Consciousness

[godnotgod]

No. All of our information is processed subjectively.

That doesn't work. The very moment you talk about 'the subjective mind', you have already created it's relative opposite, that of 'the objective mind'. They are inseparable. Unless you are saying that 'The Subjective Mind' is an absolute, but that creates another problem, because such a concept now creates 'The Not-Subjective Mind', another relative duality.

Last time I looked, 'subjective' was the relative, inseparable opposite of 'objective'. They go hand in hand; they are a duality, ala 'Yin and Yang'.

Our unabashed online dictionary describes the word 'subjective' as follows:

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
"a subjective analysis"

....and a cursory check on thesaurus.com confirms that 'objective' is the antonym for 'subjective'.

What 'subjective' means to me is that all of our information is processed through a personal self, which is none other than 'I', which you call 'the subjective mind'. Is that correct?

Now the question arises: 'who, or what, is it that knows all of the information is processed subjectively'?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Let me finally clear up a few things, from a proveable, testable, predictable, and observable scientific perspective. The Brain is merely one of 5 vital organs in the body that is essential for survival. Other organs are not essential for survival. We are not consciously aware of the biochemical processes of any of these organs. Therefore, these processes are NOT subjective, they are objective like most of reality. Do you think that we are subjectively aware of an action potential from our receptors, that is being interpreted as vision, pressure, pain, sound, etc.? NO! Do you think that we are subjectively aware of the process that results in a few molecules in the air being interpreted as taste, or smell(olfaction)? Since all action potentials are alike, what is the process that allows for such clear differentiation? In short, these processes are independent of our awareness, unless these internal autonomic biochemical processes are changed(injury, disease, medical, modification, etc.). They all lie beneath our conscious level of awareness, therefore, they are not subjective processes.

The only subjective process we have, is the process of non-action. That is when we chose NOT to action an action potential. You may choose to ignore the pain, ignore the signs of danger, or not move when you should, or not accept what is obvious or intuitive, etc. This is not free-will(doesn't exist), this is free-won't.

Over 90% of our every thought, our every movement, and every word we use, is the product of repetition and our learned responses since childhood. We may add many layers to our subjective perspective(knowledge and experiences), but our reality will always be subjective. Don

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps this might be helpful to facilitate understanding:

Sabba Sutta: The All

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."​

The consciousness of the ordinary man is conditioned awareness, so what he sees, hears, smells, feels, tastes, and thinks comprise his view of reality as 'my view', which is his world, or his All. But that is perceptual reality, in the same manner as the dreamer, while dreaming, believes his dream-world to be real, or his All. The awakened mind does not attach itself to these perceptions as 'mine'. For such an awakened mind, there is only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking, without an AGENT of those perceptions. There is no longer a subject/object split. Subject and Object are conceptual frameworks of the mind. Therefore, where there is no subject or object, there is no subjective mind. There is only pure consciousness which sees things as they actually are, rather than how they are seen through a subjective filter. Pure (ie 'clear') consciousness is already in place prior to the arising of Subject and Object.

The Buddha here is describing how one sees the world via perceptual reality. But the Buddha's own experience of Supreme Enlightenment is NOT that of perceptual reality, but of Ultimate Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Snowflakes are unique because of the external factors they experience(temperature, rate of fall, and moisture level). However, the crystallization process(polar properties of hydrogen and oxygen) always remain the same.. It would be an induction fallacy to suggest that humans are unique because they share the same properties as a snowflake. A snowflake's uniqueness is the result of external forces, not internal forces. Human uniqueness is far more complicated, and includes a myriad of variables created by many factors found in nature, in nurture, in society(culture), and in our environment. Comparing the uniqueness of a snowflake to the uniqueness of a human, demonstrates a somewhat poor use of intuition and logic.

With all due respect, I hope you can follow my logic and simple intuition. Self(not one's self or the physical self), is a label(term) we use to describe the brain's biochemical, perceptual cognition of itself. The brain represents this self-awareness as the conscious knowing of its position in 4 dimensional space and time. Self, is not a quantitative or physical construct, anymore than our emotions, consciousness, or the abstract are. There is NO background canvas for an image of self, anymore then there is a background canvas for consciousness, or what our Universe is expanding into.The illusion of self is non-centralized and dimensionless. So, where do you suggest we find a dimensionless background canvas to draw this dimensionless image of self on? Oops, another faulty analogy fallacy. The cognitive self, and the physical self are not the same thing.

You are certainly entitled to your own creative language, and your clever semantics, but you are not entitled to your own creative logic. Don

Speak for yourself, you who tout 'logic' so highly, and yet fail to use it properly!

