Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 16:48:40 GMT -5
Yeah Something I never got around to talking about, was during that period where I was doing the practices that allow one to bring awareness into sleep, some odd progressions happened sometimes....there were not only periods where the mind/body was asleep while a sense of omnipresence remained...there were also these kind of in between periods, where the body was fully asleep, but the mind was still active, now thats a very odd sensation btw....the body actually changes quite a bit while its sleeping, different physical processes occur. In any case, mind seems to cover more territory than we typically define it to....if mind can be present while the body is actually sleeping, I mean really sleeping, then some aspect of mind can be active during deep sleep and Samadhi....maybe its a part of the autonomic system, you know, how the nervous system keeps things like the heart running, and smooth muscle contractions in the intestines etc...with no conscious input needed. Just passing another car on the highway takes a pretty huge amount of computational engagement, but we do it on autopilot...so there is probably a lot that happens in that intersection between the physical brain and the ephemeral action of mind. hmmm...***Realization Alert***....it may be that the whole purpose of the mind being tied to a brain in this incarnation is to create a mechanism for 'continuation' of a particular pattern of a lifetime. The brain is a mechanism created in omnipresence to continue a pattern or a trajectory of mind when its been quiescent....something like that....I can see it clearly but it may take a few tries to spit this out conceptually The brain is designed to keep a pattern going for a bit, but its also flexible, what neuroscientists call neuro plasticity, so it can keep patterns going, but not so rigidly that it a complete prison. This allows for a kind of loose order to omni-presence's self exploration, and allows 'themes' and scenarios of creation to be explored more deeply and richly. This also explains why functions in the brain like nuero peptides and nuero peptide receptors whose sole function seems to be to create habits is so prevalent in the brain. But then, why does the mind ever need to be quiescent or dormant as in deep sleep at all? Why build that into the system? Surely it's not a design flaw... Maybe its part of a built in two way feed back loop, wherein those still silent periods of deep sleep set at such a regular intervals is the means by which omnipresence is informed by these billions of little "human lifetime" semi-autopilot patterns, and Samadhi is a flow in the opposite direction, wherein omnipresence in-forms this little life scenario mind/brain/pattern continuation doohickey via a kind of deep self awareness. Okay Topology, please feel to weigh in here on this one, we are kinda touching up against some of the stuff you are working on your PHd for... Brain as a mechanism with a limited shelf life that is designed to keep a loose and general pattern of mind in a mode of continuation within a more spacious or less spacious set of parameters for long enough for this particular life scenario to be adequately explored. Empty Since you are appealing to my formal education, I cannot comment on the topic at hand with any authority. My PhD is in computer science, not neuro science. I can weigh in with the authority of formal education on mathematics, logic, computation, formal languages, and intelligence. Everything past what you label as a "realization", I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. Its more of a speculation over processes you clearly do not understand (neither do I). But on the subject of passing a car.... its amazing what what mathematical networks can do. The brain has enough neural matter to have a specialized neural network per task learned. But I don't claim to know anything detailed about how the brain is actually organized. Sorry to put you on the spot like that Top...I just thought there may be some interesting connections between artificle intelligence and the link between the human brain and mind...if the soeculation is accurate....in that brain is a mechanism for creating a kind of continuaty of experience (like the experience of being 'steven') for a determined period of time in the greater span of one's concious existence, then there may some interesting corelations between that and developing artificial intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 18:41:20 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. that's 'cause it's two ... just like a paradox, which is always the best conclusion the mind can buy with the coin of reasoning: two truths! The whole awareness/consciousness 'model' was never two. Consciousness has been seen, and still is, as the movement of awareness; inseparable from awareness and not leaving one with some kind of paradox. The problem is that the model presumes that the movement stops for a given individuation, and this seems to be a boundary of that conceptualization. (It doesn't seem to be the case)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 1, 2014 18:43:05 GMT -5
