Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[Beyondo]

So what is the background against which that energy is understood as energy?

The manifold called space....

Correction:

The energy is detected by placing two small plates in a vaccum soo close to one another that no particle can fit between them. The two plates surprisingly get squeezed together at a rate predicted by QM.

There are only different shades of something and nothing exist only in the imagination...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

My personal opinion, is that in our age of thinking, abstract ideas are only attempts to recreate the realm of philosophy as it once was. That time has passed, and many of these questions are not valid anymore, and the ones that are left are not that complex.

When I see people having exchanges that are so obscure to render the goal of the conversation impossible to reach, I realize such a conversation has no point, and acts simply as a mirror for the participants to see themselves.

 

[Beyondo]

Quite the contrary: I would say it is the degree of simplicity, not sophistication, that determines manifestation, and the simplest of all things is nothingness.

You are adding too much into the picture.

Think of both peak and trough as on/off phases, or pulses, of consciousness. In other words, as the Buddha found out by fathoming the 'unconscious', that it is all conscious.

So too, is the universe manifested in 'on/off' phases. Now you see it; now you don't, but it is always there, like the light bulb is always there, but there is no light until the switch is flipped.

Listen again to what Watts is actually saying:

"We should'nt really contrast existence with non-existence. The unconscious is, so to say, the part of experience which is doing the conscious, just as the trough manifests the wave, the space manifests the solid, the background [field] manifests the figure."

or, to put it another way:

"Everything comes out of nothing."

Ah, no I'm not adding too much to the picture. Inanimate matter, the unconscious, produces the mind, the conscious, by virtue of its sophistication. Artificial neural networks, that is simulations of neurons in a computer, learn by experiencing a data set. They are not programmed to know how to deal with that data but ultimately can converge on a solution. A book called "Rethinking Innateness" by Elman, eta explores the use of artificial neural networks in linguistics. Surprisingly such simulations have similar problems in learning grammar as children.

What makes you conscious is inanimate matter. Buddha was wrong all in reality is unconscious. The Brain is inanimate matter emulating consciousness, the mind is a virtual reality...

 

[Beyondo]

And as such is virtual, the subtly is information acting on information that can be dervived from just one simple process that is unconscious! There is only something and that something can be very simple indeed...

 

[Beyondo]

And as such is virtual, the subtly is information acting on information that can be dervived from just one simple process that is unconscious! There is only something and that something can be very simple indeed...

Just call me the Anti-Buddha...:angel2:

 

[Twilight Hue]

What makes you conscious is inanimate matter. Buddha was wrong all in reality is unconscious. The Brain is inanimate matter emulating consciousness, the mind is a virtual reality...

Could you explain what the inanimate matter is here? The physical structure of the brain is biological and is composed of specialised cells called Neurons and Gila.

 

[godnotgod]

Inanimate matter, the unconscious, produces the mind, the conscious, by virtue of its sophistication.

Where is this 'mind'?

What makes you conscious is inanimate matter. Buddha was wrong all in reality is unconscious

I don't think that is what he was saying; What he said is that what we normally think of as the unconscious is actually conscious.

The Brain is inanimate matter emulating consciousness,

It is not inanimate. It is a biological organ composed of inanimate matter, as all things are. But I would suggest to you that it is consciousness develops the brain, and not the other way around.

 

[Beyondo]

Could you explain what the inanimate matter is here? The physical structure of the brain is biological and is composed of specialised cells called Neurons and Gila.

The materials cells are made of.

 

[Beyondo]

Where is this 'mind'?

That is the point! The mind isn't in any specific place in the brain but is a virtual product of the brain. Its the same as asking: "Where is the theme of a novel?" The theme of a novel isn't in any particular place in the book and if you try and measure it all you'll find is ink and paper!

I don't think that is what he was saying; What he said is that what we normally think of as the unconscious is actually conscious.

I'm stating that it is the opposite, what is conscious is actually not conscious but what emerges from the unconscious is the theme of consciousness.

It is not inanimate. It is a biological organ composed of inanimate matter, as all things are. But I would suggest to you that it is consciousness develops the brain, and not the other way around.

Correct the brain is composed of inanimate matter, how the inanimate matter is put together produces a mind, therefore it is the inanimate matter that is playing the symphony of consciousness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

..... The mind isn't in any specific place in the brain but is a virtual product of the brain. Its the same as asking: "Where is the theme of a novel?" The theme of a novel isn't in any particular place in the book and if you try and measure it all you'll find is ink and paper!