To wit:

The metaphor of snowflake as it relates to each unique human being is not about how they become what they are, but about the fact that such uniqueness emerges out of a state of universality. In the case of the snowflake, the universality is water, while for the human being, it is consciousness. For a snowflake to be what it is, it must first be formless, and therefore, not unique, and for a human being to be what it is, it must emerge from a source that is formless and also not unique.

The background canvas for the image of self is consciousness, for which there is no background canvas, because it IS the background canvas. That background canvas is not in Time or Space, but self IS in Time and Space, a Time and Space it ITSELF has created. This self is none other than the mind, which is a self-created principle.

'You see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
but you see the sky against CONSCIOUSNESS'

(A Hindu, attempting to explain how he sees reality to an Englishman)

 

[godnotgod]

Show that Planck had such transformative experiences.

Please see post #212

 

[crossfire]

That doesn't work. The very moment you talk about 'the subjective mind', you have already created it's relative opposite, that of 'the objective mind'. They are inseparable. Unless you are saying that 'The Subjective Mind' is an absolute, but that creates another problem, because such a concept now creates 'The Not-Subjective Mind', another relative duality.

Last time I looked, 'subjective' was the relative, inseparable opposite of 'objective'. They go hand in hand; they are a duality, ala 'Yin and Yang'.

Our unabashed online dictionary describes the word 'subjective' as follows:

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
"a subjective analysis"

....and a cursory check on thesaurus.com confirms that 'objective' is the antonym for 'subjective'.

What 'subjective' means to me is that all of our information is processed through a personal self, which is none other than 'I', which you call 'the subjective mind'. Is that correct?

Now the question arises: 'who, or what, is it that knows all of the information is processed subjectively'?

Methinks you are the one who is creating duality here.

 

[crossfire]

The consciousness of the ordinary man is conditioned awareness, so what he sees, hears, smells, feels, tastes, and thinks comprise his view of reality as 'my view', which is his world, or his All. But that is perceptual reality, in the same manner as the dreamer, while dreaming, believes his dream-world to be real, or his All. The awakened mind does not attach itself to these perceptions as 'mine'. For such an awakened mind, there is only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking, without an AGENT of those perceptions.

Where did I state anything different? I said subjective mind is anatta.

There is no longer a subject/object split. Subject and Object are conceptual frameworks of the mind. Therefore, where there is no subject or object, there is no subjective mind. There is only pure consciousness which sees things as they actually are, rather than how they are seen through a subjective filter. Pure (ie 'clear') consciousness is already in place prior to the arising of Subject and Object.

The Buddha here is describing how one sees the world via perceptual reality. But the Buddha's own experience of Supreme Enlightenment is NOT that of perceptual reality, but of Ultimate Reality.

Yes, awakening to the fact that these things are subjectively processed. Hence, anything else would be "out of range," as per the sutta.

 

[crossfire]

That doesn't work. The very moment you talk about 'the subjective mind', you have already created it's relative opposite, that of 'the objective mind'. They are inseparable. Unless you are saying that 'The Subjective Mind' is an absolute, but that creates another problem, because such a concept now creates 'The Not-Subjective Mind', another relative duality.

Last time I looked, 'subjective' was the relative, inseparable opposite of 'objective'. They go hand in hand; they are a duality, ala 'Yin and Yang'.

Our unabashed online dictionary describes the word 'subjective' as follows:

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
"a subjective analysis"

....and a cursory check on thesaurus.com confirms that 'objective' is the antonym for 'subjective'.

What 'subjective' means to me is that all of our information is processed through a personal self, which is none other than 'I', which you call 'the subjective mind'. Is that correct?

Now the question arises: 'who, or what, is it that knows all of the information is processed subjectively'?

Methinks you are the one who is creating duality here.

Please describe this "objective mind" that you claim I have implied.

 

[godnotgod]

Methinks you are the one who is creating duality here.

Duality is created the very moment 'the subjective mind' is introduced. Not only a duality, but an illusion, because it also introduces (via of it being subjective) a personal agent of perception. It's just so much unnecessary baggage. 'Subjective mind' is not required for perception; only perception itself is sufficient. We are not the agents of perception called 'subjective mind'; we are the experience of perception itself. There are no extras, nor need there be. The Heart Sutra tells us that all phenomena, including ourselves, are empty of inherent self-nature. 'Subjective mind' is just another attachment to self.

“There was a young man who said though,
it seems that I know that I know,
but what I would like to see
is the I that knows me
when I know that I know that I know.”

― Alan W. Watts

 

[sayak83]

Please see post #212

Planck's position may be correct from a meditative and experiential standpoint, however science has not yet arrived at this conclusion based on it's own investigation. So Planck's credentials as a scientist cannot be used to justify the statement being made.

