What's the relationship between the brain and the mind?

[Marblehead]

As in: the originated brain originated from its origin; the mind.

 

I'm pretty satisfied with this answer actually ^^

 

Hehehe. Hi Everything, I disagree and suggest that it is really the opposite. Without the brain there is nothing for the mind to connect to even if it could exist, which I believe it cannot.

[Marblehead]

The uncertainty principle is relevant since it demonstrates that there are aspects of the world, which we interct with and have effects, which we cannot in principle be aware of, such as the exact position and velocity of any object at the same time.

 

This is crucial, since you rule out the possibility that anything which is in principle unknowable can have any relevance to the known world, despite referring to the uncertainty principle from time to time, as if you consider it to be valid.

 

I don't want to hear about your uncertainty principle or any of your doubts either. Tell me something you believe in. I have enough doubts and uncertainties of my own.

 

I will, however, suggest that it is always a possibility that an unknown can and does effect the known. We can never possibly know everything.

[Todd]

Looks like y'all are having fun. I want to play.

 

 

 

I disagree totally with #2. and I disagree conditionally with #3.

 

Linear logic is the only way to view a process. Otherwise the order of the process will be violated and the data will be invalidated.

 

The effect can affect the cause only in the future, not the past or present.

 

 

I suspect you don't believe that everything relevant to our experience in the world can in principle be known either, huh? If you do then I have ready made argument for you to respond to.

 

If not, then I can simply say that your faith in linear logic is based upon faith in an unknowable beginning, which you probably wouldn't have a problem with either.

 

Then I could point you to recent studies done on people studying for tests after they took them, and this having a statistically significant effect on the results of the tests that they took before they studied for them, and hence effects passing back in time. This is not even close to rock solid evidence, but its the best I can do at the moment.

 

Also, if you still believe in linear causality, then please check out Gold's arguments that depend upon this that are pretty convincing that awareness is the only thing relevant to our existence that we can know exists, and hence any object in awareness (such as the brain or matter) cannot be the source of that awareness in any way that is relevant our experience.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd

[Marblehead]

I suspect you don't believe that everything relevant to our experience in the world can in principle be known either, huh? If you do then I have ready made argument for you to respond to.

 

That is true. There are unknowns that have effected us over the years that we are totally unaware of, for whatever the reason. There are unknowns all around us, effecting us every day, even causing changes in our life and most often we are not even aware of what is going on.

 

If not, then I can simply say that your faith in linear logic is based upon faith in an unknowable beginning, which you probably wouldn't have a problem with either.

 

I accept the 'big bang' theory so for me the beginning is known. It is what existed prior to the 'big bang' that I consider to be an unknowable. I also consider tomorrow to be unknowable. Yes, we can make guesstimates but that is all. The better our data the better our predictions will be. But future events remain unknowable until they present themselves.

 

Then I could point you to recent studies done on people studying for tests after they took them, and this having a statistically significant effect on the results of the test that they took before they studied for it, and hence effects passing back in time. This is not even close to rock solid evidence, but its the best I can do at the moment.

 

Yeah, I would most often call it BS.

 

To the best of my knowledge there ain't no time machine yet. And movement into the past would be a paradox.

[Todd]

Yeah, I would most often call it BS.

 

To the best of my knowledge there ain't no time machine yet. And movement into the past would be a paradox.

 

 

It is only a paradox if you believe in linear causality.

 

 

I edited my post. I added a suggestion that you check out Gold's arguments, since you have such a strong faith in linear causality.

 

 

[Marblehead]

It is only a paradox if you believe in linear causality.

 

Which, of course, I do.

 

I edited my post. I added a suggestion that you check out Gold's arguments, since you have such a strong faith in linear causality.

 

Well, which post and which argument? You guys were going at it like a dog and a cat. Hehehe.

[Todd]

 

Well, which post and which argument? You guys were going at it like a dog and a cat. Hehehe.

 

 

Post #20

 

 

Maybe you and he can talk about it, if you don't agree. If he doesn't want to, then maybe I'll take his position for awhile. Just state what you find untenable, if anything.

[Marblehead]

Post #20

 

 

Maybe you and he can talk about it, if you don't agree. If he doesn't want to, then maybe I'll take his position for awhile. Just state what you find untenable, if anything.

 

Please excuse my absence, I had to go watch the TV program "Curiosity". Dr. Steven Hawking proved to his own satisfaction that there is no need for a god to have created the universe. (I had a question but he couldn't hear me.)

 

Anyhow. I disagree with Gold on this one. (We have disagreed before so it is nothing new.) A tree exists without me or anyone else ever seeing it. All thing are what they are, not necessarily what we think they are.

 

So does anyone care to go back to the question of the thread?

 

I would first ask that, if one accepts the existence of a brain and its various functions, what and where is the mind and what is its function.

[goldisheavy]

The uncertainty principle is relevant since it demonstrates that there are aspects of the world, which we interct with and have effects, which we cannot in principle be aware of, such as the exact position and velocity of any object at the same time.

 

This is crucial, since you rule out the possibility that anything which is in principle unknowable can have any relevance to the known world, despite referring to the uncertainty principle from time to time, as if you consider it to be valid.

