Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:45:28 GMT -5
Pretty good, cept that bolded bit is a bit off ;-) To me, separating sensory perceptions from the rest of the 'field of thought' is a bit like Earnest separating his wrist from his arm. ;-) I stopped doing doing that some distance ago. "bit off"? Bee specific then ... what, in your opinion, constitutes the senses? My observations lead me to conceptualizing 'senses' just as I conceptualize any other thought...every thought you have is based on a sensory perception, even 'word' thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mind, usually conceptualizing an aggregate of other sensory perceptions...the difference between you and me, is that you separate 'real' sensory perceptions from 'imagined' sensory perceptions. All sensory perception originate and appear in the mind, and no place else...our interconnectivity, our astonishingly INTIMATE interconnectivity, means that many of the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mind, while sensory perception that you perceive as imagined occur momentarily in what you perceive as your separate and individual mind...but really, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought....it is all just thoughts, but sensory thoughts that we are all sharing seem more visceral to you. However, all sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind, not outside of yourself, and there is no real difference or separation between 'imagined' or 'real' sensory perceptions, except the separation or distinction that you imagine. They do feel different though, but this is because the more we narrow our attention, the more narrow and limited we feel, and the more we expand the inclusiveness of attention, the more spacious and whole we feel...so ATA feels good, because we are broadening our awareness from our own individual thoughts, to instead being solely focussed on the greater one mind's sensory thoughts....its a kind of 'un-narrowing' or greater opening of one's awareness from the individuated sensory thoughts to the group or 'whole's' sensory thoughts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:46:29 GMT -5
<tmt> We can distinguish between pure sensation -- the information that is generated by our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin -- and derivative information based on that, and then note that all of it can be modeled by neural activity and then in turn refer to that activity -- all of it, including pure sensation -- as " thought". </tmt> For clarity, I think cognition is a better word than thought for all that. sdp Yeah...but its a popularity contest ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 21:52:08 GMT -5
"bit off"? Bee specific then ... what, in your opinion, constitutes the senses? My observations lead me to conceptualizing 'senses' just as I conceptualize any other thought...every thought you have is based on a sensory perception, even 'word' thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mind, usually conceptualizing an aggregate of other sensory perceptions...the difference between you and me, is that you separate 'real' sensory perceptions from 'imagined' sensory perceptions. All sensory perception originate and appear in the mind, and no place else...our interconnectivity, our astonishingly INTIMATE interconnectivity, means that many of the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mind, while sensory perception that you perceive as imagined occur momentarily in what you perceive as your separate and individual mind...but really, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought....it is all just thoughts, but sensory thoughts that we are all sharing seem more visceral to you. However, all sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind, not outside of yourself, and there is no real difference or separation between 'imagined' or 'real' sensory perceptions, except the separation or distinction that you imagine. They do feel different though, but this is because the more we narrow our attention, the more narrow and limited we feel, and the more we expand the inclusiveness of attention, the more spacious and whole we feel...so ATA feels good, because we are broadening our awareness from our own individual thoughts, to instead being solely focussed on the greater one mind's sensory thoughts....its a kind of 'un-narrowing' or greater opening of one's awareness from the individuated sensory thoughts to the group or 'whole's' sensory thoughts. You didn't answer the question -- I defined the senses as sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste and you replied that that list was "a bit off" ... so, what other senses did you have in mind?  As to the rest .. sorry dude, nuthin' personal .. but ...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 21:55:33 GMT -5
My observations lead me to conceptualizing 'senses' just as I conceptualize any other thought...every thought you have is based on a sensory perception, even 'word' thoughts are really auditory sensory perceptions appearing in your mind, usually conceptualizing an aggregate of other sensory perceptions...the difference between you and me, is that you separate 'real' sensory perceptions from 'imagined' sensory perceptions. All sensory perception originate and appear in the mind, and no place else...our interconnectivity, our astonishingly INTIMATE interconnectivity, means that many of the sensory thats that occur are occurring in the same unified mind, while sensory perception that you perceive as imagined occur momentarily in what you perceive as your separate and individual mind...but really, its all one mind, as evidenced by our capacity to have a "shared" sensory thought....it is all just thoughts, but sensory thoughts that we are all sharing seem more visceral to you. However, all sensory experiences originate and happen in the mind, not outside of yourself, and there is no real difference or separation between 'imagined' or 'real' sensory perceptions, except the separation or distinction that you imagine. They do feel different though, but this is because the more we narrow our attention, the more narrow and limited we feel, and the more we expand the inclusiveness of attention, the more spacious and whole we feel...so ATA feels good, because we are broadening our awareness from our own individual thoughts, to instead being solely focussed on the greater one mind's sensory thoughts....its a kind of 'un-narrowing' or greater opening of one's awareness from the individuated sensory thoughts to the group or 'whole's' sensory thoughts. You didn't answer the question -- I defined the senses as sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste and you replied that that list was "a bit off" ... so, what other senses did you have in mind? As to the rest .. sorry dude, nuthin' personal .. but ... Haha sleepy...the 'bit off' comment was not about your list of senses, it was about you saying the originated from the eyes, ears, skin, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 22:02:24 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question -- I defined the senses as sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste and you replied that that list was "a bit off" ... so, what other senses did you have in mind? As to the rest .. sorry dude, nuthin' personal .. but ... Haha sleepy...the 'bit off' comment was not about your list of senses, it was about you saying the originated from the eyes, ears, skin, etc... The entirety of all creation might contribute to the moonlight you see but the image in your mind doesn't include the dark side of it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 22:04:53 GMT -5
Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? I think you will find this to be obvious if you investigate ;-) Not all thoughts are 'word' thoughts, haha, not even all people 'think' using word thoughts, some people think in terms of images, especially lifelong deaf people. Look closely at the process by which you 'perceive' any sensory experience, look at an object intently, then close your eyes and still see it in your mind's eye, then open your eyes again and look...repeat this in rapid succession, opening and closing your eyes quickly....see where the 'sensory' field appears and where the imaginary sensory field appear...are they not both in your mind? If you spend a few days observing sensory perceptions VERY closely, you will see that 'sensory' perceptions arise in the mind just like any other thoughts. This is quite accurate, you mentioned it again in a recent post, I could have replied there, also. This is actually very 'mind blowing' and is the basis for the film The Matrix. I saw this as a teenager and figured that everybody eventually saw it but on occasion when I discuss it with people or post about with other people (I don't think it's ever come up here on ST's?, it's pretty much neurophilosophy) they usually have that blank stare. Consider, there is no light in your brain, it's very dark inside there. Light enters your eyes and is encoded into electrical signals that travel down the nerves. The electrical signals from the eyes get sent to the visual centers in the brain, cross synapses where the coded signal is changed from electricity (ions, not electrons) to chemical coding, the synapse fires, thousands fire, and we 'see' the exterior world. But what we are seeing is not the exterior, because, as I said, no light in the brain, we are seeing a representation of the exterior world. What we are seeing is constructed by the brain. The other five senses work in the same way. We never directly experience the exterior world. I got that as a teenager just contemplating... Later we studied Kant in a college class, this was my first confirmation of what I had seen. empty is precisely correct (but nonetheless, I have an issue I will address ASAP, I believe our representations are a very accurate picture of the world. That's not the precise issue, but it's a start). Everything you are seeing right now, is actually inside your head. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 22:09:29 GMT -5
I think you will find this to be obvious if you investigate ;-) Not all thoughts are 'word' thoughts, haha, not even all people 'think' using word thoughts, some people think in terms of images, especially lifelong deaf people. Look closely at the process by which you 'perceive' any sensory experience, look at an object intently, then close your eyes and still see it in your mind's eye, then open your eyes again and look...repeat this in rapid succession, opening and closing your eyes quickly....see where the 'sensory' field appears and where the imaginary sensory field appear...are they not both in your mind? If you spend a few days observing sensory perceptions VERY closely, you will see that 'sensory' perceptions arise in the mind just like any other thoughts. This is quite accurate, you mentioned it again in a recent post, I could have replied there, also. This is actually very 'mind blowing' and is the basis for the film The Matrix. I saw this as a teenager and figured that everybody eventually saw it but on occasion when I discuss it with people or post about with other people (I don't think it's ever come up here on ST's, it's pretty much neurophilosophy) they usually have that blank stare. Consider, there is no light in your brain, it's very dark inside there. Light enters your eyes and is encoded into electrical signals that travel down the nerves. The electrical signals from the eyes get sent to the visual centers in the brain, cross synapses where the coded signal is changed from electricity (ions, not electrons) to chemical coding, the synapse fires, thousands fire, and we 'see' the exterior world. But what we are seeing is not the exterior, because, as I said, no light in the brain, we are seeing a representation of the exterior world. What we are seeing is constructed by the brain. The other five senses work in the same way. We never directly experience the exterior world. I got that as a teenager just contemplating... Later we studied Kant in a college class, this was my first confirmation of what I had seen. empty is precisely correct (but nonetheless, I have an issue I will address ASAP, I believe our representations are a very accurate picture of the world. That's not the precise issue, but it's a start). Everything you are seeing right now, is actually inside your head, sdp Experience can be reduced in the abstract to a representation of information and perspective is inherently unique and limited.  get over it! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2014 22:12:15 GMT -5
