|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 12:38:34 GMT -5
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. Pretty simple, we focus on the points where we agree. If you'd do that with all your relationships in life, you'd see a major improvement. It is law. Ah! Ha!, so that means you do disagree. Thanks, I appreciate that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 12:44:16 GMT -5
Deliberate creation and LOA is the thingness context. And the thingness context is also the practical everyday life context. And in that context, and understanding of LOA and deliberate creation has enormous value. In the context of absolute truth, it has no relevance, of course. But that's not where everyday life happens. When someone asks you who you are, you answer with your name, you don't tell them that you are All-That-Is or the ground of being, right? But how can anyone say OTOH there is nobody doing anything, and OToH speak of deliberate creation? Extensions of Source.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 12:50:49 GMT -5
Pretty simple, we focus on the points where we agree. If you'd do that with all your relationships in life, you'd see a major improvement. It is law. Ah! Ha!, so that means you do disagree. Thanks, I appreciate that. Some minor things only and some differences in topics of interest. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 12:52:47 GMT -5
I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food. That was cool lol animals are brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 30, 2023 12:56:10 GMT -5
This and zd's posts remind me of Tolle telling folks to observe the world without labels. If there is 'a world' of any sort TO observe, distinction has arisen. The merest arising sense is a distinction arising within/to the unwavering, unmoving ground of awareness.
To observe with an application of labels to everything is akin to whole "lines of latitude/longitude" application. Mentally labelling things constantly involves a mental overlay upon basic experience....an overlay applied upon basic, appearing content.
I saw a violent swirl in one of the salt water rivers nearby. Nothing I'd ever seen before. It didn’t fit into any of the visual categories of things I've seen. It was frightening and enthralling. Then when I moved closer I saw it was a herd of manatees swimming furiously in a circle. Is the distinction between perceptual and conceptual distinctions also a conceptual distinction and therefore imaginary? What does that imply? To me it means "practicing the deepest wisdom" trumps the conclusions we draw from it.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 30, 2023 12:58:30 GMT -5
... Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Unrelated to the present situation, I think that it is the teacher's fault. A teacher's purpose is to teach, not to just convey information. Even more, a teacher is supposed to be able to help even a pupil who has a higher potential than the teacher's. If one teaching approach doesn't work, the teacher needs to find an approach that works. On the other hand, not everybody (who knows / who believes he knows / who is thought to know) has to teach. Not everybody who wants to teach is a good teacher. The present situation doesn't seem to be a teaching setup.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 13:03:28 GMT -5
Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Yes. Most of us are only interested in defending our own position, trying to get other people to see we are obviously correct. It's very difficult to change our position, our POV. |\__/,| (`\ _.|o o |_ ) ) -(((---(((--------
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 13:08:31 GMT -5
... Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Unrelated to the present situation, I think that it is the teacher's fault. A teacher's purpose is to teach, not to just convey information. Even more, a teacher is supposed to be able to help even a pupil who has a higher potential than the teacher's. If one teaching approach doesn't work, the teacher needs to find an approach that works. On the other hand, not everybody (who knows / who believes he knows / who is thought to know) has to teach. Not everybody who wants to teach is a good teacher. The present situation doesn't seem to be a teaching setup. It takes two to tango. Every relationship is a rendezvous. But I agree in the sense that a good teacher wouldn't accept that kind of student or futile situation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2023 13:11:12 GMT -5
That was cool lol animals are brilliant. Notice how the parrot was only interested in play and having fun and not in proving anything to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 13:19:56 GMT -5
Yes. Maybe I don't understand ZD definition of distinction? It seems animals necessarily recognize distinctions (absent abstractions). I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food. My concept of what the word "distinction" points to is different than simple perception, and it involves an act of psychological/imaginative division of THIS into at least two states--A and not-A. There are some incredibly humorous videos of babies eating lemons for the first time. The baby doesn't know that it's being handed a lemon, or that a lemon is acidic, or bitter, or tastes a particular way, etc. It sucks on the lemon, scrunches up its face, looks at the lemon, sucks on it again, scrunches up its face, etc. This is direct perception and a direct body response without anything being imagined. The baby doesn't think of itself as a separate volitional entity sucking on something separate from itself; it simply sees, tastes, and responds. Later, it will be conditioned by other humans to distinguish a lemon as a separate thing, labeled "lemon," and it will make many other distinctions about lemons as well as various judgements. As a baby, everything is direct and unmediated by ideation because it hasn't yet attained sufficient intellectual development to form various concepts about itself and the world. I can understand why others might want to define the word more broadly, but from my POV an act of imagination is involved in what I call the act of distinction. Adult humans have already internalized millions of distinctions about the world, and they know the world in two different ways, both directly through the body and what we might call "subconscious mental processing" and through thoughts about it. It's the difference between gnosis and episteme. An adult who accidentally touches a hot stovetop does not need to think in order to jerk its hand away, and that's what I could call "a direct response to direct sensory perception." If an adult looks at the world in mental silence, it sees "what is" as it is, but it does so without conscious distinction because there's no thought ABOUT what's being seen. The seeing is "empty" because the world is not being seen through a filter of images, ideas, and symbols.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 30, 2023 13:20:11 GMT -5