 

It's irrelevant because the effect is small and uniform. Remember we're not talking about the success of any one single action/intent here (when the uncertainty principle would be relevant). We're talking about awareness in general.

Edited August 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Ok, my abbreviated list of connections did not include your entire argument.

 

You didn't abbreviate. You saddled me with an assumption that I didn't make. That's worse than an abbreviation. Don't do this again if you want me to respect you and continue to act friendly. You can curse me and maybe throw a rock at me, and I'll be your friend. But if you screw around with my arguments in an unfair way it's over. I don't tolerate such things. If I explored some possibility (however poorly you think I explored it is irrelevant) then I didn't make an assumption. So if I explored the possibility that something exists outside awareness, then I didn't assume that nothing exists outside awareness. So don't you dare call this "abbreviation." You should accept responsibility for your screw up here. What you did is misrepresent my side of the argument.

 

I did not include the aspect of objects fundamentally outside of awareness, because you define them as irrelevant.

 

I don't define them as irrelevant. I analyzed them in one of the posts and concluded they are irrelevant.

 

Whatever is fundamentally and permanently outside awareness either has influence on the contents of awareness or has none. If it has none, it's ignorable. If it has influence, to the extent the influence is uniform, it's ignorable, and to the extent the influence is non-uniform it renders the contents of awareness immune to reason and the entire discussion moot. Why is that? Because in order to reason we assume all the relations that we hold in our minds for analysis are relatively stable and trustworthy. If there is a fundamentally and permanently beyond perception non-uniform influence on all the contents of awareness, then since we can't reason about that which is permanently obscured and non-uniform, we cannot reason about anything that has such an influence as a significant component. It's obvious why this latter possibility should be ignored. Because if it's true, we can't even reason and everything we know is a meaningless jumble anyway, so there is no point not thinking whatever pleases the person in the moment. And since things appear stable enough, it pleases me to ignore the possibility that I live in a jumbled mishmash of a scrambled mind.

 

I did include the crux of your argument that you can agree is relevant. You say that, excluding objects that are fundamentally outside of awareness (and hence cannot be known to exist or not exist), no object of awareness (including objects that are unknown but in principle accessible to awareness) can be the source of awareness.

 

The argument that I quoted, and you refused to even address, was a direct answer to this argument. I showed how your argument is based upon assumptions. I detailed why those assumptions are not tenable. If you do not agree with my reasoning, then please address my reasoning. Right now, you have only refused to even consider it.

 

Let me make it really simple.

1.Your argument is based upon linear logic

2.Linear logic is a flawed approach

3.It is based on the assumption that nothing can affect its own cause

4.This reduces to absurdity if logically explored

 

In many arguments this would be helpful, but in this specific argument it is not helpful at all. Remember that you are trying to explore the idea that awareness is generated. Awareness is not an object of any kind so many logical rules that would apply to objects wouldn't apply to awareness. Do you know the difference between transformation and generation? In generation you get awareness appear from non-awareness. In transformation the state of awareness is modified. Various causes and effects can indeed modify the state of awareness. What they cannot do is generate awareness from non-awareness. Please understand that awareness is grander than any specific object of awareness and it's grander than any specific modification.

 

So again, you have nothing. If you didn't abuse my position and just stuck with making intelligent comments, I would have explained it to you all the sooner. Instead you've managed to piss me off and delayed the explanation. You're lucky I even wrote this post, because I seriously was considering not talking to you again. I can't talk to someone who warps what I am saying.

Edited August 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Everything]

Hehehe. Hi Everything, I disagree and suggest that it is really the opposite. Without the brain there is nothing for the mind to connect to even if it could exist, which I believe it cannot.

Greetings!

 

Well, at first I thought that the mind is relative and the brain is relative and their relationship is within their shared relativity.

 

So I have to ask first, don't you agree that the mind is equal to consciousness?

Edited August 8, 2011 by Everything

[Marblehead]

Hi Everything,

 

I had to switch your post around to be able to respond in the way I feel best.

 

So I have to ask first, don't you agree that the mind is equal to consciousness?

 

I am still open for further understanding regarding what 'mind' is. I will agree that 'mind' includes consciousness but I feel the need to expand on this even though I really have no idea what all to include. I think that our 'gut feelings' and 'intuitive inspirations' belong with the mind as well but I can't justify why I feel this way.

 

The 'brain' isn't really a problem - it can be physically identified. Consider that I believe that we all have personal Chi that interacts with Chi of the universe as well as with other beings as well as plant life. Does this belong in the arena of the 'mind'?

 

Well, at first I thought that the mind is relative and the brain is relative and their relationship is within their shared relativity.

 

Hehehe. Made me think of the old D. O. stuff. The Buddhists here are getting to me.

 

In my understanding, the brain is relative to life; the mind is relative to the brain. Without life the brain no longer functions. Without the brain the mind has no focal point for awareness/recognition. So, in Buddhist terms, the brain is dependant on physical life and the mind is dependant on the the functioning brain.

