your first sentence is babbling, you are saying exactly zero, "you are you... because you are you". In reality, what we call "consciousness" (let me draw to your attention that we even lack a proper definition for such a thing) is related to the brain. To say that it is a "function" of it would require us to have the ability to make a WORKING MODEL. This would demonstrate that it is, indeed, generated by the brain. If you don't have this all you have is wishful thinking... or woo.

2) The question is not trivial, it is simply (and conveniently) ignored, like when certain authorities didn't want to look through the telescope, because they didn't need to. Fact is that every materialist who denies it, does it from the very same platform he/she is denying. Blatantly absurd.

Your "argument" fails again, and you add a personal attack on PixyMisa? That's classy!

Tell me, since we "lack a proper definition" for consciousness, why are your unfounded assumptions better than anyone else's?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

LMAO!!!!

Tell me, what is the difference between what the world appears to be, and what you claim is some sort of "deeper" reality? Anything? No?

That's where you fail: your inability to show the difference between your claims about reality, and what could just be your imagination. You have already lost, and you just started!

Joe, you have learn to read better. Where did I mention this "deeper" reality of yours? Mmm reading all your post, I believe you were answering to someone else, nothing you posted is related to what I said.

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe, you have learn to read better. Where did I mention this "deeper" reality of yours? Mmm reading all your post, I believe you were answering to someone else, nothing you posted is related to what I said.

That's an interesting way to dodge the question... dishonest as all hell, but also interesting.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your "argument" fails again, and you add a personal attack on PixyMisa? That's classy!

Tell me, since we "lack a proper definition" for consciousness, why are your unfounded assumptions better than anyone else's?

Ahh nevermind, pixy is an old friend of mine, you wouldn't understand. I can see, by the emotional content of your posts, that you are insulted and then you are, obviously, a hard core materialist.

Present me an argument and I think we can talk.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ahh nevermind, pixy is an old friend of mine, you wouldn't understand. I can see, by the emotional content of your posts, that you are insulted and then you are, obviously, a hard core materialist.

Present me an argument and I think we can talk.

Again, you avoid the questions. Why is that? Could it be because we both know you have no answer?

You have nothing. Not a single thing. You can insult people all you want, you can claim superiority over materialists too. At the end of the day, though, you're left with a double fistful of empty air.

You could learn some things about philosophy and the nature of observed reality... but you've completely closed your mind to anything useful, in exchange for playing make-believe and pretending to be relevant and knowledgeable.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm almost late for a great discussion!! Of course you can deny consciousness, you can deny anything but things are a bit more complex than what materialist are able to think.

Really? What?

I have argued extensively here with some hard core materialists, exposing all their weakness and rendering their beloved materialism as what it is... SIMPLY WOO. Yet, as I believe you know by now, they keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over just like every other woo.

Really? I've seen you claim to have done this. I certainly haven't seen you do this, or even make a coherent attempt at this.

Anyway, I will read here and there and post comments soon.

Fire away.

 

[Hokulele]

1) Your first sentence is babbling, you are saying exactly zero, "you are you... because you are you". In reality, what we call "consciousness" (let me draw to your attention that we even lack a proper definition for such a thing) is related to the brain. To say that it is a "function" of it would require us to have the ability to make a WORKING MODEL. This would demonstrate that it is, indeed, generated by the brain. If you don't have this all you have is wishful thinking... or woo.

Why would this require a working model? Wouldn't a working brain suffice? Better yet, how about several working brains, with several non-working brains for comparison?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Nick227 said (Sorry- 'quote' ain't working on my pc for some reason).
"For sure, we don't know what creates the experience of personal identity at a brain level, but maybe one day we find out.

However, whilst locating this process would to my mind confirm that the experience of personal identity is a natural experience, this doesn't alter the fact that if you can raise your self-awareness sufficiently then you do actually become aware of this process and can look underneath. This is what I'm talking about. When you can consciously experience the process of identification with thought, usually an unconscious process, you become aware of a deeper level of reality. It doesn't look any different, but the "I-not I" filter is gone. You have the choice to look through that filter and respond to situations as though there was a personal identity, or to not."

Language is poor at describing internal sensation / awareness. We "empathise" on the basis of shared experience, but it's easy to interpret the same experiences differently.

Meditation- or just relaxation- involves deliberately shutting down conscious brain activity. We all do this when trying to go to sleep. It's common experience that just as we are about to "drop off" (interesting expression) we suddenly remember several things we intend to do tomorrow or forgot today. I suspect this is the same neural process that generates meditative "insight"- namely that as the mind relaxes it's use of brain cells, subconscious processes running in the background "grab the processor time" and interrupt our peaceful state.
The same happens when we are awake and active- but it has a far harder job to wrest control of our attention for long enough to "remind us" we were supposed to be doing something, or to make us aware that the lady in the next seat on the bus is a friend of our mother's. WE may feel "a sense of alarm" - we are aware of a niggling "something", but the meaning escapes us. Some people are far better at listening to these subtle cues- I suspect most good diagnosticians pick up on extremely subtle variations in body position of a patient for instance; a hunter "reads the wind". We all do this stuff- but some folk see it as a matter of neural activity, others as a matter of spiritual awareness. At the end of the day, it's a matter of chemistry and training, hardware and programming, mind and spirit. Choose one.