This is quite accurate, you mentioned it again in a recent post, I could have replied there, also. This is actually very 'mind blowing' and is the basis for the film The Matrix. I saw this as a teenager and figured that everybody eventually saw it but on occasion when I discuss it with people or post about with other people (I don't think it's ever come up here on ST's, it's pretty much neurophilosophy) they usually have that blank stare. Consider, there is no light in your brain, it's very dark inside there. Light enters your eyes and is encoded into electrical signals that travel down the nerves. The electrical signals from the eyes get sent to the visual centers in the brain, cross synapses where the coded signal is changed from electricity (ions, not electrons) to chemical coding, the synapse fires, thousands fire, and we 'see' the exterior world. But what we are seeing is not the exterior, because, as I said, no light in the brain, we are seeing a representation of the exterior world. What we are seeing is constructed by the brain. The other five senses work in the same way. We never directly experience the exterior world. I got that as a teenager just contemplating... Later we studied Kant in a college class, this was my first confirmation of what I had seen. empty is precisely correct (but nonetheless, I have an issue I will address ASAP, I believe our representations are a very accurate picture of the world. That's not the precise issue, but it's a start). Everything you are seeing right now, is actually inside your head, sdp Experience can be reduced in the abstract to a representation of information and perspective is inherently unique and limited. get over it! I don't understand your comment. Everything you sense is a recreation in the brain, a representation. You don't experience the world directly. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 22:20:58 GMT -5
Experience can be reduced in the abstract to a representation of information and perspective is inherently unique and limited. get over it! I don't understand your comment. Everything you sense is a recreation in the brain, a representation. "Experience can be reduced in the abstract to a representation of information" seems to me to be a generalization of "Everything you sense is a recreation in the brain". It's an obvious model for the "forest" of what "we take to be reality". There are a number of uses for this model, but it's only a model. You don't experience the world directly. sdp If you take the model literally, sure ... but the distinction between "direct experience" and experience has a different meaning for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 22:34:57 GMT -5
You are both working from the assumption that there is an 'out there' that is occurring pseudo independent of whats going on 'in here', and that whats 'in here' is picking up on whats out there by whatever mechanism you model...
No in here or out there, all just thoughts...
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 20, 2014 22:42:05 GMT -5
You are both working from the assumption that there is an 'out there' that is occurring pseudo independent of whats going on 'in here', and that whats 'in here' is picking up on whats out there by whatever mechanism you model... No in here or out there, all just thoughts... No, actually, the context of that dichotomy was established by what you wrote here: Ahh...I forgot that many of you are only just now beginning to realize that all of these appearances are just aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind, with no independent 'reality' of their own lol Without someone to appear to, there are no appearances, and without one to sense, there are no senses: perception requires a perceiver. "Universal Mind"?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 20, 2014 22:49:12 GMT -5
Shorry, it's necessary to ask you a few questions before your winnings can be transferred to your bank account.  So what you mean to say is that your attention is focused on the bodily senses? It's about time you broke out the sledgehammer.   |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 20, 2014 22:57:44 GMT -5
Its interesting this emphasis on body and sensory awareness that this thread is talking about in light of some 'out of body' stuff thats been going on over here lately... I started running again, and am a 43 year old couch (or meditation pillow) potato that is 70 pounds over weight. I've been running for only a couple weeks, but ran the half marathon distance this last weekend without walking or taking a break...almost 3 hours of continuous running with no real preparation or conditioning to support it... The only way I was able to do it, and do other long runs of an hour or more everyday lately, is that I kinda shut off almost all awareness of the body...It's hard to describe, but I just kinda exit the body and its sensory perceptions and just let it go on autopilot so to speak. It feels kinda like flying without a body. Occasionally something will happen, like I will just start running so fluidly hat the speed will surprise me and kinda pull me back into body awareness, and then there is much pain and discomfort, and even a touch of fear that I am going too far beyond this body's limits, and could be doing damage...but then I just move out of the body again and let it go on autopilot...seems like when this happens the body tales care of itself by running efficiently etc. The main thing is though, that when I'm 'flying', there is no body awareness, only a kind of feeling of a body-less me in effortless motion...the mind is still active as it ever is during these periods, but the awareness of body is missing, much like it is in deep Samadhi or sleep. It's not missing, it's never been there. The awareness of the body has never been there? In what sense? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 23:09:06 GMT -5
The obvious seems to be stumping people on this forum lately, even after being invited to investigate. I didn't do for sdp so I probably won't be doing for you. Okay....I think you'll find me somewhat less insistent lol You seem to enjoy viewing thoughts as something that has a 'realness' and independence from yourself....far be it from me to get between a boy and his toys :-) Sorry, I don't know what your talking about. You think maybe I should add that to my list of investigations? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 20, 2014 23:09:48 GMT -5
Ahh...I forgot that many of you are only just now beginning to realize that all of these appearances are just aggregated sensory perceptions happening in the mind, with no independent 'reality' of their own lol Soon you will figure out that its all just different kinds of passing thoughts, including the sensory perceptions that you define as 'the real'. ZD is 'advanced' on this path more than most of you will ever fully realize in this lifetime, but even he has not yet realized that sensory perceptions are just as much ephemeral thoughts as a judgement call about right or wrong etc. Good to see many of you starting to move in the direction of 'beyond that' with regard to the body and sensory perceptions being more real than any other kinds of thoughts :-) Sorry I don't understand, you think sensations are thoughts? Seeing is a thought? Hearing is a thought? And tasting is a thought? And all these perceptions and thoughts happen in a mind? Where did you think sensory perceptions were happening? |
|
get over it!