 

[godnotgod]

Please describe this "objective mind" that you claim I have implied.

Is 'objective' the inseparable polar, or relative opposite of 'subjective' or not? You seem to want to have all black with no white. Not possible. 'Objective' is automatic wherever 'subjective' is introduced, and vice versa. One acts as relative reference to the other. There's simply no other way. The only way out of the dilemma is to realize they are one and the same reality. But the guru leans not to the left nor to the right; he stands squarely in the middle of all dualities, unattached to either.

 

[godnotgod]

Planck's position may be correct from a meditative and experiential standpoint, however science has not yet arrived at this conclusion based on it's own investigation. So Planck's credentials as a scientist cannot be used to justify the statement being made.

But the statement is independent of his credentials or his science. Science, perse, will never arrive at this conclusion due to the limitations of its own methodologies. As I said, all Planck is doing is to point to the moon. That is all. No matter that he has one day's worth or an eternity's worth of credentials. He sees what he sees, and that is what he is telling us. That is all, really.

 

[sayak83]

But the statement is independent of his credentials or his science. Science, perse, will never arrive at this conclusion due to the limitations of its own methodologies. As I said, all Planck is doing is to point to the moon. That is all. No matter that he has one day's worth or an eternity's worth of credentials. He sees what he sees, and that is what he is telling us. That is all, really.

I don't believe science has any such limitations. However, the point I am making is that quoting named scientists on consciousness is a covert attempt to use the recognition and legitimacy of science for a proposition that is as yet undetermined by science. This makes us (those who are philosophical monists) look like frauds and hence I criticize this practice.

 

[William Milverton]

.
.
Are all things derived from consciousness as Max Plank says?


John Purcell, Author of ‘Mind, Matter and the Universe’ wrote :-
“Along with many of the founders of quantum mechanics, Max Planck had spent a lot of time asking himself what we mean by an observation.

A piece of apparatus might register that a quantum-scale event has occurred, but how do we know that the particles composing the apparatus have settled into a particular state? Ultimately we know because we know; because some fact enters our awareness”
https://www.quora.com/What-did-Max-...sciousness-We-cannot-get-behind-consciousness


Quantum Mechanics is :-
“The branch of mechanics that deals with the mathematical description of the motion and interaction of subatomic particles, incorporating the concepts of quantization of energy, wave–particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the correspondence principle”
Google Dictionary


You were taught at school that everything that you see with your eyes is not really there
Nothing you see, touch, taste or sense in any way exists
It is all atoms and atoms are simply energy in motion
The question is, why do we all see the same things
Science has no answer


The religious view is that this video game called ‘life’ was created by God
and he put us in it.
The atheist and scientific view is that it is all magic
Humans are life forms living in a field of energy in space
and every human pair of eyes sees exactly the same energy illusion by pure magic
because nothing else explains it. So much for science


Max Plank came up with the theory that consciousness (life) creates what we see in the energy field
by some instinctive, common, connected subconscious mechanism we cannot yet explain
Plank’s theory is neither religion nor science but somewhere in between
because he has no idea WHY or HOW life creates what we see around us


The great Christian Theologians are no longer with us. There are no great Christian thinkers
The most obvious thing about Christian authority leaders today is that they are all thick
The Holy Ghost IS the video game called ‘life’ in which you have your existence
The Holy Ghost is TIME, and TIME has life and personality


God creates past, present and future simultaneously
Once created, it remains in existence forever or until the end of this universe
You have chosen to play the character you are currently playing
It exists like a sequence of cartoon pictures and as you move forward through those pictures you think the character has life


You play the character by moving through the pictures of its life through choices and options of your own. At other times, others will play the character you are now playing, and get different results with it
Atheists identify so strongly with their character that they believe they are the character
and when they say it has no after-life they are totally correct
.
.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't believe science has any such limitations. However, the point I am making is that quoting named scientists on consciousness is a covert attempt to use the recognition and legitimacy of science for a proposition that is as yet undetermined by science. This makes us (those who are philosophical monists) look like frauds and hence I criticize this practice.

But who says science is the gold standard anyway? Why wait around for science to give us the sanctioned nod, when the unfolding of higher consciousness is enjoying it's own special time on the planet independent of science? Science as such, can tell us much about how things work, and make predictions based on that knowledge, but it cannot tell us what the nature of consciousness actually IS. For that, we need another kind of insight. Because nature is not based upon Reason, science will always end in paradox.

While Quantum Physics falls within the sphere of science, many scientists still cling to the old materialist paradigm. It needs mystics to show them the way out of their quagmire. But mystics meet fierce resistance because science thinks it has exclusive rights to it, and denigrates mystics as snake oil salesmen. But the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and mystics need to continue to provide the larger dimension about Quantum Physics that science just doesn't get, unless you have had an epiphany, like Planck, and many others who have now come on board.