 

Yeah, everything is relative. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Hi Gold,

 

Good to see you controlling your emotions to a certain degree. You and Todd have a good discussion going but it got side-tracked.

 

Best Wishes.

[Todd]

First, I'll respond to your most recent post. Then, in another post, I will explore your view as if it were my own.

You didn't abbreviate. You saddled me with an assumption that I didn't make. That's worse than an abbreviation. Don't do this again if you want me to respect you and continue to act friendly. You can curse me and maybe throw a rock at me, and I'll be your friend. But if you screw around with my arguments in an unfair way it's over. I don't tolerate such things. If I explored some possibility (however poorly you think I explored it is irrelevant) then I didn't make an assumption. So if I explored the possibility that something exists outside awareness, then I didn't assume that nothing exists outside awareness. So don't you dare call this "abbreviation." You should accept responsibility for your screw up here. What you did is misrepresent my side of the argument.

 

I'm sorry that the way I expressed myself made you feel that I had saddled you with an assumption that you did not make. It was not my intention to do so, and I hope that my recent clarifications help you to no longer feel that I am saddling you with such an assumption. I appreciate that you have brought this to my attention, and I hope that you will continue to do so, if I misrepresent what you say in the future. I probably will, since I am human and both my understanding and expression are hence imperfect. I prefer to be informed of my misunderstanding, rather than to have it continue, and I am happy to correct my mistakes, especially with regard to the way that I characterize what you are saying, as I have shown on more than one occasion (even though you have not always afforded me the same courtesy in the past). If it happens again, please just speak up, and I will do my best to understand what you are saying and either clarify or correct my stance.

 

I don't define them as irrelevant. I analyzed them in one of the posts and concluded they are irrelevant.

 

Whatever is fundamentally and permanently outside awareness either has influence on the contents of awareness or has none. If it has none, it's ignorable. If it has influence, to the extent the influence is uniform, it's ignorable, and to the extent the influence is non-uniform it renders the contents of awareness immune to reason and the entire discussion moot. Why is that? Because in order to reason we assume all the relations that we hold in our minds for analysis are relatively stable and trustworthy. If there is a fundamentally and permanently beyond perception non-uniform influence on all the contents of awareness, then since we can't reason about that which is permanently obscured and non-uniform, we cannot reason about anything that has such an influence as a significant component. It's obvious why this latter possibility should be ignored. Because if it's true, we can't even reason and everything we know is a meaningless jumble anyway, so there is no point not thinking whatever pleases the person in the moment. And since things appear stable enough, it pleases me to ignore the possibility that I live in a jumbled mishmash of a scrambled mind.

 

There is another way of looking at this. Assume that something is fundamentally outside of awareness. It might have an influence on awareness that is neither uniform, nor randomly non-uniform. It might have an effect that we can only know through probability. Thus its effects are not always the same, hence not uniform, but they are also not immune to reason, since we can reason about probabilities. In fact, probabilities are the best way to reason about most complex systems, such as life forms, and even considerably less complex systems than that (if anything can be said to be less complex than any other thing).

 

Lets say further that awareness can influence this set of probabilities, even without ever being able to develop perfect knowledge of them, just as it is influenced by them, without those probabilities ever developing full awareness. Thus awareness would not be total, and could potentially be a subset of a larger whole, which has significant effects on it that are amenable to reason. Would it not then be to our advantage to consider this possibility, so that we can become aware of these effects and influence them if such is deemed beneficial?

 

In many arguments this would be helpful, but in this specific argument it is not helpful at all. Remember that you are trying to explore the idea that awareness is generated. Awareness is not an object of any kind so many logical rules that would apply to objects wouldn't apply to awareness. Do you know the difference between transformation and generation? In generation you get awareness appear from non-awareness. In transformation the state of awareness is modified. Various causes and effects can indeed modify the state of awareness. What they cannot do is generate awareness from non-awareness. Please understand that awareness is grander than any specific object of awareness and it's grander than any specific modification.

 

 

There are two approaches to this. First, how do you know that awareness is not generated by something else? If there are things that awareness cannot know that have an effect on awareness, as I explored just above, then it is possible that awareness is only a subset of a larger whole, and is potentially a very small subset of that whole, and it might be to our advantage to consider this possibility. There might even be awarenesses, and not merely some singular awareness.

 

The second approach is to get rid of the idea of primary and secondary generation altogether. This is where I was headed with my critique of linear reason. We can also arrive at the same place starting only from awareness.

 

Can awareness exist without an object of awareness? What use would it be to call it awareness in such a case? Awareness of what? Awareness is defined as being aware of some object, no matter how subtle and non-object like such an object might be. Since awareness cannot exist without objects, then objects are at least as much the source of awareness as awareness is the source of objects. There is no submission or domination in their relationship, since they are mutually necessary.

 

In such a case, if we were to say that there is a source, then it would have to be a non-awareness, non-object source, with potential for awareness and objects. All that we could know of it is this potential, which can only be inferred, and cannot be experienced. Such an inference might have a great impact on awareness, since then no aspect of awareness or objects within awareness can be established as being primary, or a source, and hence no given thing, even awareness, is imbued with unnecessary permanence, which frees all expressions of this potential, including awareness.

