|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 29, 2011 21:23:15 GMT -5
We can have an experience of a pattern that we can call time/space. We can think about time/space. The thoughts remain thoughts. It's pretty straightforward. I can see a yellow colour. I can think about a yellow colour, the latter will remain a thought. Even if after intense focus on the thought 'yellow' I start actually seeing a yellow colour, the colour that is then seen is not the thought. It may have been caused by the thought (or maybe not, who knows), but when I see the colour, I am not seeing 'thought: 'yellow''. I have a visual and mental experience at the same time. Okay, I see. I wouldn't say sensory perception IS thought, I just see thought and feeling as other forms of perception. However, these forms of perception interact such that sense perception can stimulate thought, which stimulates feeling, which in turn stimulates thought, which can provide a focus of attention on certain sense perceptions, and so on. As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, or MIND if you like, as an idea expressed in the form of sense perception, thought and feeling. Here/there, now/then are fundamentally ideas that are experienced as distance and continuity. It's not like it begins with some sophisticated concept of time/space, and then that concept gets experienced. It's more like a sense of location in which objects appear and move around. It's only later that we might formally conceptualize it as time and space. This 'sense' may be closer to what you refer to as the qualia that we experience, and I say the origin is imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 29, 2011 21:37:43 GMT -5
We can have an experience of a pattern that we can call time/space. We can think about time/space. The thoughts remain thoughts. It's pretty straightforward. I can see a yellow color. I can think about a yellow color, the latter will remain a thought. Even if after intense focus on the thought 'yellow' I start actually seeing a yellow color, the color that is then seen is not the thought. It may have been caused by the thought (or maybe not, who knows), but when I see the colour, I am not seeing 'thought: 'yellow''. I have a visual and mental experience at the same time. Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not "think" yellow banana"? What would you perceive, arising in the awareness, if there was no such thing as yellow or banana? Is it not the thought yellow and the thought banana that makes it a yellow banana? What does an infant perceive when they are aware of a banana before they know what it is? And why aren't we ever aware of a yellow banana as being a perception, instead of the thought, yellow banana? Peace |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 29, 2011 23:05:35 GMT -5
We can have an experience of a pattern that we can call time/space. We can think about time/space. The thoughts remain thoughts. It's pretty straightforward. I can see a yellow color. I can think about a yellow color, the latter will remain a thought. Even if after intense focus on the thought 'yellow' I start actually seeing a yellow color, the color that is then seen is not the thought. It may have been caused by the thought (or maybe not, who knows), but when I see the colour, I am not seeing 'thought: 'yellow''. I have a visual and mental experience at the same time. Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not "think" yellow banana"? What would you perceive, arising in the awareness, if there was no such thing as yellow or banana? Is it not the thought yellow and the thought banana that makes it a yellow banana? What does an infant perceive when they are aware of a banana before they know what it is? And why aren't we ever aware of a yellow banana as being a perception, instead of the thought, yellow banana? Peace Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not think "yellow banana?" Yes. Little children see what is in front of their eyes without imagining/thinking/verbalizing anything. This includes yellow bananas. When they look at a yellow banana, they do not see a yellow banana; they see __________. Any adult whose mind is silent perceives the same way a little child perceives. When looking at ___________, there is no thought, image, symbol, word, idea, or internal conversation occuring. When driving down the interstate or through heavy traffic, any adult whose intellect is quiescent sees __________in total internal silence. An adult whose mind is quiescent can look at words and understand the meaning in total mental silence without any kind of verbalization. People whose minds incessantly chatter may find this hard to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 29, 2011 23:32:08 GMT -5
The question, "What does a little child perceive when looking at the world?" is actually a very powerful koan capable of making the known universe disintegrate. Shifting from the world of the known to the world of the not-known is literally mind-blowing.
