|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 19:00:33 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 10, 2013 19:00:33 GMT -5
To make a whole lot of crappy story short, for some reason I doubt my senses. I blindly accept what I taste, touch, hear, see, and smell to be accurate and real. But as with all things, now that I've noticed that pattern I begin to question it.
In order to stop thinking and find a sense of calm I fall back to my direct senses. It is no longer an intentional activity--it happens or it doesn't. For those purposes, this is fine; however, there is still a lingering desire to 'figure things out.' Not a very intense desire anymore, but it's there. Falling back on the senses was my preferred method of getting in touch with what is, but now that it's apparent that those senses aren't exactly precise or factual, somehow this seems counter-intuitive.
This is probably a case of too much thinking, but I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. Feel free to comment/poke/make fun. Clearly nothing has worked so far, so maybe a prod is what I need. Or maybe not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 19:14:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 19:14:33 GMT -5
The fact that you are becoming aware that your senses are also a kind of illusion, a mind thing, is an insight that is the result of your practice....said another way, its a sign that what you are doing is 'working'....your consciousness is expanding so to speak.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 19:18:03 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 10, 2013 19:18:03 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data.
This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about.
And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 19:44:16 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 19:44:16 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data. This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about. And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist. ;-)
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 20:08:34 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 10, 2013 20:08:34 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data. This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about. And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist, ( for you, note sdp).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2013 20:24:24 GMT -5
To make a whole lot of crappy story short, for some reason I doubt my senses. I blindly accept what I taste, touch, hear, see, and smell to be accurate and real. But as with all things, now that I've noticed that pattern I begin to question it. In order to stop thinking and find a sense of calm I fall back to my direct senses. It is no longer an intentional activity--it happens or it doesn't. For those purposes, this is fine; however, there is still a lingering desire to 'figure things out.' Not a very intense desire anymore, but it's there. Falling back on the senses was my preferred method of getting in touch with what is, but now that it's apparent that those senses aren't exactly precise or factual, somehow this seems counter-intuitive. This is probably a case of too much thinking, but I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. Feel free to comment/poke/make fun. Clearly nothing has worked so far, so maybe a prod is what I need. Or maybe not. Your senses are what they are and there is no absolute scale of accuracy, reality or precision to measure them and compare them based on some factual actuality. You ... are ... you.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 22:06:04 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2013 22:06:04 GMT -5
I'm agreeing with everything said so far. There is no 'out there' to validate your senses.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 22:24:18 GMT -5
Post by runstill on Nov 10, 2013 22:24:18 GMT -5
To make a whole lot of crappy story short, for some reason I doubt my senses. I blindly accept what I taste, touch, hear, see, and smell to be accurate and real. But as with all things, now that I've noticed that pattern I begin to question it. In order to stop thinking and find a sense of calm I fall back to my direct senses. It is no longer an intentional activity--it happens or it doesn't. For those purposes, this is fine; however, there is still a lingering desire to 'figure things out.' Not a very intense desire anymore, but it's there. Falling back on the senses was my preferred method of getting in touch with what is, but now that it's apparent that those senses aren't exactly precise or factual, somehow this seems counter-intuitive. This is probably a case of too much thinking, but I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. Feel free to comment/poke/make fun. Clearly nothing has worked so far, so maybe a prod is what I need. Or maybe not. Your talking about perceptions and what you perceive is consciousness..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 22:25:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 22:25:13 GMT -5
To make a whole lot of crappy story short, for some reason I doubt my senses. I blindly accept what I taste, touch, hear, see, and smell to be accurate and real. But as with all things, now that I've noticed that pattern I begin to question it. In order to stop thinking and find a sense of calm I fall back to my direct senses. It is no longer an intentional activity--it happens or it doesn't. For those purposes, this is fine; however, there is still a lingering desire to 'figure things out.' Not a very intense desire anymore, but it's there. Falling back on the senses was my preferred method of getting in touch with what is, but now that it's apparent that those senses aren't exactly precise or factual, somehow this seems counter-intuitive. This is probably a case of too much thinking, but I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. Feel free to comment/poke/make fun. Clearly nothing has worked so far, so maybe a prod is what I need. Or maybe not. Perhaps it's not your senses that your doubting is real, but the awareness of me that apparently owns those senses that's real... Tasting, touching, hearing, seeing and smelling are what is happening, but we believe they are happening to me... When the illusion of me suddenly drops away, what's left is just tasting, just touching, just hearing, just seeing and just smelling...but it isn't happening to anyone...
