Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-29-2005, 08:01 AM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: One sentence on Thought

I don't believe you're using the term awareness as it's commonly used. Your awareness sounds very idealized, perfect and pretty much unattainable by mere mortals. A perspective doesn't just invite bias, it creates a bias. One could even say that it IS a bias.

At least for humans, our range of awareness is so limited that we select a small range of things to observe and that act alone prevents observation of some ultimate truth because we focus on a microcosm at best.

All that said, what you seem to be speaking of, transcendental meditation strikes me as a very positive activity. By freeing yourself from the main trappings and attachments of society, you can be cleansed of your main stressors and avoid what seems to be for humans, an unnatural and uncomfortable existence. We were not meant to be sitting on our asses working at a desk and driving or sitting in cars with such great access to delicious fatty and sweet food, indoors, with stifled sex lives. It's a very peaceful and useful activity and seems to make people happier as well as healthier as shown in a few studies.

I have a number of problems with your post, not the least of which is the fact that usmot's contribution has been entirely consistent with what makes philosophical sense to me as well as modern neuroscience's take on consciousness, sense data, sensory transduction, and thalamic gatewaying.

What I see you attempting to do is go below consciousness to a level where sense data has entered the brain and is a pure and accurate representation of the exterior world. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble here because what happens isn't remotely like that.

The first problem as far as accurately perceiving reality is that humans are aware of such a limited range of the available, ambient data. Our temperature awareness is imprecise and only gives some rough approximation of the energy density of systems in which we're in contact. We are aware of only a small range of electromagnetic radiation, sound frequencies, chemical stimuli and tactile stimulation. Even on our own bodies, sensory discrimination in some areas is so poor we can't tell a pinprick as being in two different places despite a difference of a centimeter. Let's push all those concerns aside and just say "so what, so our range of sensory information is limited to certain ranges of certain external events and not perfectly consistent on our own bodies." I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

If we go just below consciousness and try to reach an area of pure external awareness, we have a problem. You're in the thalamus and the cortex modifies incoming data (tuning and gating it) based on cortical activity. You decide what to experience or not experience to some extent. The information reaching the thalamus is already modified and structured and is not an accurate representation of the external world. It's not our subconscious either because the thalamus is not really a part of the brain where cogitation occurs (and the subconscious needs to be consciously accessible at some point). That's pretty much the cortex and to some extent the cerebellum.

Even if you go to the primary sensory neurons themselves that interact with the outside world, there's a problem. The nervous system is arranged such that one pays attention to changes in the environment. This occurs in both a temporal sense (adaptation--and now how most would use the term, refers to a molecular mechanism by which the identical stimulus over time causes less activity) and in the sense that contrasts are enhanced. The nervous system is structured so that something called lateral inhibition occurs. It's why watermelon tastes sweeter with some salt on it and it's why those edges you see are overshaded on one side and undershaded on the other side compared to how the light actually hits the object.

There's even a blind spot in your vision. The brain just fills in the visual field you perceive to make up for the fact that retinoganglion cell axons (your optic nerve at this point) are placed so that no photoreceptor cells are present in a small degree range of your receptive field. It's a lie to create a complete visual picture of the world.

Unless you have some means of knowing how your nervous system is constantly lying to you about reality and can directly access this sense data, your whole world is a lie. It's an evolutionarily useful lie based on paying attention to contract and temporally dynamic events, but a lie just the same. And if you're not aware of something like sense data itself as your perfect awareness, I don't see how you can be aware of anything without it being distorted compared to the outside world. Once you've axed out sense data, the rest of our experience is conceptual and suffers the trappings of bias that you've already pointed out.

There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2005, 09:37 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: One sentence on Thought

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-29-2005, 11:31 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: One sentence on Thought

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between scientific truth and religous truth. A scientific theory appears analagous to a religon but open-minded scientists have no issue with admiting their theory might be wrong.

A closer analogy might be between scientism (science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.) and theism but again open-minded scientists have no issue with not believing in scientism.

Of course being open-minded is not needed to be a scientist and many are dogmatic about all sorts of things including science but that's to do with them and is nothing to do with science.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-29-2005, 12:09 PM
sexdrugsmoney sexdrugsmoney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stud forum
Posts: 256
Default Re: One sentence on Thought

[ QUOTE ]

There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bumper sticker, is it pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, or put out by a 'peace' organization or similar?

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:21 PM
J. Stew J. Stew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 191
Default Re: One sentence on Thought

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you're using the term awareness as it's commonly used. Your awareness sounds very idealized, perfect and pretty much unattainable by mere mortals. A perspective doesn't just invite bias, it creates a bias. One could even say that it IS a bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Letting the discriminatory mind quiet down reveals a clearer picture of reality, that is, one can become more aware of what is going on inside him and around him by quieting the mind. Pure awareness is the logical end to progressively quieting down the mind until is free from judgment and sees reality as is. That is enlightenment. I concede that it is impossible for humans to achieve purity of mind, but on the premise that perfection is infinite. Should this be so there is always more to do in terms of non-introspective introspection.

[ QUOTE ]
At least for humans, our range of awareness is so limited that we select a small range of things to observe and that act alone prevents observation of some ultimate truth because we focus on a microcosm at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes when the mind is busy we are thinking, but when the mind is quiet what is it focused on if not everything. What is everything except reality. If the mind is open and aware of everything, what does it not know as truth in terms of what pure conciousness can know as reality. When we choose to place awareness on something we can choose to conceptualize it or we can choose to have 'choiceless awareness'. After we choose to be choiceless we would just be awareness.