[Todd]

Ok, now for the exploration of Gold's view as if it were my own. This is no way meant to be construed as representing Gold's actual and complete view. Such a thing likely could not be expressed. It is an exploration to help me to understand another way of looking at the world, and I welcome comments and suggestions, especially from Gold, on how it can more accurately reflect his view, and how it can be further extended. I also may include some of my own extensions of this view as they become apparent to me.

 

---

 

We can safely start with awareness. The only thing that we can safely state positively is that awareness is. Some might say that "I am aware" is a safe start, but this "I" is an assumption, since it does not arise in all moments of awareness.

 

No object of awareness is constantly present. Even the "I" appears to come and go, especially in mystical states of awareness, but this awareness can never be seen to disappear. Thus awareness is the only necessary existence for experience. It exists before, during, and after any object apparently arises in and passes away from awareness. As such, no given object of awareness can be said, on the basis of what we directly know, to be the source of awareness. If we are to ascribe a source to anything, then it should be awareness, since it exists before any particular other thing arises.

 

It will be useful in our exploration to consider what these "objects" that we have been discussing actually are. No particular configuration of objects is inherent to awareness, but awareness is necessary for objects to be, so objects must depend upon a modification of awareness for their existence. If no such modification were taking place, then awareness would exist on its own, without objects. In such a case, awareness would be in a state of potential for objects arising, without any particular objects actually arising. It would lose the qualities that we associate with awareness, as being aware of some thing, but since it exists before any particular object, we cannot say that it disappears when objects disappear. It merely returns to its state of potential for generating objects.

 

One way of looking at how objects are generated by awareness is to think of awareness as a field. This field, as the potential for objects, exists as a field of possibilities. Objects are generated by dividing this field of possibilities in various ways. We can notice this by a taking an example object and considering how we know it to be an object, how we end up experiencing it as an object. We can take the example object "lamp". We recognize it as an object because it is different from other potential objects. It has particular values in contradistinction with the seemingly infinite array of possible values. Thus it has internal integrity, as opposed to no internal integrity; it has an energy source, as opposed to no energy source; a potential light source, as opposed to a motor, or a feather, or an immaterial spirit, is connected to that energy source, etc... It has a particular color, as opposed to all possible colors. It has a particular shape, as opposed to all possible shapes, etc... And even more fundamental than any of that, there is space (as opposed to no space) in which it can exist, and there is time (as opposed to no time) during which it can exist and be experienced. If awareness does not divide itself in this way, then no object be experienced within it. Thus, all objects are dependent upon awareness for their manifestation and cannot be considered anything but a subset, most often an infinitesimally small subset, of that greater awareness. However, implied by any given object is all the other objects and potential object that give it its meaning and context, and hence no object can actually be separated from the greater whole except by way of seeming. All objects are an expression and fulfillment of the potential of awareness.

 

The impetus for this modification or division of awareness, such that objects appear, is intent, since even the most deluded people experience themselves as having at least some degree of control over their experience. They can open or close their eyes, or they can get up, or they can think of something that they choose. Even if a lot appears to be outside of their control, they experience themselves as being able to influence at least some things, and this capacity for intent never leaves, no matter how weak it seems to grow. Thus the modifications of awareness are not random, but are acts of will, or intent. The appearance of things being outside of the influence of conscious intent is another manifestation of the potential of awareness. It can divide itself into controllable and uncontrollable. However, such a division is merely a deeper manifestation of intent, and hence all things are a manifestation of intent. As such, every experience of awareness can be seen as a manifestation of intent, and one is hard pressed to make any distinction whatsoever between awareness and intent.

 

Some say, "Hey now! Not so fast! How do you know that there is not something outside of awareness that you just don't know about, that gives rise to awareness?"

 

My response to that is that maybe there is and maybe there isn't. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter. If there is, then by virtue of the fact that it is outside of awareness, I cannot know anything about it, and so I can safely leave it out of my considerations. Since it is by definition, not a form of awareness itself, then it is also unaware of me dismissing it, so it will not care either, so everyone's feelings are spared and we don't have to consider such irrelevant matters.

 

If you say, "Wait a minute! We said that this non-awareness might have effects on awareness! Shouldn't we consider it then?", then I would say that either these effects are uniform, and hence can be left out of the equation, since they exist at all times, and hence on all sides of all equations, or else these effects are non-uniform, in which case awareness would be being controlled by a source outside of itself and not treatable by reason. In such a case, then none of this discussion has any point, and we might as well be speaking gibberish, since it is all determined by forces outside of our control, and no amount of reason can either ennoble us, reflect any truth, except by accident, or provide any practical benefit whatsoever.

 

Besides, we agreed that the only thing that we can positively state without falling back on faith is that awareness is. We can easily deal with the whole of existence without assuming that anything other than awareness exists, and so it is the most elegant explanation for what we can see and know. An unknowable non-awareness can only be postulated, since it is by definition outside of our direct experience, and so it is an unnecessary complication of any explanation of what we know. As such, in the absence of convincing evidence for an unknowable non-awareness that affects awareness, then the best available way of approaching the world is as if that awareness is all that exists. The burden of proof falls to those who maintain otherwise.