I agree with you on this that mind is a virtual product.

Correct the brain is composed of inanimate matter, how the inanimate matter is put together produces a mind, therefore it is the inanimate matter that is playing the symphony of consciousness.

Here I'm not so convinced yet that matter is inanimate in a broad sense as it seems to be implied here. A conclusion that matter (more accurately biological matter) is inanimate seems a bit rushed to me. I came across an interesting abstract dealing with this subject written by Koichiro Matsuno titled, "Is Matter Inanimate? Proto Biological Information from Within" of which it happens to contrast Shannons information theory on this.

 

[Beyondo]

Here I'm not so convinced yet that matter is inanimate in a broad sense as it seems to be implied here. A conclusion that matter (more accurately biological matter) is inanimate seems a bit rushed to me. I came across an interesting abstract dealing with this subject written by Koichiro Matsuno titled, "Is Matter Inanimate? Proto Biological Information from Within" of which it happens to contrast Shannons information theory on this.

I don't disagree with the notion of a non-conscious intelligent process within biological systems, however this is no different that say silicon or iron. In fact iron serves a purpose in biological systems, does it change from inanimate matter to living matter because it is functioning in a biological system? But I'll go a step further when I say inanimate matter I'm really stating that matter isn't contextually aware or specifically designed for the purpose of how it is exploited by nature. Matter exhibits behaviors at the quantum level, these behaviors define rules that converge into intelligent systems inclusive of atoms and molecules. The underlying reality below the quantum level remains cloaked, for now, in a black box but neither we as conscious beings or biology need to know more than Quantum Electro Dynamics, which is how we can perceive/measure molecular interactions, in order to create living systems, either exactly like biological systems or systems that are nothing like life today...

 

[godnotgod]

That is the point! The mind isn't in any specific place in the brain but is a virtual product of the brain. Its the same as asking: "Where is the theme of a novel?" The theme of a novel isn't in any particular place in the book and if you try and measure it all you'll find is ink and paper!

So then this entity you call 'mind' falls within the same category as 'nothingness' and 'God', does it?

I do not believe the mind to be a product of the brain at all, but a self-created principle. In reality, the mind does not actually exist. Only the seeing and experiencing of reality exists, without a see-er; without an experiencer, and without a mind which sees. There is no such thing as mind which the brain 'produces'. Now, we do know that the brain, when stimulated in certain areas, produces emotive reactions, but this is because the brain is a storehouse of memory. But this is not 'mind', which is more akin to an echo, actually. It is an illusion of itself. Yes, it is extraordinary, but that is the case. Japanese Zen has identified this condition as 'no-mind', in which state there is no mind which thinks or sees; there is only seeing and thinking themselves, which is a function of pure consciousness.

I'm stating that it is the opposite, what is conscious is actually not conscious but what emerges from the unconscious is the theme of consciousness.

Do you see the difference between what the Buddha said and what you are saying? The Buddha states that consciousness is non-dual, but you are stating that there is the conscious and the unconscious, and that the conscious emerges from the unconscious. In other words, consciousness emerges from no-consciousness, as something emerges from nothing. The Buddha was confirming that nothing was actually something.

Correct the brain is composed of inanimate matter, how the inanimate matter is put together produces a mind, therefore it is the inanimate matter that is playing the symphony of consciousness.

....which produces the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

The manifold called space....

....which is understood against a background of ...what?

 

[Beyondo]

So then this entity you call 'mind' falls within the same category as 'nothingness' and 'God', does it?

Not at all. Virtual reality is a product of the physical, but does not have any physical attributes that can be measured. This is not nothingness, this is virtual reality, a concept that Buddha was not familiar with.

I do not believe the mind to be a product of the brain at all, but a self-created principle. In reality, the mind does not actually exist. Only the seeing and experiencing of reality exists, without a see-er; without an experiencer, and without a mind which sees. There is no such thing as mind which the brain 'produces'. Now, we do know that the brain, when stimulated in certain areas, produces emotive reactions, but this is because the brain is a storehouse of memory. But this is not 'mind', which is more akin to an echo, actually. It is an illusion of itself. Yes, it is extraordinary, but that is the case. Japanese Zen has identified this condition as 'no-mind', in which state there is no mind which thinks or sees; there is only seeing and thinking themselves, which is a function of pure consciousness.