The same way an addict chooses to shoot up with some heroine. After realization there is a different perspective on what "choice" is and whether or not there is free will. Linguistically we'll still use the word choice as a product of a decision procedure, weighing options, balancing tensions, optimizing goals, etc. etc. That's what most people think is free will and exercising choice. But if you look closely at the process, its really not directed by you anyway. You can watch it all happen on its own. I "chose" to write this post. What that means was that something in this body-mind triggered with the sensation of something to contribute and other aspect of the body mind may have had to reschedule tasks to accommodate the emerging impulse. Its more convenient to go with the fallacious statement saying I chose to write the post than to be 100% accurate with linguistic description. (It also makes the other meat sacks look at you funny if you try to talk differently than they do.) If you were to really go through all your language and concept usage and completely weed out anything that suggested having active responsibility and causation, then you would be forced into a completely passive voice and passive relationship. Life doesn't want to be passive. If the use of language and having the proper characterization is something you're adamant about, that might be a place to look for attachment and identification with the mind. Top's explanation is correct. I still use the word "I," loosely, but to be more precise I would have to use the words "this body/mind" regarding whatever the body/mind happens to do. Just because there is no hard-core identification with "a little guy in the head pulling levers," a "me," or with the idea of volition, "what is" does what it does. What I AM is "what is," and "what is" does zazen. What DOESN'T do zazen is what is imagined to be a volitional entity limited in time and space. In 1999 I realized that I am this entire unbounded unified process we call "reality" temporarily manifesting and seeing itself through the eyes of a particular organism. Do thoughts of a chooser still arise in the mind? Sure, but like the use of the word "I" it is more a convention of language for purposes of communication than anything else. If an ordinary person should ask me, "Who are you?" I would answer, "Bob." If a sage or Zen Master should ask me, "Who are you?" I would either cover her mouth with my hand, or answer, "I am the one who just asked the question." This is the place where it all collapsed for 'me', realizing that it's a game of spiritual conditioning.. playing a role that a particular pattern of recognition approves of or avoiding the role that is disapproved of.. the game you've described is steeped in self-imagery as the knower of the correct way to play the game.. One of my teachers watched an old fisherman in a poor coastal village weaving a fishing net, and was transfixed by the old man's movements and his ability to sense what was happening amidst the activity around him.. my teacher, a highly respected 'master' himself, commented that he would have been honored to learn from such a master, but the intrusion into the old man's 'way' would have been unforgivable.. he told me later that he had felt a deep sense of gratitude for the opportunity to observe 'authentic happening'..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 18:44:07 GMT -5
Then how are you getting yourself to not do anything? The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply. You're not. That's what no volition (which you say you believe in) means.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 18:45:10 GMT -5
The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply. Good response! Do you see Rupa as causing himself to reply?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 18:50:26 GMT -5
This "festering idea" is what lies at the core of the spiritual search. There are many other ideas that may collapse on this path, but the festering idea of "me" is usually the last one to go. The seeker's basic question is, "How can I get enlightened?" or "How can I attain unity with God?" or "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" The basic answer is, "Who you THINK you are can't." The reason you can't is because the "you" that is seeking anything is imaginary. It is a figment of imagination. I call it "a thought structure." Asking "How can I get ______________?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" It can never happen except in imagination. Seeing through this basic illusion is what we call "Self-realization," and for many people this is what ends the spiritual search. The seeker realizes that s/he is not a little person inside a body; s/he is the entire cosmos--"what is," itself. The seeker realizes that s/he is already unified with God, and has always been unified with God. Or, the seeker realizes that there was no person who sometimes experienced unity-conscious states of mind and sometimes didn't. In general, the seeker realizes that the seeker was not what was imagined to be the seeker. The seeker realizes that the REAL seeker was the cosmos, itself, manifesting as a particular body mind. How does this realization occur? Well, there are various theories about this. My own theory is that by becoming internally silent and contemplating the issue, or by constantly shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," the self-referential neural pathway is bypassed, eventually atrophies from dis-use, and eventually collapses. However it occurs, the collapse, when it is noticed, is noticed at a particular moment. One moment it feels as if "you" are a person seeking something, and in the next moment it is seen that who you THOUGHT you were has vanished, and only "what is" remains. We say that some teachers "meet the dreamer in the dream," and other teachers "refuse to meet the dreamer in the dream." A teacher who meets the dreamer in the dream generally suggests that there is something the seeker can do to become free of the illusion of selfhood, such as, being still, looking within, doing self inquiry, and pursuing various meditative strategies for