Peeps who seriously pursue the above kind of koan often have very unusual experiences prior to breaking free of the known world. The visual sense of space may shift, move, flow, expand, or collapse for brief periods of time. In Zen these are called "confirmatory experiences" because they often presage a complete reversal of understanding as the known world implodes and the not-known world explodes into consciousness.
Here is a typical account of what happened to a man who had attended a 7 day silent retreat and spent his time concentrating on a koan like the one above:
"At midnight I abruptly awakened. At first my mind was foggy, then suddenly that quotation flashed into my consciousness; 'I came to realize clearly that Mind is no other than mountains, rivers, and the great wide earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars.' And I repeated it. Then all at once I was struck as though by lightning, and the next instant heaven and earth crumbled and disappeared. Instantaneously, like surging waves, a tremendous delight welled up in me, a veritable hurricane of delight, and I laughed loudly and wildly: 'Ha, ha, ha , ha, ha! There's no reasoning here, no reasoning at all! Ha, ha, ha! The empty sky split in two, then opened its enormous mouth and began to laugh uproariously: 'Ha, ha, ha!' Later, one of the members of my family told me that my laughter had sounded inhuman.
I was now lying on my back. Suddenly I sat up and struck the bed with all my might and beat the floor with my feet, as if trying to smash it, all the while laughing riotously. My wife and youngest son, sleeping near me, were now awake and frightened. Covering my mouth with her hand, my wife exclaimed, 'What's the matter with you?' But I wasn't aware of this until told about it afterwards. My son told me later that he thought I had gone mad.
"I've come to enlightenment! Shayamuni (the Buddha) and the patriarchs haven't deceived me! They haven't deceived me!" I remember crying out.
(later).........Although twenty-four hours have elapsed, I still feel the aftermath of that earthquake. My entire body is still shaking. I spent all of today laughing and weeping by myself. (quoted from The Three Pillars of Zen, by Phillip Kapleau, pp 216 & 217)
This man later became a well-known Zen Master in Japan.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 30, 2011 6:06:29 GMT -5
Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not "think" yellow banana"? What would you perceive, arising in the awareness, if there was no such thing as yellow or banana? Is it not the thought yellow and the thought banana that makes it a yellow banana? What does an infant perceive when they are aware of a banana before they know what it is? And why aren't we ever aware of a yellow banana as being a perception, instead of the thought, yellow banana? Peace |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 30, 2011 6:30:51 GMT -5
Okay, I see. I wouldn't say sensory perception IS thought, I just see thought and feeling as other forms of perception. However, these forms of perception interact such that sense perception can stimulate thought, which stimulates feeling, which in turn stimulates thought, which can provide a focus of attention on certain sense perceptions, and so on. Okay. As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, or MIND if you like, as an idea expressed in the form of sense perception, thought and feeling. Here/there, now/then are fundamentally ideas that are experienced as distance and continuity. It's not like it begins with some sophisticated concept of time/space, and then that concept gets experienced. It's more like a sense of location in which objects appear and move around. It's only later that we might formally conceptualize it as time and space. This 'sense' may be closer to what you refer to as the qualia that we experience, and I say the origin is imagination. Your concept seems to be: MIND idea --> experience --> mind idea. My understanding is that there is no MIND place where the possibility or framework of a particular set of experiences (seeing itself, hearing itself, pattern recognition itself) is formulated. What I see is that first there is experience, then there might be an idea about the experience and then the idea changes the character of the experience, sometimes the idea makes us ignore a perception or even makes us see a perception where none was. So I'm saying that we see X, then we try to figure out if it's a snake or a rope. And what we 'decide' to interpret it as changes the character of the perception. What you seem to be saying is that even the seeing itself (prior to the categorization of X as rope or snake) is already an idea, which is formulated in MIND. If you want the MIND concept to work, then you have to not onyl make it the author of now/then+here/there, but also author of qualia itself(non-conceptual, prior to conceptual classification, just raw perception), colour as such, sound and smell as such... and I don't see how that is supposed to work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2011 7:22:11 GMT -5
Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not "think" yellow banana"? What would you perceive, arising in the awareness, if there was no such thing as yellow or banana? Is it not the thought yellow and the thought banana that makes it a yellow banana? What does an infant perceive when they are aware of a banana before they know what it is? And why aren't we ever aware of a yellow banana as being a perception, instead of the thought, yellow banana? Peace that video was awesome! so there's ______________. and the perception of _________ can be described in terms of it's visual qualia: longish, curved, yellow, brown spot on end, narrow on other end... and if there is a connection between this visual perception of _______ and the internal concept database that holds the perceived pattern to be a banana, then one can think "it's a banana." it seems like there are multiple internal databases of concepts -- some concepts refer to single qualia -- like yellow, long, curved -- and others refer to an overall concept that includes within it a set of qualia -- like 'banana.' the fellow in the vid could access the first database of qualia concepts but not the second. He could make guesses about the second (like guessing the bicycle he had drawn was an elaborate tape deck) so it's not like he doesn't have any access to those concepts that represent patterns. it's just that the accuracy is very poor. when one infers from given perceptions that something is a banana, then one also can imagine that ______ having other associated qualia too -- soft and sweet interior, comes from a banana tree, soon to be extinct because of monocropping.... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 30, 2011 9:48:06 GMT -5
Zen folks have written quite a bit about cognition and how it functions. I've long-since forgotten most of what I've read about this subject, but Zen sages conceive various "nen" functions of mind. The first nen is pure perception, the second nen is the ability to remember perceptions (hold them in mind after the perception is no longer extant), the third nen is the organization of perception, and so forth.
I assume that the initial imaginary separation of the universe into two states probably involves the distinction that "mother" (or "other") is separate from "me." After this initial severance, more distinctions and separations follow as "other" is divided into things, events, qualities, etc. How this happens is probably much less important than the fact that it does happen.
Seeing the world as if one is separate from it, and imagining the world as composed of separate things existing in space and time is not as life-changing as what happens when symbolization takes over. A little child imagines separate things and then learns the labels for those things (names). With further complexity of conceptualization the child imagines how things relate to one another through cause and effect, etc. The child learns to simulate reality in the mind, and the simulation gradually grows more complex and more important. By the time a child is six or eight years old, it holds a mental model of reality in its head, and it begins to interact more often with the model than reality itself. This shift from unconsciously attending reality to unconsciously attending a model of reality happens so gradually that it isn't cognized. Consequently the importance of the shift goes overlooked.
The path of non-duality is the path of becoming conscious. A person can do this by either consciously attending the actual or consciously attending thoughts. If one chooses to consciously attend thoughts, the thoughts will eventually die away (the mind will become silent) and be replaced by the actual.
An adult whose mind is silent sees the world like a young child rather than like an infant. Most researchers seem to think that it takes a certain amount of time for the infant's mind to organize raw perceptions into remembered patterns which are then seen as distinct and differing in value.
A young child has not yet begun to unconsciously live in and through a mental model of the world. It still sees the world substantially as it is. It is only later, after the mental model has been relegated dominance, that the internal dialogue gets revved up bigtime, and the person becomes strongly attached to the mental model (the way the universe is conceived). As selfhood becomes more and more important, the child begins to worry about what its peers think, its own appearance, its abilities or lack thereof, what it owns, what it wants, what it needs, and so forth. Gradually the person becomes so attached to the mental model that it carries around in its head that it has no idea what the reality is upon which the mental model is based.
Cosmic consciousness experiences occur when a person's mental model of reality collapses, and s/he suddenly sees the real world without obscuration. People who have such experiences report that reasoning and conceptual understanding stop for a period of time. I assume that such experiences involve a radical shift in brain function from a conceptual mode of mind to a non-conceptual mode of mind. This kind of shift obviously triggers a big release of endorphins (which account for the accompanying euphoria and temporary "high") and significantly alters one's perceptual field. It may even trigger OBE's. After this shift, the individual is able to discern the difference between the idea of thingness and the unified field of actual being from which thingness is abstracted.
