Eikonoklast

Ha! Yeah, the weird thing is that I can't actually say what mind is. I can only present rough synonyms.
I sort of identify it with the Void. That's why it can't be spoken of. It's not even nothing, it's just VOID. I first became aware of this about 4 years ago when I tried psylocibin mushrooms for the first time. I became acutely aware of the very fluid, very rapid, stream of consciousness that was springing from my mind. I was observing this from what was essentially another ego that had split off from the normal flow of thoughts. I strained myself to the point of physical pain trying to go further and further back until I could find the source of all of these thoughts pouring out of my head. I soon ran up against a wall and couldn't go back any further. It was as though the thoughts were literally springing from a nowhere, from a void. Then I realized that the same thing held true for the split off ego that was observing all of this happening. At that point I had realized that I now had another ego, that was observing my other ego, observing myself. It was like getting caught in some strange ego loop that you can't escape. The more you become aware of yourself, the more you multiply yourself.

This happened before I knew who Alan Watts was, but I later heard him recite a little ditty that describes the sensation succinctly.
I think this is right:

There was a fellow who said though
It seems that I know that I know
I would like to see the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know

perfectbite

And from where I am sitting, your calling of what I had posted drivel, later amended to be garbage, wasn't unreasonable at all to me it just meant that you are entirely capable of dismissing out of hand, in a very insulting manner I may add, what is evidently true to me. (If it isn't true to you I can't help that) and before you or a bunch of other folks say 'Such a claim is absurd! How could such be possible given the evidence.?'

I will tell you. Consciousness is ontological. What is commonly taken for consciousness by humans (or any other thinking entity for that matter) is only a tiny, tiny, tiny part of a far greater consciousness. (To satisfy Premjan, this consciousness is not just the combined consciousness of every living thing). It is this greater consciousness and its workings that Buddhism addresses. You should know enough to know that not only do you not know everything but that it is impossible for you or anyone else to know everything.

I agree there is a great amount of dross in ancient writings but some writings are distillations of wisdom free of dross and the Dhammapada happens to be a distillation of wisdom that is free from dross however, I do take great exception to the fact that .

Before the stone, before the foot, before the seeing of the stone, consciousness exists. The stone and the foot are one. Seeing and doing are one.

The idea of Mind Only is not acceptable yet computers conceivably could have an independent consciousness and that idea would be within the bounds of reality??????

Sorry, David B, any consciousness that you would perceive as a consciousness would be your consciousness perceiving that consciousness as having a consciousness.

Turing's test for an artificial, independent autonomous intelligence is reasonable. Your programing of that computer would not include an understanding of Mind Only so your conversataion would affirm apparent intelligence but the Buddha's conversation with it, even given the same parameters, would reveal a programmed machine.

PS

I wish you would. One of your posts attributed you as the originator but had me editing the post.

David B

OK, lets start again. We've both felt slighted by the other, you perhaps with a little more justification than me, but I hope we can both put that behind us. And we'll see if I can get anywhere with learning how the board works.




I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Consciousness is ontological'. It looks as if you are talking about some sort of pantheism. All my dictionary says of ontology is 'the science or study of being, that department of metaphysics which relates to the being or essence of things, or to being in the abstract'. And yeah, cosciousness is ontological in that sense, and as far as I can see the evidence is that consciousness is a property of mind (though I'd maintain that you can have mind without consciousness'. The claim that consciousness of humans is part of a far greater consciousness seems, in the sense that I read from you, something of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But any evidence would do for a start.


Well, not if I'm right in my assessment of the opening line of each verse. In the first case it seem unequivocable. There is more to us than what we have thought. And unless you posit some sort of mind before there was life, then mind is not the forerunner of all states. If you do posit that, and it seems you do, again I think it an extraordinary claim, needing extraordinary proof, and out of thinking with current scientific and philosophic thinking. I quote Dennett. ' Dualism (the view that minds are composed of some nonphysical and utterly mysterious stuff) and vitalism (the view that living things contain some special physical but equally mysterious stuff) have been relegated to the trash heap of history, alng with alchemy and astrology.' Well, there are still people who believe in astrology, and people who still believe in dualism, but I see strong grounds for thinking both wrong.




I can see a sense in which this is true, but IMV it is reductionism gone to extremes. Weinberg had an interesting essay in one of his books '2 cheers for reductionism' - I think it was in 'Dreams of a Final Theory'. Yup, you can think of stne and foot as the reactions of fundamental particles, Just as you can think of a half tone of Marilyn Monroe as a collection of dots. And if you zoom in too closely on the half tone, all you will see is a collection of dots. But there are still foot, stone, picture of Marilyn, pain in the kicker, not the kicked. Strange how us people who lean on science are often called reductionists, as if it were a dirty word, taking the magic and life out of everything.