interrupting the usual patterns of self-referential thinking. A teacher who refuses the meet the dreamer in the dream, such as Tony Parsons, says, "There is absolutely nothing "you" can do." Each approach seems to be effective with some people. The first approach seems to wind down the habit of self-referential thinking until realization occurs, and the second approach seems to cut through the issue directly. As an aside, I have often wondered what happens afterwards to people who suddenly see through the illusion versus those who see through the illusion after several years of inquiry or practice. IOW, I've wondered if they become free of the mind's shenanigans to the same extent as people who gradually change to a no-mind way of interacting with the world. In light of these comments, consider your question about doing zazen for no purpose versus a purpose. The usual pitfall of all meditative practices, and the reason so many teachers don't like the word "practice" is because it implies that there is someone practicing something to get something, and there isn't. In fact, the act of "checking on one's progress" via a meditative practice, is a pernicious habit that defeats the purposeless purpose of the practice. This is why teachers who meet the dreamer in the dream caution dreamers NOT to check on their progress or even entertain the idea of progress. This is because they know that there is no one who travels from here to there and that the entire idea of a path to realization is an oxymoron. The seeker and the sought for both collapse when it is realized that who one IS needs nothing, and is already complete. As for this body/mind, it was one of those body/minds that had a "hard-core" sense of selfhood. It felt as if there was a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body--a little guy inside the head pulling levers and making things happen. ha ha--just like the little alien in the guy's head in the movie "Men in Black." That illusion collapsed in 1999, and inside and outside ceased to be separate. Becoming free of the illusion of who the body/mind THOUGHT it was ended the spiritual search, and led to an ordinary life free from the compulsion of incessant searching. That's very clear, thank-you. I still don't understand how an illusion chooses to practice zazen. The same way you choose to reply to a post, apparently. I hate to pick nits, but mango's and bananas don't grow in a mirage. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 19:00:18 GMT -5
I see brain as 'dream stuff'; an expression of consciousness rather than a tool to help consciousness function as it does, so I talk about consciousness interacting with it's own dreamscape, and nothing else involved. Consciousness as the source, and everything else as a movement of consciousness. Consciousness interacting with it's own movement. If a desire arises to express some function, then it is simply expressed. Continuity is maintained, or a 'deep sleep' break is taken from the intensity and struggle of the experience, or fun mind states are formed, or whatever. I've been trying to wrap my head around some of Metzinger's ideas about this. His point, AIUI, is that basically what consciousness is, is virtual reality. Mind is the VR landscape, everything in it. The experience of this VR is consciousness. This VR is created to help navigate and survive in the world, which is fundamentally just energy waves. So 'the brain' is just energy waves too like this keyboard. They are represented in the VR as distinct objects which helps with surviving, etc. The big controversial point (not a big deal here) is that ego is also unreal, just another thingy created in VR to help with different things, but it's not really there, not even as energy waves. It's one neuroscience/philosophy of mind theory. But I've probably butchered it. I'm not sure why that's a controversial point. Ego is just an idea. Also, I'd say 'energy waves' are part of the virtual reality. We don't need them to explain the VR.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 19:11:59 GMT -5
Empty Since you are appealing to my formal education, I cannot comment on the topic at hand with any authority. My PhD is in computer science, not neuro science. I can weigh in with the authority of formal education on mathematics, logic, computation, formal languages, and intelligence. Everything past what you label as a "realization", I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. Its more of a speculation over processes you clearly do not understand (neither do I). But on the subject of passing a car.... its amazing what what mathematical networks can do. The brain has enough neural matter to have a specialized neural network per task learned. But I don't claim to know anything detailed about how the brain is actually organized. Sorry to put you on the spot like that Top...I just thought there may be some interesting connections between artificle intelligence and the link between the human brain and mind...if the soeculation is accurate....in that brain is a mechanism for creating a kind of continuaty of experience (like the experience of being 'steven') for a determined period of time in the greater span of one's concious existence, then there may some interesting corelations between that and developing artificial intelligence. In the context of mind/brain, continuity is formed through the use of memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 19:23:18 GMT -5
The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply. You're not. That's what no volition (which you say you believe in) means. I have a new theory, what do you think?... you don't choose your words .. they choose you that they are an authentic reflection of where you are .. that you couldn't lie even if you wanted to