I say 'Bravo!' to such scientists, and to those who quote them.

 

[godnotgod]

.

Atheists identify so strongly with their character that they believe they are the character
and when they say it has no after-life they are totally correct

I think they are correct as well, but the problem with the atheist is that, because he has identified so strongly with the character, which has a shelf life, they have clean forgotten their true nature which was in place before donning the trappings of their character. IOW, while they play the part in THIS temporal reality, they have lost touch with Ultimate Reality.

An atheist is, essentially, That, pretending he doesn't exist.

A Christian is, essentially, That, pretending he is someone else.

A mystic, OTOH, has come to the realization that he is none other than That, and knows that it can be no other way.

 

[crossfire]

Is 'objective' the inseparable polar, or relative opposite of 'subjective' or not? You seem to want to have all black with no white. Not possible. 'Objective' is automatic wherever 'subjective' is introduced, and vice versa. One acts as relative reference to the other. There's simply no other way. The only way out of the dilemma is to realize they are one and the same reality. But the guru leans not to the left nor to the right; he stands squarely in the middle of all dualities, unattached to either.

"Subjective" of "subjective mind" is an adjective descriptor--referencing mind and sensory processing that cannot be objectively decoded or experienced by other beings--it is subjective or private to the particular individual.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Speak for yourself, you who tout 'logic' so highly, and yet fail to use it properly!

To wit:

The metaphor of snowflake as it relates to each unique human being is not about how they become what they are, but about the fact that such uniqueness emerges out of a state of universality. In the case of the snowflake, the universality is water, while for the human being, it is consciousness. For a snowflake to be what it is, it must first be formless, and therefore, not unique, and for a human being to be what it is, it must emerge from a source that is formless and also not unique.

The background canvas for the image of self is consciousness, for which there is no background canvas, because it IS the background canvas. That background canvas is not in Time or Space, but self IS in Time and Space, a Time and Space it ITSELF has created. This self is none other than the mind, which is a self-created principle.

'You see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
but you see the sky against CONSCIOUSNESS'

(A Hindu, attempting to explain how he sees reality to an Englishman)

"Tout logic so highly"? I haven't even gone past common sense and simple intuition yet. Firstly, a Metaphor is using a figure of speech to imply a similarity or a difference between two different things(although universality might qualify). But, an analogy is a logical argument explaining those comparisons or differences. In other words, a metaphor is always literally false, and an analogy is always literally true. I have no problem with you seeing the Universe in a grain of sand. My problem is when you try to logically justify it. Were you formless in 1810? Is a snowflake formless in the desert? Does the state of Universality, also include non-existence?

"The background canvas for the image of self is consciousness, for which there is no background canvas, because it IS the background canvas" Talk about circular logic, and begging the question. Again, not only is the mind and the perception of self dimensionless, static, and an illusion presented by a functioning brain, but It also suggests the existence of a universal consciousness, and a universal self. This idea needs to be implicitly addressed, not simply implied or omitted.

Close your eyes and cover your ears. Are you still aware of your position within space and time? Of course you are. Not only where you are, but also where every part of your body is. Think of your little finger. Do you know where it is without directly looking at it? I think that you are simply looking for cohesiveness in your search for personal enlightenment. But you are simply creating your own semantics, to justify your own logic. Neither is intellectually honest. If you still want a truer example of a canvas for human beings, try billions of years of Evolution, and trial and error. Don

 

[sayak83]

But who says science is the gold standard anyway? Why wait around for science to give us the sanctioned nod, when the unfolding of higher consciousness is enjoying it's own special time on the planet independent of science? Science as such, can tell us much about how things work, and make predictions based on that knowledge, but it cannot tell us what the nature of consciousness actually IS. For that, we need another kind of insight. Because nature is not based upon Reason, science will always end in paradox.

While Quantum Physics falls within the sphere of science, many scientists still cling to the old materialist paradigm. It needs mystics to show them the way out of their quagmire. But mystics meet fierce resistance because science thinks it has exclusive rights to it, and denigrates mystics as snake oil salesmen. But the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and mystics need to continue to provide the larger dimension about Quantum Physics that science just doesn't get, unless you have had an epiphany, like Planck, and many others who have now come on board.

I say 'Bravo!' to such scientists, and to those who quote them.

There is nothing mystical about quantum mechanics in any way shape or form. It's 100% hardcore and mathematically exact science. The mixing of QM with mystical realizations creates arrant nonsense.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No one can say definitively what exactly consciousness is, so claiming it is fundamental to anything is nonsense.