Yes there is such thing as mind and your mind wrote this post I'm responding to. Eastern religion stems from a time where machines that could make decisions and relate information in terms of abstractions did not exist. This is actually relatively new to western thinking as well. Matter is not conscious but composes intelligent systems, such systems can be layered to build abstractions where intent or theme are not physical. In other words the notion of virtual reality is relatively new and virtual reality is not the same as an illusion, it is an emulation of rules and therefore is how a reality can come about.

Do you see the difference between what the Buddha said and what you are saying? The Buddha states that consciousness is non-dual, but you are stating that there is the conscious and the unconscious, and that the conscious emerges from the unconscious. In other words, consciousness emerges from no-consciousness, as something emerges from nothing. The Buddha was confirming that nothing was actually something.

You see you confuse this notion of conscious and non-conscious, there is no duality. Non-conscious matter produces the virtual reality called mind. To put it bluntly; there exist a non-physical realm that is an artifact of the physical interactions of matter that effects as the intent of such physical interactions. Virtual reality is as real as mass and energy but is not physically manifested in terms of mass or volume. In effect virtual production is caused by the physical but it is a "something" or an artifact that is non-physical.


Again virtual reality is a relatively new concept, many confuse it with the notion of an illusion or hallucination which are actually mis-interpretations of reality. Virtual reality is a non-physical product of matter. In the context of mind virtual reality is the product of the brain and is not an experiencer viewing an illusion.

 

[Beyondo]

....which is understood against a background of ...what?

Again there is no need for a background. Your notions are similar to those who ask; "In what is the universe expanding in?" Or how about; "If there is volume then there must be negative volume." Negative volume is nonsensical as too is nothing...

 

[godnotgod]

Again there is no need for a background. Your notions are similar to those who ask; "In what is the universe expanding in?" Or how about; "If there is volume then there must be negative volume." Negative volume is nonsensical as too is nothing...

For you to even think of the concept of 'manifold', you must have something against which it is contrasted to determine that it is, indeed, a manifold. 'Manifold' is a distinct 'something'. It possesses defining characteristics. How are you able to determne such distinctive and defining characteristics in order to identify and call it a 'manifold'? What that something is, is so subtle and unobtrusive, that you fail to notice it, focusing instead on the figure that is 'manifold'. The same is true for energy: it operates within a field. The entire field of its operation is not filled with pure energy, because energy must be free to vibrate and travel. Without a contrasting field, energy would be static; it would not exist, just as solid cannot exist without space. All solid is not a good thing, nor is it possible.

To suggest that if a volume exists that there must also be a negative volume is not what I am saying. If a volume exists, then there must be something which allows you to identify it as such. A background is not the negative of the something that you are pointing to. It is just what allows you to see the something you are looking at. What is that background?

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all. Virtual reality is a product of the physical, but does not have any physical attributes that can be measured. This is not nothingness, this is virtual reality, a concept that Buddha was not familiar with.

I think you may be on to something, since the Buddha was focused on True Reality instead. What you call 'virtual reality' he would have understood as 'illusion', or 'Maya', a condition that would have been understood as such via of the Enlightened Mind.

If you cannot detect it, how do you know it is anything at all, let alone 'virtual reality'? It seems that this is nothing more than a concept, in the same manner that God is a concept.

Nothingness, however, is the no-concept of no-concept. It is the negation of negation.

Actually, I would say that the physical itself is virtual reality, since we cannot get to a place where it can be pinned down as truly 'physical' or 'real', when analyzed in its most fundamental state. What we have here is simply the illusion that the physical world is real. In Hindu and Buddhistic terms, the world is Maya, brought about by lila, or divine playfullness. It takes an enlightened mind to see the difference between this finely crafted illusion and True Reality, which the Buddhists refer to as Nirvana. We have known this for centuries. It is nothing new.

Your 'virtual reality' is the product of your measuring the effect, and not having an understanding as to the true nature of reality. Your very first step into analysis and dissection of reality via of the rational mind is what throws you off completely. The true nature of reality can only be understood accurately when it is apprehended directly in its wholeness and completeness, just as it exists in this Present Moment.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes there is such thing as mind and your mind wrote this post I'm responding to.

Where is "mind"? Where is the "I" that is responding to posts? There is no mind that wrote anything, nor any "I" that responded. There was only writing and responding. That is all.

Eastern religion stems from a time where machines that could make decisions and relate information in terms of abstractions did not exist.