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2014 20:29:20 GMT -5
that's 'cause it's two ... just like a paradox, which is always the best conclusion the mind can buy with the coin of reasoning: two truths! The whole awareness/consciousness 'model' was never two. Consciousness has been seen, and still is, as the movement of awareness; inseparable from awareness and not leaving one with some kind of paradox. The problem is that the model presumes that the movement stops for a given individuation, and this seems to be a boundary of that conceptualization. (It doesn't seem to be the case) The first cut is the deepest and the distinction of movement is the arc of the blade. This problem of the movement stopping for a given individuation is only an artifact of recognizing the distinction of perspective to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 1, 2014 20:45:22 GMT -5
Empty Since you are appealing to my formal education, I cannot comment on the topic at hand with any authority. My PhD is in computer science, not neuro science. I can weigh in with the authority of formal education on mathematics, logic, computation, formal languages, and intelligence. Everything past what you label as a "realization", I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. Its more of a speculation over processes you clearly do not understand (neither do I). But on the subject of passing a car.... its amazing what what mathematical networks can do. The brain has enough neural matter to have a specialized neural network per task learned. But I don't claim to know anything detailed about how the brain is actually organized. Sorry to put you on the spot like that Top...I just thought there may be some interesting connections between artificle intelligence and the link between the human brain and mind...if the soeculation is accurate.... in that brain is a mechanism for creating a kind of continuaty of experience (like the experience of being 'steven') for a determined period of time in the greater span of one's concious existence, then there may some interesting corelations between that and developing artificial intelligence. I can't speak to brains. There are a few notions of continuity, all related to low variability. One is the notion of mathematical continuity, a curve being smooth. The boundary of an object in perception. Another form of continuity relates to expectation. An alien invasion would be a discontinuity in the movement of life on this planet. It would disrupt the continuity of peoples experience. In this sense, robots can detect discontinuity. When an observation doesn't fit into expectation, there is a discontinuity. In robotics there is a formal problem called "the kidnapped robot". How does a robot cope with being moved in the world without its knowledge? It had a belief in where it was and observations were consistent with that belief. Now it is getting bombarded with unexpected observation. If the robot does not have a correct map relative to its position, it will not be able to function coherently. Continuity is a separate issue than self identity. Robots can model themselves in their experience. From a primitive set of actions (example "apply 5 volts to servo 10 for 3 second") the robot can observe feature changes in its perceptive field. A correlation between action and change in perception is established. Not that a robot has a term self, but it can identify objects which are tightly coupled to actions. An arm moving in response to giving a command. This in effect creates a notion of self and the robot can build higher order sequences of actions to accomplish tasks by manipulating its appendages. Robots can explore ranges of motion and then plan to achieve goals.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 1, 2014 22:34:07 GMT -5
Do you see Rupa as causing himself to reply? No, I liked his response because he didn't get caught by the words.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 22:37:20 GMT -5
You're not. That's what no volition (which you say you believe in) means. I have a new theory, what do you think?... you don't choose your words .. they choose you that they are an authentic reflection of where you are .. that you couldn't lie even if you wanted to Unless, of course, lying chooses you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 22:54:55 GMT -5
The whole awareness/consciousness 'model' was never two. Consciousness has been seen, and still is, as the movement of awareness; inseparable from awareness and not leaving one with some kind of paradox. The problem is that the model presumes that the movement stops for a given individuation, and this seems to be a boundary of that conceptualization. (It doesn't seem to be the case) The first cut is the deepest and the distinction of movement is the arc of the blade. This problem of the movement stopping for a given individuation is only an artifact of recognizing the distinction of perspective to begin with. Okay, then my perspective is that there's no such thing as perspective. If that doesn't get me in the neo-Advaita club, nuthin will.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2014 23:02:12 GMT -5
The first cut is the deepest and the distinction of movement is the arc of the blade. This problem of the movement stopping for a given individuation is only an artifact of recognizing the distinction of perspective to begin with. Okay, then my perspective is that there's no such thing as perspective. If that doesn't get me in the neo-Advaita club, nuthin will. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|