 

One thing that I have thought of throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the works, though, is that awareness itself can be thought of as a manifestation of awareness. Awareness is referred to by word, and hence it has meaning. It is divided from the potential of non-awareness. What if we don't make that division? Is there still awareness?

 

Then I guess we really can't say. Anything that we say is another division from the potential (which I guess we can't really call awareness anymore). Hmmmmm.... I guess we can keep using the word "awareness", but only with the understanding that it is nothing like what we might assume "awareness" means. I wonder how allowing this to permeate our experience might change how things seem.

[goldisheavy]

First, I'll respond to your most recent post. Then, in another post, I will explore your view as if it were my own.

 

 

I'm sorry that the way I expressed myself made you feel that I had saddled you with an assumption that you did not make. It was not my intention to do so, and I hope that my recent clarifications help you to no longer feel that I am saddling you with such an assumption. I appreciate that you have brought this to my attention, and I hope that you will continue to do so, if I misrepresent what you say in the future. I probably will, since I am human and both my understanding and expression are hence imperfect. I prefer to be informed of my misunderstanding, rather than to have it continue, and I am happy to correct my mistakes, especially with regard to the way that I characterize what you are saying, as I have shown on more than one occasion (even though you have not always afforded me the same courtesy in the past). If it happens again, please just speak up, and I will do my best to understand what you are saying and either clarify or correct my stance.

 

Mumble, grumble.

 

There is another way of looking at this. Assume that something is fundamentally outside of awareness. It might have an influence on awareness that is neither uniform, nor randomly non-uniform. It might have an effect that we can only know through probability. Thus its effects are not always the same, hence not uniform, but they are also not immune to reason, since we can reason about probabilities. In fact, probabilities are the best way to reason about most complex systems, such as life forms, and even considerably less complex systems than that (if anything can be said to be less complex than any other thing).

 

You're talking about intelligence. It is intelligence that is neither uniform nor randomly non-uniform. Sounds like God. There is still a good reason to ignore this. Why? You cannot distinguish this sort of influence from internal movements of awareness. There is no criteria you can establish for differentiating internal causes from external. Not only is it a whopping assumption that there is a permanently external-to-awareness intelligence in the form of unaware matter no less, but you then must invent some ad-hoc way of differentiating this influence from everything else that happens as a natural permutation of the state of awareness.

 

Lets say further that awareness can influence this set of probabilities, even without ever being able to develop perfect knowledge of them, just as it is influenced by them, without those probabilities ever developing full awareness. Thus awareness would not be total, and could potentially be a subset of a larger whole, which has significant effects on it that are amenable to reason. Would it not then be to our advantage to consider this possibility, so that we can become aware of these effects and influence them if such is deemed beneficial?

 

It's a weak position that puts you at a disadvantage. (you're sharing your power with something that appears as if outside your intent) You should first assume that there is no such external meddlesome influence and try living that way. If you fail, then downgrade. Starting with the downgraded view on your first try is a mistake. Assume the best, and go forward from there.

 

There are two approaches to this. First, how do you know that awareness is not generated by something else?

 

I know that awareness is not generated by anything that appears within awareness. Knowing this alone is more than enough. I know for a fact that awareness is not generated by the brain, for example. Why not? Because the brain appears to us as a concrete object that's contextualized by the state of awareness. The brain is a reification of something that we know doesn't exist as anything more than an illusion.

 

If there are things that awareness cannot know that have an effect on awareness, as I explored just above, then it is possible that awareness is only a subset of a larger whole, and is potentially a very small subset of that whole, and it might be to our advantage to consider this possibility. There might even be awarenesses, and not merely some singular awareness.

 

There is nothing advantageous in considering a less empowering position before you consider the most empowering one. Remember, if you really believe some external-to-awareness reality generates awareness and then interferes with it in some intelligent and non-trivial manner, this influence is permanently beyond your intent. So this position puts you into the role of a victim. You're at the mercy of this other reality and you can't inspect it directly. If it turns out you can completely figure out how to work with this permanently external-to-awareness reality, then guess what? It's not outside awareness after all, if you can be aware of it. But if it's an object of awareness, it's not able to generate awareness. So if something permanently and fundamentally external to awareness generates it, it must be completely foreign and opaque, or it must be completely transparent, ending up being irrelevant either way.

 

The second approach is to get rid of the idea of primary and secondary generation altogether. This is where I was headed with my critique of linear reason. We can also arrive at the same place starting only from awareness.

 

Can awareness exist without an object of awareness? What use would it be to call it awareness in such a case? Awareness of what? Awareness is defined as being aware of some object, no matter how subtle and non-object like such an object might be. Since awareness cannot exist without objects, then objects are at least as much the source of awareness as awareness is the source of objects.