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 10, 2013 23:24:30 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 10, 2013 23:24:30 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data. This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about. And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist. Excellent way of putting that into words for me, thanks. I'm pretty much with you other than having a brain to realize the 'what could it be accurate about?' part. Makes complete sense, I'm just a slow, slow, slow, stupid bastard sometimes.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 2:36:37 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 11, 2013 2:36:37 GMT -5
To make a whole lot of crappy story short, for some reason I doubt my senses. I blindly accept what I taste, touch, hear, see, and smell to be accurate and real. But as with all things, now that I've noticed that pattern I begin to question it. In order to stop thinking and find a sense of calm I fall back to my direct senses. It is no longer an intentional activity--it happens or it doesn't. For those purposes, this is fine; however, there is still a lingering desire to 'figure things out.' Not a very intense desire anymore, but it's there. Falling back on the senses was my preferred method of getting in touch with what is, but now that it's apparent that those senses aren't exactly precise or factual, somehow this seems counter-intuitive. This is probably a case of too much thinking, but I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. Feel free to comment/poke/make fun. Clearly nothing has worked so far, so maybe a prod is what I need. Or maybe not. Perhaps it's not your senses that your doubting is real, but the awareness of me that apparently owns those senses that's real... Tasting, touching, hearing, seeing and smelling are what is happening, but we believe they are happening to me... When the illusion of me suddenly drops away, what's left is just tasting, just touching, just hearing, just seeing and just smelling...but it isn't happening to anyone... I don't think so. I think that's your mantra, not his.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 7:50:24 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 11, 2013 7:50:24 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data. This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about. And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist, ( for you, note sdp). No, it doesn't exist period. The definition of "to exist" that you would have to use in order to defend the argument that what I don't perceive doesn't exist only for me is not supported empirically. If you think that I'm wrong then I challenge to you to find empirical proof of the existence of something that you can't perceive right now.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 8:42:48 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2013 8:42:48 GMT -5
<TMT> No, it doesn't exist period. The definition of "to exist" that you would have to use in order to defend the argument that what I don't perceive doesn't exist only for me is not supported empirically. If you think that I'm wrong then I challenge to you to find empirical proof of the existence of something that you can't perceive right now. </TMT> <TMT> If I heat a rock in a fire and then pour water on the fire, the residual heat of the rock is empirical evidence of the fact of the fire, which I can't perceive right then. The fire no longer exists, but it did, and my experience of the warmth of the rock is proof of the past existence of the fire. If I stand by a riverbank the water that flows from around the bend is empirical evidence that the river doesn't stop at the end of my line of sight, and I can confirm the postulate based on that evidence by walking up river to look around the bend. If I'm in a cave and I hear the growling of a bear all that I perceive at the time is a growling noise, not the bear, but the noise is empirical proof of the existence of the bear, that if I ignore, might result in my death by bear. If I look at a tree I perceive only the tops of the roots, not the extent of them that dive under the earth, keeping it in place, but if I walk up to the tree and lean on it, the fact that the tree doesn't fall over is empirical proof of the existence of the roots. </TMT>
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 8:52:04 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2013 8:52:04 GMT -5
There is only sense data. Doubt and confusion is also sense data. This doesn't mean that the sense data is accurate or not accurate. If there is only sense data then what could it be accurate about? There isn't anything to be accurate about. And of course sense data isn't actually "sense data", it's just "what is", and it doesn't come through the nose/eye/ear, instead it's just there and it doesn't try to represent anything, there isn't anything to represent because there is only "what is". And "what is" is identical with all the sense data that you can perceive right now. Everything that you can't perceive right now doesn't exist. Excellent way of putting that into words for me, thanks. I'm pretty much with you other than having a brain to realize the 'what could it be accurate about?' part. Makes complete sense, I'm just a slow, slow, slow, stupid bastard sometimes. Physicality is only a reflection, only a slice, only a glimpse of what is -- this is the nature of the senses. Accuracy is an idea that can be applied but only in a relative sense. Relativity requires more than one point of reference, but no one point of reference is more privileged than another -- accuracy is always measured between two minds based on an arbitrary scale and framework, not between one mind and some measurable and quantifiable actuality.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 11, 2013 10:20:12 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 11, 2013 10:20:12 GMT -5
<TMT> No, it doesn't exist period. The definition of "to exist" that you would have to use in order to defend the argument that what I don't perceive doesn't exist only for me is not supported empirically. If you think that I'm wrong then I challenge to you to find empirical proof of the existence of something that you can't perceive right now. </TMT> <TMT> If I heat a rock in a fire and then pour water on the fire, the residual heat of the rock is empirical evidence of the fact of the fire, which I can't perceive right then. The fire no longer exists, but it did, and my experience of the warmth of the rock is proof of the past existence of the fire. If I stand by a riverbank the water that flows from around the bend is empirical evidence that the river doesn't stop at the end of my line of sight, and I can confirm the postulate based on that evidence by walking up river to look around the bend. If I'm in a cave and I hear the growling of a bear all that I perceive at the time is a growling noise, not the bear, but the noise is empirical proof of the existence of the bear, that if I ignore, might result in my death by bear. If I look at a tree I perceive only the tops of the roots, not the extent of them that dive under the earth, keeping it in place, but if I walk up to the tree and lean on it, the fact that the tree doesn't fall over is empirical proof of the existence of the roots. </TMT> You know my qualia model and you know that your points are invalid. Please don't troll/waste my time with it. My post wasn't TMT, it was a perfectly precise reply to SDP's attack.
|
|