[ QUOTE ]
All that said, what you seem to be speaking of, transcendental meditation strikes me as a very positive activity. By freeing yourself from the main trappings and attachments of society, you can be cleansed of your main stressors and avoid what seems to be for humans, an unnatural and uncomfortable existence. We were not meant to be sitting on our asses working at a desk and driving or sitting in cars with such great access to delicious fatty and sweet food, indoors, with stifled sex lives. It's a very peaceful and useful activity and seems to make people happier as well as healthier as shown in a few studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say free yourself, but are referring to your mind. When the mind is free from attachments where is it but everywhere. And if it is everywhere what is it except purified.

We cannot avoid existence, we are on a rock orbiting a ball of fire, respectively. What else is there to do but purify the mind or enjoy the party. But can you really enjoy the party until your mind is purified?

[ QUOTE ]
I have a number of problems with your post, not the least of which is the fact that usmot's contribution has been entirely consistent with what makes philosophical sense to me as well as modern neuroscience's take on consciousness, sense data, sensory transduction, and thalamic gatewaying.

What I see you attempting to do is go below consciousness to a level where sense data has entered the brain and is a pure and accurate representation of the exterior world. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble here because what happens isn't remotely like that.

The first problem as far as accurately perceiving reality is that humans are aware of such a limited range of the available, ambient data. Our temperature awareness is imprecise and only gives some rough approximation of the energy density of systems in which we're in contact. We are aware of only a small range of electromagnetic radiation, sound frequencies, chemical stimuli and tactile stimulation. Even on our own bodies, sensory discrimination in some areas is so poor we can't tell a pinprick as being in two different places despite a difference of a centimeter. Let's push all those concerns aside and just say "so what, so our range of sensory information is limited to certain ranges of certain external events and not perfectly consistent on our own bodies." I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

If we go just below consciousness and try to reach an area of pure external awareness, we have a problem. You're in the thalamus and the cortex modifies incoming data (tuning and gating it) based on cortical activity. You decide what to experience or not experience to some extent. The information reaching the thalamus is already modified and structured and is not an accurate representation of the external world. It's not our subconscious either because the thalamus is not really a part of the brain where cogitation occurs (and the subconscious needs to be consciously accessible at some point). That's pretty much the cortex and to some extent the cerebellum.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you notice your thoughts you are able to see how the mind discriminates/interprets/contexualizes data. The body’s natural reaction is to take the hand off a burning stove. You don’t have to take your hand off the stove, but the body/mind has become conditioned to instinctively remove the hand because of all the data it has collected from past burnings. You burn your hand and say, ‘damn, I should have lifted my hand faster’ or, ‘I shouldn’t have put my hand there’, so you strengthen a believed thought which becomes an attachment which, unknowingly to you, if you don’t know it’s become an attachment, changes the way you see reality. I’m not saying burning your hand is good, but operating from the mindset that sees how sensory input influences our reality is the mindset that is pure or at least purer in relation to the infinite.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you go to the primary sensory neurons themselves that interact with the outside world, there's a problem. The nervous system is arranged such that one pays attention to changes in the environment. This occurs in both a temporal sense (adaptation--and now how most would use the term, refers to a molecular mechanism by which the identical stimulus over time causes less activity) and in the sense that contrasts are enhanced. The nervous system is structured so that something called lateral inhibition occurs. It's why watermelon tastes sweeter with some salt on it and it's why those edges you see are overshaded on one side and undershaded on the other side compared to how the light actually hits the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the body adapts naturally. The present-moment mindset I'm referring to understands/knows that natural change because the present moment is constantly changing. My girlfriend had a fat cat when I moved away for 6 months, when I came back the cat was significantly skinnier. I noticed because my last concept of the cat was 'fat cat'. My girlfriend hadn't noticed a big change. She was there everyday with the cat and her concept of the cat was constantly changing as he got skinnier. What she didn't realize was that her concept was changing. If she was very 'in the present moment' she would notice the cat's face was skinnier, he was lighter to pick up . . . along the way. If someone could first be in tune with what is happening, that is, be in the present moment, then silently observe how the mind is perceiving things, then that is the platform from which reality can be truth. Since the mind is infinite there would be no end to purification unless infinity can be experienced, which some say they have.

[ QUOTE ]

There's even a blind spot in your vision. The brain just fills in the visual field you perceive to make up for the fact that retinoganglion cell axons (your optic nerve at this point) are placed so that no photoreceptor cells are present in a small degree range of your receptive field. It's a lie to create a complete visual picture of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

[/ QUOTE ]
is applicable here.



[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have some means of knowing how your nervous system is constantly lying to you about reality and can directly access this sense data, your whole world is a lie. It's an evolutionarily useful lie based on paying attention to contract and temporally dynamic events, but a lie just the same. And if you're not aware of something like sense data itself as your perfect awareness, I don't see how you can be aware of anything without it being distorted compared to the outside world. Once you've axed out sense data, the rest of our experience is conceptual and suffers the trappings of bias that you've already pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the center of our discussion. The connection with the 'silent observer' can grow stronger. That is, the silent observer becomes more quiet and more observant as the connection to it is cleansed.

Long time meditation practicioners have said they can feel their blood moving.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are both doing that, thanks for the reply and insight.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.