 

This is completely wrong. There is a reason why awareness is grander than any one object. Whatever object appears to your conscious awareness only has meaning to the extent it's being contextualized and defined by meanings and relations of other objects that do not appear to your conscious awareness. So for example, if I enter into a perfectly dark room, I know it is dark because I know what light is like and this isn't it. So I need the knowledge of light to be available to my subconscious mind in order to perceive darkness. So even if the object of perfect darkness is completely at the forefront of conscious awareness, it's only dark to the extent the object of lightness exists in my subconscious awareness. That's a simple example. Other examples are dramatically more complex. So seeing a blade of grass means you have the entire known and unknown universe in your subconscious mind, or else you wouldn't know what grass was and wouldn't be able to recognize it as such.

 

This is a difficult topic. To fail to understand what I am describing above is very very common and expected.

 

So in short, things only have meaning thanks to context. Nothing has its own meaning. There is no forkness in the fork and no horseness in the horse. No grassness in the grass. Etc. No object brings its own meaning along with it. Meaning is relative to context and context is infinite. That's why awareness is not just objects that appear in it. Awareness is a living breathing intentional context together with objects that appear thanks to that context, intent, beliefs and habit. It's all of that. And you are that.

 

There is no submission or domination in their relationship, since they are mutually necessary.

 

In such a case, if we were to say that there is a source, then it would have to be a non-awareness, non-object source, with potential for awareness and objects. All that we could know of it is this potential, which can only be inferred,

 

You can't infer anything outside your own awareness. You can only assume it. Inference only works on things inside awareness (conscious and subconscious minds are both game for inference).

 

and cannot be experienced. Such an inference might have a great impact on awareness,

 

Definitely. Such inference would castrate you as a being and make you stupid, helpless, confused. It's the stripping of your power.

 

since then no aspect of awareness or objects within awareness can be established as being primary, or a source, and hence no given thing, even awareness, is imbued with unnecessary permanence, which frees all expressions of this potential, including awareness.

 

Awareness is permanent necessarily. Why so? Because things have meaning only within context. Context cannot have a beginning. Context cannot be established. There is no way to start a context. Context is eternal.

 

So if something exists permanently outside awareness generating it, then both awareness and this something must be permanent because we know awareness is permanent due to its endlessly contextual nature.

 

All your life you've experienced modifications of the state of awareness. You've never experienced generation or creation of awareness. If you believe in creation or generation of awareness, it's not because you have personal experience of such things.

Edited August 9, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Ok, now for the exploration of Gold's view as if it were my own. This is no way meant to be construed as representing Gold's actual and complete view. Such a thing likely could not be expressed. It is an exploration to help me to understand another way of looking at the world, and I welcome comments and suggestions, especially from Gold, on how it can more accurately reflect his view, and how it can be further extended. I also may include some of my own extensions of this view as they become apparent to me.

 

---

 

We can safely start with awareness. The only thing that we can safely state positively is that awareness is. Some might say that "I am aware" is a safe start, but this "I" is an assumption, since it does not arise in all moments of awareness.

 

No object of awareness is constantly present. Even the "I" appears to come and go, especially in mystical states of awareness, but this awareness can never be seen to disappear. Thus awareness is the only necessary existence for experience. It exists before, during, and after any object apparently arises in and passes away from awareness. As such, no given object of awareness can be said, on the basis of what we directly know, to be the source of awareness. If we are to ascribe a source to anything, then it should be awareness, since it exists before any particular other thing arises.

 

It will be useful in our exploration to consider what these "objects" that we have been discussing actually are. No particular configuration of objects is inherent to awareness, but awareness is necessary for objects to be, so objects must depend upon a modification of awareness for their existence. If no such modification were taking place, then awareness would exist on its own, without objects. In such a case, awareness would be in a state of potential for objects arising, without any particular objects actually arising. It would lose the qualities that we associate with awareness,

 

It wouldn't lose these qualities. It would be as always. What you describe is a real object that's knowable in contradistinction to all the ordinary objects that tend to appear. And vice versa. The reason we know these various mundane objects here is partly because we also subconsciously know the state of all-potential. The contextual relatedness that defines meanings stretches into the realms of mystery and unknowing, but these realms are within awareness and are accessible.

 

Transitioning in and out of that state demonstrates a meaningful relatedness between all possible objects.

 

as being aware of some thing, but since it exists before any particular object, we cannot say that it disappears when objects disappear. It merely returns to its state of potential for generating objects.

 

One way of looking at how objects are generated by awareness is to think of awareness as a field. This field, as the potential for objects, exists as a field of possibilities. Objects are generated by dividing this field of possibilities in various ways. We can notice this by a taking an example object and considering how we know it to be an object, how we end up experiencing it as an object. We can take the example object "lamp". We recognize it as an object because it is different from other potential objects. It has particular values in contradistinction with the seemingly infinite array of possible values. Thus it has internal integrity, as opposed to no internal integrity; it has an energy source, as opposed to no energy source; a potential light source, as opposed to a motor, or a feather, or an immaterial spirit, is connected to that energy source, etc... It has a particular color, as opposed to all possible colors. It has a particular shape, as opposed to all possible shapes, etc... And even more fundamental than any of that, there is space (as opposed to no space) in which it can exist, and there is time (as opposed to no time) during which it can exist and be experienced. If awareness does not divide itself in this way, then no object be experienced within it.