I haven't read the following yet, I just posed the question and copied. Looks like a 3-4 minute read. Reading now. Note my original statement. Could you explain current knowledge concerning perception, how we don't perceive the world directly, that incoming sensory input is combined with existing memory in the brain to form our perceptions. One name for this process is predictive processing. ChatGPT Perception is the process by which we interpret and make sense of sensory information from the external world. However, our perception of the world is not simply a direct reflection of the incoming sensory input. Instead, it is influenced by various factors, including our prior experiences, expectations, and existing knowledge stored in our memory. One framework that explains how our perceptions are formed by combining sensory input with internal predictions and expectations is called predictive processing. Predictive processing is a theoretical model that suggests our brains generate predictions about the world based on prior knowledge and use these predictions to interpret incoming sensory information. These predictions are compared with the actual sensory input, and any discrepancies between the predictions and the incoming information lead to updates in our mental models or expectations. In predictive processing, the brain is seen as a prediction machine that constantly generates and updates predictions at multiple levels of processing, from low-level sensory processing to high-level cognitive processing. These predictions are based on our previous experiences and learned statistical regularities in the environment. The brain uses these predictions to anticipate the sensory input it expects to receive, allowing for efficient processing of incoming information. When the sensory input matches our predictions, the brain doesn't need to make significant adjustments, and our perception aligns with our expectations. However, when there is a mismatch between predictions and sensory input, it can lead to a process called prediction error. Prediction error signals indicate a discrepancy between what was predicted and what was actually perceived, and they play a crucial role in updating our internal models and adjusting our future predictions. The brain continually updates its internal models through a process of inference, where it iteratively adjusts predictions and minimizes prediction errors. This iterative process helps refine our perceptions and bring them closer to the true nature of the external world. Predictive processing is a broad theoretical framework that has been applied to various domains, including vision, audition, language processing, and decision-making. It provides a compelling explanation for how our perceptions are not passive reflections of sensory input but are actively constructed by our brains through the interplay between predictions and incoming sensory information. It's important to note that while predictive processing offers valuable insights into perception, it is still an active area of research, and there is ongoing scientific debate and exploration to refine and expand our understanding of this process. Ask it what is the difference between ordinary human perception and non-dual direct perception.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 13:23:20 GMT -5
Ah! Ha!, so that means you do disagree. Thanks, I appreciate that. Some minor things only and some differences in topics of interest. That's all. ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I guess my view is that where we agree is relatively meaningless. It's where we disagree that the rubber hits the road. But the universe loves paradox, where two things can be true. But see then, a "3-layer universe" explains paradox. Context is everything. A 3-layer universe explains war and killing and terrorism and "evil". Everyone is trying to live in their own best interests.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 13:23:28 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a direct perception. Question: In terms of non-duality is direct perception pure and can it be tainted by anything? ChatGPT: In the context of non-duality, direct perception is often considered to be pure and untainted by conceptual overlays or distortions. It is seen as a form of unfiltered awareness that allows for a direct and immediate experience of reality as it is, free from the influence of conditioned beliefs, interpretations, or judgments. Direct perception is not bound by the limitations of the conceptual mind, which tends to categorize, label, and interpret experiences based on past conditioning and beliefs. It is a mode of perception that bypasses the filters of the thinking mind and allows for a more direct apprehension of the present moment. However, it's important to note that even in the state of direct perception, the influence of conditioning and personal biases can still arise. The conditioning and patterns of the mind can create subtle biases or distortions that influence our perception, even if we are in a state of direct awareness. Question: You said "However, it's important to note that even in the state of direct perception, the influence of conditioning and personal biases can still arise. The conditioning and patterns of the mind can create subtle biases or distortions that influence our perception, even if we are in a state of direct awareness." Does this mean that the conditioning and biases happen simultaneous with the direct perception or afterwards?
ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. Conditioning and biases typically arise after the act of direct perception, during the subsequent interpretation and processing of the perceived experience. Direct perception itself refers to the immediate, unfiltered apprehension of reality without the interference of conditioning, biases, or conceptual frameworks. It is the raw, direct experience of the present moment. However, once the direct perception occurs, our conditioning and biases can come into play during the process of interpretation, making sense of, and responding to what has been perceived. Our pre-existing beliefs, past experiences, cultural conditioning, and cognitive biases can influence how we interpret, understand, and assign meaning to the direct perception. To clarify, conditioning and biases do not happen simultaneously with direct perception, but rather after the initial act of perception during the subsequent cognitive processes that follow. Yes, that's what my previous post was pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 13:30:42 GMT -5
I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food. My concept of what the word "distinction" points to is different than simple perception, and it involves an act of psychological/imaginative division of THIS into at least two states--A and not-A. There are some incredibly humorous videos of babies eating lemons for the first time. The baby doesn't know that it's being handed a lemon, or that a lemon is acidic, or bitter, or tastes a particular way, etc. It sucks on the lemon, scrunches up its face, looks at the lemon, sucks on it again, scrunches up its face, etc. This is direct perception and a direct body response without anything being imagined. The baby doesn't think of itself as a separate volitional entity sucking on something separate from itself; it simply sees, tastes, and responds. Later, it will be conditioned by other humans to distinguish a lemon as a separate thing, labeled "lemon," and it will make many other distinctions about lemons as well as various judgements. As a baby, everything is direct and unmediated by ideation because it hasn't yet attained sufficient intellectual development to form various concepts about itself and the world. I can understand why others might want to define the word more broadly, but from my POV an act of imagination is involved in what I call the act of distinction. Adult humans have already internalized millions of distinctions about the world, and they know the world in two different ways, both directly through the body and what we might call "subconscious mental processing" and through thoughts about it. It's the difference between gnosis and episteme. An adult who accidentally touches a hot stovetop does not need to think in order to jerk its hand away, and that's what I could call "a direct response to direct sensory perception." If an adult looks at the world in mental silence, it sees "what is" as it is, but it does so without conscious distinction because there's no thought ABOUT what's being seen. The seeing is "empty" because the world is not being seen through a filter of images, ideas, and symbols. Thanks for that ZD, it seems this is all just a matter of definition. In earlier posts I was trying to point out that there is a distinction between a "lemon and a peach" (the fruit...a lemon would taste just as sour even if you called it a peach), apart from human beings, period.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 13:35:31 GMT -5
I haven't read the following yet, I just posed the question and copied. Looks like a 3-4 minute read. Reading now. Note my original statement. Could you explain current knowledge concerning perception, how we don't perceive the world directly, that incoming sensory input is combined with existing memory in the brain to form our perceptions. One name for this process is predictive processing. ChatGPT Perception is the process by which we interpret and make sense of sensory information from the external world. However, our perception of the world is not simply a direct reflection of the incoming sensory input. Instead, it is influenced by various factors, including our prior experiences, expectations, and existing knowledge stored in our memory. One framework that explains how our perceptions are formed by combining sensory input with internal predictions and expectations is called predictive processing. Predictive processing is a theoretical model that suggests our brains generate predictions about the world based on prior knowledge and use these predictions to interpret incoming sensory information. These predictions are compared with the actual sensory input, and any discrepancies between the predictions and the incoming information lead to updates in our mental models or expectations. In predictive processing, the brain is seen as a prediction machine that constantly generates and updates predictions at multiple levels of processing, from low-level sensory processing to high-level cognitive processing. These predictions are based on our previous experiences and learned statistical regularities in the environment. The brain uses these predictions to anticipate the sensory input it expects to receive, allowing for efficient processing of incoming information. When the sensory input matches our predictions, the brain doesn't need to make significant adjustments, and our perception aligns with our expectations. However, when there is a mismatch between predictions and sensory input, it can lead to a process called prediction error. Prediction error signals indicate a discrepancy between what was predicted and what was actually perceived, and they play a crucial role in updating our internal models and adjusting our future predictions. The brain continually updates its internal models through a process of inference, where it iteratively adjusts predictions and minimizes prediction errors. This iterative process helps refine our perceptions and bring them closer to the true nature of the external world. Predictive processing is a broad theoretical framework that has been applied to various domains, including vision, audition, language processing, and decision-making. It provides a compelling explanation for how our perceptions are not passive reflections of sensory input but are actively constructed by our brains through the interplay between predictions and incoming sensory information. It's important to note that while predictive processing offers valuable insights into perception, it is still an active area of research, and there is ongoing scientific debate and exploration to refine and expand our understanding of this process. Ask it what is the difference between ordinary human perception and non-dual direct perception. I'd say the difference is not a difference in perception. The difference lies elsewhere.
|
|