Eastern religions are not about history; they are about transcendence of history, into this living, eternal moment we call the Now, where not time exists. Machines are a product of time, and therefore are subject to creation and destruction. The Enlightened Mind of Eastern religions is Unborn, and not subject to Birth and Death, Creation and Destruction.

This is actually relatively new to western thinking as well. Matter is not conscious but composes intelligent systems, such systems can be layered to build abstractions where intent or theme are not physical.

Everything is conscious. Consciousness is what permeates all of existence even before there was existence. It is a condition that is eternal, and is responsible for the manifestation of all matter. You say that matter is not conscious, but that is only an arbitrary classification, in much the same way that biology separates the living from the non-living.

In other words the notion of virtual reality is relatively new and virtual reality is not the same as an illusion, it is an emulation of rules and therefore is how a reality can come about.

So it is an effect of the underlying rules. You are measuring the characteristics of something that is producing what you call 'virual reality', which you call the physical, which does not actually exist. Essentially, you are dealing with an illusion. That's OK. That is the idea! Consider yourself as having been fooled. It happens to the best of us.

 

[Beyondo]

I think you may be on to something, since the Buddha was focused on True Reality instead. What you call 'virtual reality' he would have understood as 'illusion', or 'Maya', a condition that would have been understood as such via of the Enlightened Mind. .

The Illusion or Maya is more about perception as in: "The rope looked like a snake" The rope is real where as the perception of it as a snake is not. Virtual reality is not about perception, it is a product. It is "Something" that is produced by physical matter.

If you cannot detect it, how do you know it is anything at all, let alone 'virtual reality'? It seems that this is nothing more than a concept, in the same manner that God is a concept. .

How do you know if a novel has a theme? As I mentioned before, we can measure neurons and the electro-chemical signals they produce, map the cause and effect of our behavior with respect to their influence but we can never find the mind nor the emotions that we experience no more than we could measure the theme of a novel. The ability to detect literal virtualness is the ability to symbolically define intent. While virtualness can affect reality it is not necessary that reality detect virtualness. In essence virtualness can be as much of a cause as physical matter because physical matter produces virtual artifacts. This is more than just a concept but a phenomena, where as god is simply a belief.

 

[Beyondo]

Where is "mind"? Where is the "I" that is responding to posts? There is no mind that wrote anything, nor any "I" that responded. There was only writing and responding. That is all.

Wrong what you just describe is cause and affect! Computer science has opened a new door into a realm that is meta-physical. What is now being realized is that non-physical products, virtual products, have an affect on reality and that is why you, the "I", exist and can respond and interact with reality through the physical interface of matter. Before computer science no such notion existed.

Eastern religions are not about history; they are about transcendence of history, into this living, eternal moment we call the Now, where not time exists. Machines are a product of time, and therefore are subject to creation and destruction. The Enlightened Mind of Eastern religions is Unborn, and not subject to Birth and Death, Creation and Destruction.

Most mis-understand what time is. Einstein was able to transcend the dogma of classical thinking by realizing what time is. Time is cause and affect. If you have a now, then you have entangled time. This is why time dilation happens.

Everything is conscious. Consciousness is what permeates all of existence even before there was existence. It is a condition that is eternal, and is responsible for the manifestation of all matter. You say that matter is not conscious, but that is only an arbitrary classification, in much the same way that biology separates the living from the non-living.

That kind of thinking stems from the inability to fathom how mechanized intelligence can come about, we are only at the very fringes of understanding this and how it can produce consciousness. Such claims that consciousness as eternal is wishful thinking. What you do not understand is that you are a product of the physical, it is the physical, in some form that is eternal. This is not to say that the universe is eternal. I'd say that our bubble of existence is at best a fortunate coincidence. But in the end consciousness is a product of matter because consciousness needs parts or intelligent systems to manifest it.

So it is an effect of the underlying rules. You are measuring the characteristics of something that is producing what you call 'virtual reality', which you call the physical, which does not actually exist. Essentially, you are dealing with an illusion. That's OK. That is the idea! Consider yourself as having been fooled. It happens to the best of us.

You make claims that contradict themselves and that is typical of religions. You claim reality to be an illusion but such an illusion stems from something which is the fault in Buddha's thinking. If an illusion exists then something causes the illusion. Your circular arguments fall apart. You say reality doesn't exist but an illusion does. You have been duped, that's OK religion has been the mind control for the masses for thousands of years.