But I don't think that before there was life, that consciousnss existed. If a being had a foot, it had some form of consciousness, or quasi consciousness, I'd say. If you can show me how consciousness resides in inanimate things (apart from perhaps computers) please go ahead.


The idea of mind only I don't see as acceptable. I mentioned the computers to pre-empt what I thought a possible response from you. I see no evidence for computers currently having an independent consciousness, but I do not rule out on a priori grounds future computers which do. After all, it's not so long since people were ruling out the idea of machines playing chess on a priori grounds - but they can now. It's important to keep an open mind, don't you think?

Yabbut, the same applies for me imputing a consciousness to you, or to you hypothetically imputing consciousness to a rock. I don't have a problem imputing a consciousness to you. I do to a rock. I do to currnt computers, finding out if a future computer really has consciousness would be a difficult problem, but I don't rule out making reasonable inferences on such evidence as may be available.



Sadly that can never be put to the test. Whether computers can ever have mind seems to me to be more a topic for S&S rather than this forum. I'm up for it if you are.

PS


Quote:
now comes the test

All the best

David B

perfectbite

David B. I have given some thought to our discussion and your requirement for proof of life before life could be sustained on this planet would be impossible to give but you know that yet you still ask for such a proof. (!?)

You missed my point entirely about the stone. The stone doesn't have mind but is part of consciousness.

As far as your TM experiences I am sure that someone involved with that group distinctly told you not to become attached to anything you may feel or experience but, being human, you probably didn't listen and did become attached and eventually, because you were so enthralled with the doorway, you neglected to step through it and those transitional experiences stopped and the memories faded.

The Becoming part of Being is flux. Consciousness is flux.

Let me tell you about the trash heap of history David B. The aether was consigned to the trash heap of history long ago but has been dug out and refurbished and suddenly it is not in the trash heap of history any more. Even as a student of philosophy I argued with my professors that the emptiness of a vacuum could not be empty because volume implied substance no matter how rarified but they insisted that there was nothing there except possibly for transient electromagnetic waves. I will bet that if the times were different and I said that the world were round you would call such an idea drivel because it was obviously flat.

I think a better thread for you would be 'Interested in Dissecting Buddhism' and there would be many here who would strain at the leash to rip Buddhism apart but Buddhism doesn't need me to defend it. I choose to protect it from the mealy mouths who would say what Buddhism is to glorify themselves or to make a living. The youngest, poorest, most ardent monk or nun of the Buddha's Sangha understands Buddhism AND THE TAO more than Alan Watts and people like Alan Watts ever will.

I am a bona fide Zen Master and I am under no obligation to converse with anyone about my take on the Buddhist idea of consciousness. Your comment about 'making this all up as I go along' shows me that your take on someone else's view resulting from their experience of reality must be gimmicky or faulty or be torn down if it does not agree with 'modern' science because, in the light of modern science, such view cannot rationally exist. Well think again David B, you have forfeited having your questions answered directly by me. Perhaps another as qualified as myself would answer them but best of luck in finding them. Hint: Be more respectful next time. Scientists are a hundred a penny.



Sorry David B. I know we got off to bad start but perhaps it is better this way.

Eikonoklast

:rolling: Are you for real? You are truly something else. Ommmmmmmm......... :notworthy

lenrek

In this case, what was spoken, is not true Tao as well...

perfectbite

So let me get this straight. You identify the void with emptiness or emptiness with the void?

What void?

Actually you are something else. You and a psylocibin mushroom that is.

They are fun but what you get to see is a distortion of samsara which is an illusion to begin with.

Some of us really did get to see through that wall and we didn't use psylocibin mushrooms. Yeah, OK, it was a lot harder but it was worth it based on the three Ls. Love, listen and learn.

Actually I have thought about it and I am really not a Zen Master. I am a Ch'an Master. It's a grade above Zen Master but who is quibbling?

Does living union with whatever passes for 'God' ring a bell?

Mr Average

Are you saying you have passed through the gates? You are claiming to be enlightened?

In Peace, Mr Average

premjan

And I am a Dhyana Dharma Guru.

perfectbite

The gates? I didn't see no gates. I saw a lot of hard spiritual times.



So what's it to ya? (I really have had enough of this 'All the best' (can't wait to tear your throat out BS) so do you really mean 'In Peace'? or do you mean something else?)