 

This non-division is also a kind of division because it appears as an experience that's distinct from one of diverse multifarious mundane objects. So in this sense, nothing is destroyed when the non-divided all-potential object presents itself to the conscious awareness and the various diverse objects retreat into the subconscious. And when the all-potential object recedes into the subconscious and various diverse objects appear once again, nothing is created.

 

So there is a division between a state of division and a state of non-division. And even if you could unify these two states, this union would still be divided from the case where it's not unified. So division is always there when it comes to experience. The only true non-division is not something experiential, but a realization of an enlightened being that transcends all possible experiences, including all possible mystical experiences.

 

Thus, all objects are dependent upon awareness for their manifestation and cannot be considered anything but a subset, most often an infinitesimally small subset, of that greater awareness. However, implied by any given object is all the other objects and potential object that give it its meaning and context, and hence no object can actually be separated from the greater whole except by way of seeming. All objects are an expression and fulfillment of the potential of awareness.

 

The impetus for this modification or division of awareness, such that objects appear, is intent, since even the most deluded people experience themselves as having at least some degree of control over their experience. They can open or close their eyes, or they can get up, or they can think of something that they choose. Even if a lot appears to be outside of their control, they experience themselves as being able to influence at least some things, and this capacity for intent never leaves, no matter how weak it seems to grow. Thus the modifications of awareness are not random, but are acts of will, or intent. The appearance of things being outside of the influence of conscious intent is another manifestation of the potential of awareness. It can divide itself into controllable and uncontrollable. However, such a division is merely a deeper manifestation of intent, and hence all things are a manifestation of intent. As such, every experience of awareness can be seen as a manifestation of intent, and one is hard pressed to make any distinction whatsoever between awareness and intent.

 

Some say, "Hey now! Not so fast! How do you know that there is not something outside of awareness that you just don't know about, that gives rise to awareness?"

 

My response to that is that maybe there is and maybe there isn't. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter. If there is, then by virtue of the fact that it is outside of awareness, I cannot know anything about it, and so I can safely leave it out of my considerations. Since it is by definition, not a form of awareness itself, then it is also unaware of me dismissing it, so it will not care either, so everyone's feelings are spared and we don't have to consider such irrelevant matters.

 

If you say, "Wait a minute! We said that this non-awareness might have effects on awareness! Shouldn't we consider it then?", then I would say that either these effects are uniform, and hence can be left out of the equation, since they exist at all times, and hence on all sides of all equations, or else these effects are non-uniform, in which case awareness would be being controlled by a source outside of itself and not treatable by reason. In such a case, then none of this discussion has any point, and we might as well be speaking gibberish, since it is all determined by forces outside of our control, and no amount of reason can either ennoble us, reflect any truth, except by accident, or provide any practical benefit whatsoever.

 

Besides, we agreed that the only thing that we can positively state without falling back on faith is that awareness is. We can easily deal with the whole of existence without assuming that anything other than awareness exists, and so it is the most elegant explanation for what we can see and know. An unknowable non-awareness can only be postulated, since it is by definition outside of our direct experience, and so it is an unnecessary complication of any explanation of what we know. As such, in the absence of convincing evidence for an unknowable non-awareness that affects awareness, then the best available way of approaching the world is as if that awareness is all that exists. The burden of proof falls to those who maintain otherwise.

 

One thing that I have thought of throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the works, though, is that awareness itself can be thought of as a manifestation of awareness. Awareness is referred to by word, and hence it has meaning. It is divided from the potential of non-awareness. What if we don't make that division? Is there still awareness?

 

Of course there is always awareness. That state is also intentional. Just the fact that you're talking about it now demonstrates it is within the scope of awareness.

 

Then I guess we really can't say. Anything that we say is another division from the potential (which I guess we can't really call awareness anymore). Hmmmmm.... I guess we can keep using the word "awareness", but only with the understanding that it is nothing like what we might assume "awareness" means.

 

Exactly. "Awareness" is just a tool concept. But as a tool, it is the best tool. A tool par excellence.

 

I wonder how allowing this to permeate our experience might change how things seem.

 

At first it doesn't change much of anything, because beliefs and habits have force that has to be coped with in terms of pragmatic reality. Later on it brings the experiences that are inconceivable from the point of view of the ordinary mindset. These experiences at first elicit great fear and a feeling of insanity. Eventually this can be overcome. This stage can be called "tolerance of the inconceivability of phenomena." At that point your life cannot be described except as one of freedom. At some point you might even get bored of being free and wish to be limited and stupid once again so you can re-experience it all over again.

 

Well, this was very impressive. You seem to understand my view pretty well.

[goldisheavy]

Even considering something to be outside of awareness is an object of awareness. It's all worked up intentionally within awareness.

[forestofemptiness]

The sages of Advaita tells us that all knowing consists of three parts: The knower, the instrument, and the object of knowledge. The knower cannot be the object, for if it were, it would be the object and not the knower. We can use our own instruments here: the eye is the instrument by which all things are seen, but it cannot (directly) see itself.