The body/mind has already "learned" the common distinctions ("tree," "automobile," "clouds", etc), but now it no longer confuses the distinctions with the underlying unified reality. It can shift back and forth between imagination and reality without confusion.
If the body/mind focuses upon the actual for an extended period of time, thoughts gradually diminish in intensity and duration, and eventually can be suspended at will. If attention is held upon the actual, all thoughts and verbalizations cease, and the world is seen in silence. It looks just as it did before, but in silence it is seen without name or form and it is realized that thoughts are utterly unnecessary for normal human everyday functioning. Thoughts are then seen to be useful in particular circumstances (designing a car, for example) but unneeded much of the time.
Leonard Jacobsen has written:
"You would be quite amazed
to know how little I think.
I am not trying to stop thinking.
I think when it is necessary to think
but beyond that, I don't think."
Probably only someone who has a relatively silent mind can fully appreciate these words and the state of mind they represent.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2011 10:35:33 GMT -5
Okay, I see. I wouldn't say sensory perception IS thought, I just see thought and feeling as other forms of perception. However, these forms of perception interact such that sense perception can stimulate thought, which stimulates feeling, which in turn stimulates thought, which can provide a focus of attention on certain sense perceptions, and so on. Okay. As I see it, everything originates in consciousness, or MIND if you like, as an idea expressed in the form of sense perception, thought and feeling. Here/there, now/then are fundamentally ideas that are experienced as distance and continuity. It's not like it begins with some sophisticated concept of time/space, and then that concept gets experienced. It's more like a sense of location in which objects appear and move around. It's only later that we might formally conceptualize it as time and space. This 'sense' may be closer to what you refer to as the qualia that we experience, and I say the origin is imagination. Your concept seems to be: MIND idea --> experience --> mind idea. My understanding is that there is no MIND place where the possibility or framework of a particular set of experiences (seeing itself, hearing itself, pattern recognition itself) is formulated. What I see is that first there is experience, then there might be an idea about the experience and then the idea changes the character of the experience, sometimes the idea makes us ignore a perception or even makes us see a perception where none was. So I'm saying that we see X, then we try to figure out if it's a snake or a rope. And what we 'decide' to interpret it as changes the character of the perception. What you seem to be saying is that even the seeing itself (prior to the categorization of X as rope or snake) is already an idea, which is formulated in MIND. If you want the MIND concept to work, then you have to not onyl make it the author of now/then+here/there, but also author of qualia itself(non-conceptual, prior to conceptual classification, just raw perception), colour as such, sound and smell as such... and I don't see how that is supposed to work. Yes, that's how I'm seeing it. You're right in that there isn't a 'MIND place' because mind and MIND are 'enfolded' such that the apparent individuated mind is itself an idea of MIND, expressed and then experienced by MIND. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 30, 2011 11:52:20 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I'm seeing it. You're right in that there isn't a 'MIND place' because mind and MIND are 'enfolded' such that the apparent individuated mind is itself an idea of MIND, expressed and then experienced by MIND. I still don't see what MIND's function is supposed to be. In ZD's account it seems like the first appearance of MIND is the distinction between 'me' and 'm(other)'. But prior to that distinction we have only perception, independent of MIND and mind. Your definition of MIND seems to be that it already preceeds even the infant's perception, and that even before MIND manifests in the form of thoughts (mind) it already has defined, or at least impacted, the infant's non-conceptual perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 30, 2011 11:55:42 GMT -5
Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not "think" yellow banana"? What would you perceive, arising in the awareness, if there was no such thing as yellow or banana? Is it not the thought yellow and the thought banana that makes it a yellow banana? What does an infant perceive when they are aware of a banana before they know what it is? And why aren't we ever aware of a yellow banana as being a perception, instead of the thought, yellow banana? Peace Is it possible to be aware of a yellow banana and not think "yellow banana?" Yes. Little children see what is in front of their eyes without imagining/thinking/verbalizing anything. This includes yellow bananas. When they look at a yellow banana, they do not see a yellow banana; they see __________. Any adult whose mind is silent perceives the same way a little child perceives. When looking at ___________, there is no thought, image, symbol, word, idea, or internal conversation occurring. When driving down the interstate or through heavy traffic, any adult whose intellect is quiescent sees __________in total internal silence. An adult whose mind is quiescent can look at words and understand the meaning in total mental silence without any kind of verbalization. People whose minds incessantly chatter may find this hard to believe. First off, I want to express what a cool discussion is happening on this thread...  Now, our awareness of a yellow banana is _______. And it can be perceived irrespective of the thought, yellow banana. So just for arguments sake, let's call it a "perception". So the awareness and ______ touch to form an experience or a perception. But instantaneously the thought, yellow banana, overrides that perception so that the awareness is aware of the thought and not the perception. But to a blind awareness there is no visual perception of ______ and consequently no awareness of the thought yellow banana. The blind awareness has to rely on the tactile perception of _______. And like max say's there's a different set of thoughts that arise in the blind awareness, about that perception. What does that say about the nature of the perception between the awareness and _______? And what if the awareness had no visual or tactile perception of _______? Would a yellow banana even exist, except in imagination? Peace |
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Sept 30, 2011 13:12:17 GMT -5
Trf
Awareness IS ______
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 30, 2011 14:18:09 GMT -5
TRF,
I'd say the awareness of perception always remains, it is attention that is getting glued to the thought instead of perceived actuality.
Yes no thought about a visual perception, but he still will have a 'thought: banana'. Once he categorizes the object as a banana, it will alter his perception of that object. Attention will tilt towards the thought. (Speculation on my part though, I ain't blind, so...)
In this question you're opening the context of meta-reality, and it has nothing to do with either immediate perception nor how mind interprets perception, the meta-reality question is completely detached from anything that is preceived. The best you can do with that question is to let it collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2011 18:45:50 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I'm seeing it. You're right in that there isn't a 'MIND place' because mind and MIND are 'enfolded' such that the apparent individuated mind is itself an idea of MIND, expressed and then experienced by MIND. I still don't see what MIND's function is supposed to be. In ZD's account it seems like the first appearance of MIND is the distinction between 'me' and 'm(other)'. But prior to that distinction we have only perception, independent of MIND and mind. Your definition of MIND seems to be that it already preceeds even the infant's perception, and that even before MIND manifests in the form of thoughts (mind) it already has defined, or at least impacted, the infant's non-conceptual perceptions. I don't like the MIND term, and I think I'll officially stop using it.  |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 30, 2011 19:56:31 GMT -5
TRF, I'd say the awareness of perception always remains, it is attention that is getting glued to the thought instead of perceived actuality. Yes no thought about a visual perception, but he still will have a 'thought: banana'. Once he categorizes the object as a banana, it will alter his perception of that object. Attention will tilt towards the thought. (Speculation on my part though, I ain't blind, so...) In this question you're opening the context of meta-reality, and it has nothing to do with either immediate perception nor how mind interprets perception, the meta-reality question is completely detached from anything that is perceived. The best you can do with that question is to let it collapse. Yes, Question... I agree, the awareness of a perception is always experienced, "Before" the power of "thought" hooks the awareness into perceiving and experiencing it... Some say that what the thought of "Truth" points to, is discovered by transcending thought... But if the awareness doesn't even know what it is directly perceiving "Before" thought, what exactly is it going to perceive or experience transcending thought? How transcending thought would even be a possibility in the first place...heh Which makes the search for what "Truth" points to, nothing more than a thought and not something perceived by the awareness... Peace |
|