 

The sages further tell us that whatever we know, that is not what we are. We can know the body, we are not the body. We know the energies of the body, we are not those. We know thoughts, feelings, intellect, ego--- we are not these. The ultimate knower is not an object, so if we say it has a specific shape or form, that it is like this or that, we confuse the knower with the objects.

 

There is a correlation between the brain and the knower, but experience would suggest that the brain is the instrument, like the eye. The eye enables seeing, but there is no knowing in the eye. If we remove the eye, we do not remove the knower. While the body-brain develops and changes, the knower remains.

[Marblehead]

The sages of Advaita tells us that all knowing consists of three parts: The knower, the instrument, and the object of knowledge. The knower cannot be the object, for if it were, it would be the object and not the knower. We can use our own instruments here: the eye is the instrument by which all things are seen, but it cannot (directly) see itself.

 

The sages further tell us that whatever we know, that is not what we are. We can know the body, we are not the body. We know the energies of the body, we are not those. We know thoughts, feelings, intellect, ego--- we are not these. The ultimate knower is not an object, so if we say it has a specific shape or form, that it is like this or that, we confuse the knower with the objects.

 

There is a correlation between the brain and the knower, but experience would suggest that the brain is the instrument, like the eye. The eye enables seeing, but there is no knowing in the eye. If we remove the eye, we do not remove the knower. While the body-brain develops and changes, the knower remains.

 

Yes. But if you remove the brain there is going to be a serious problem.

[Birch]

Yes. But if you remove the brain there is going to be a serious problem.

Depends on which part:-) I believe most understanding in neuroscience originated from the observation of pathologies. The idea being if you understand pathology then you understand "normal" functioning and you can stretch that understanding further to include "performance".

But I wonder (as usual:-)) whether begining from pathology is a good idea...

[Marblehead]

Depends on which part:-) I believe most understanding in neuroscience originated from the observation of pathologies. The idea being if you understand pathology then you understand "normal" functioning and you can stretch that understanding further to include "performance".

But I wonder (as usual:-)) whether begining from pathology is a good idea...

 

Yes Dear, I was referring to the entire freakin' brain.

 

And I will agree that understanding the functions of the brain is still a work in progress. And the neat thing is that when one part of the brain is damaged very often other parts of the brain take over the functions of what the damages part was doing.

 

I am glad I am not one of those people who work in the field of studying the brain. I would likely go crazy.

[goldisheavy]

Yes. But if you remove the brain there is going to be a serious problem.

 

In our realm we can't even conceive of a being without a brain. So in our realm removing the brain ejects the being from our realm. But there is a difference between ejecting the being and destroying awareness. We tend to think that unless a being experiences objects in our realm, it is non-existent.

 

Ejecting the being means losing logical connection to it (alternatively, some personality passes beyond our ability to recognize). We can't send and receive mail to/from the ejected being.

 

Still, we overestimate the brain's importance:

 

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

 

And of course the guy in the video at the beginning of this thread has 1/3rd of his brain disabled by a stroke and he's doing fine with 150 IQ, although he did have to train his mind to regain its agility in this realm.

Edited August 9, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

In our realm we can't even conceive of a being without a brain. So in our realm removing the brain ejects the being from our realm. But there is a difference between ejecting the being and destroying awareness. We tend to think that unless a being experiences objects in our realm, it is non-existent.

 

Ejecting the being means losing logical connection to it (alternatively, some personality passes beyond our ability to recognize). We can't send and receive mail to/from the ejected being.

 

Still, we overestimate the brain's importance:

 

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

 

And of course the guy in the video at the beginning of this thread has 1/3rd of his brain disabled by a stroke and he's doing fine with 150 IQ, although he did have to train his mind to regain its agility in this realm.

 

Hi Gold,

 

And this leads exactly to the comment I made earlier regarding brain and mind. There are species on this planet that have no brain but rather have a nervous system that directs all of its activities.

 

Yes, no brain for a human we would have little more than a vegetable. Would there, in this case be 'awareness'? I tend to think not. But then, if our brain was good and the nervous systen screwed up I am sure there would be 'awareness' but this awareness would be expremely difficult to deal with. I just thought of Steven Hawkings. Nervous system gone but the brain still functioning just fine.

 

If we consider the brain, all the sensory organs, and the entire nervous system of a properly functioning human, we have awareness and all the 'normal' functions. I don't even see a need for the term 'mind'.

[goldisheavy]

Hi Gold,

 

And this leads exactly to the comment I made earlier regarding brain and mind. There are species on this planet that have no brain but rather have a nervous system that directs all of its activities.

 

Yes, no brain for a human we would have little more than a vegetable. Would there, in this case be 'awareness'? I tend to think not. But then, if our brain was good and the nervous systen screwed up I am sure there would be 'awareness' but this awareness would be expremely difficult to deal with. I just thought of Steven Hawkings. Nervous system gone but the brain still functioning just fine.

 

If we consider the brain, all the sensory organs, and the entire nervous system of a properly functioning human, we have awareness and all the 'normal' functions. I don't even see a need for the term 'mind'.

 

Marble, did you read the link about the implications of hydrocephalus? Don't you think it's interesting that while it affects some people negatively, some lead normal lives with most of their brain tissue missing?