Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2023 22:45:10 GMT -5
'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right. This is an interesting conversation. As I understand these ... The rock that I perceive is a virtual rock created by my subconscious. So, in itself that rock is an "appearance", it doesn't objectively exist. The appearance I perceive isn't identical to any other perceiver's appearance of that rock. On the other hand, what my subconscious creates is based on its connections (potentially) to all the consciousnesses that exist (although some connections weight more than others, function of my personality's state of consciousness and focus). The rock in itself isn't a gestalt of consciousness. It doesn't have an identity. It is a grouping of "more elementary" gestalts and units of consciousness. Those are conscious, even self-conscious, but surely in a different way than a human is self-consciousness, as gestalt of consciousness. The rock doesn't have an appearance of itself. When Gopal says "from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know.", I guess that he means that that I is his conscious I, the perceiver of appearances created by his associated subconscious, interconnected at non-physical level, that may choose for whatever reason to create an appearance of "you", that may or may not have a corresponding "you" as a gestalt of consciousness associated with an identity. It could just be an appearance. Even Gopal himself doesn't objectively exist, as he perceives only an appearance of himself, created by his subconscious. But he knows that he is / has an identity. Yes. Everything is an appearance that includes my own body as well. When I turn my focus from mountain to sea, mountain disappear sea starts to appear. But creator is not interconnected subconscious, there is only consciousness which creates and perceives.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2023 2:38:29 GMT -5
This is an interesting conversation. As I understand these ... The rock that I perceive is a virtual rock created by my subconscious. So, in itself that rock is an "appearance", it doesn't objectively exist. The appearance I perceive isn't identical to any other perceiver's appearance of that rock. On the other hand, what my subconscious creates is based on its connections (potentially) to all the consciousnesses that exist (although some connections weight more than others, function of my personality's state of consciousness and focus). The rock in itself isn't a gestalt of consciousness. It doesn't have an identity. It is a grouping of "more elementary" gestalts and units of consciousness. Those are conscious, even self-conscious, but surely in a different way than a human is self-consciousness, as gestalt of consciousness. The rock doesn't have an appearance of itself. When Gopal says "from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know.", I guess that he means that that I is his conscious I, the perceiver of appearances created by his associated subconscious, interconnected at non-physical level, that may choose for whatever reason to create an appearance of "you", that may or may not have a corresponding "you" as a gestalt of consciousness associated with an identity. It could just be an appearance. Even Gopal himself doesn't objectively exist, as he perceives only an appearance of himself, created by his subconscious. But he knows that he is / has an identity. Yes. Everything is an appearance that includes my own body as well. When I turn my focus from mountain to sea, mountain disappear sea starts to appear. But creator is not interconnected subconscious, there is only consciousness which creates and perceives. And like magic...the mountain is gone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 2:47:15 GMT -5
Yes. Everything is an appearance that includes my own body as well. When I turn my focus from mountain to sea, mountain disappear sea starts to appear. But creator is not interconnected subconscious, there is only consciousness which creates and perceives. And like magic...the mountain is gone
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 8:04:13 GMT -5
I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . I don't understand what from your perspective the difference is between the appearance 'rock' and the appearance 'reefs'? Both are appearances to you, right.
So how can you be sure the rock is not conscious (because it is appearance) but can't know whether the appearance reefs is conscious or not. It doesn't track. So can you explain the apparent distinction you are making between rock and reefs in order to reach your conclusions?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 8:55:57 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence.
So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no?
So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 23, 2023 9:19:35 GMT -5
You can reduce the world to an appearance until you see that what identifies as you is also that, then things change drastically. Mountains become mountains again.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 9:41:41 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence. So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no? So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain. Let me try (not to speak for Gopal). This is probably more of an analogy (that's important, for Gopal, see it?). Take your body (or your own consciousness). ~You~ kind of exist inside the black box of your brain-mind-body. It's dark in your brain, no light. The world touches your senses, let's take the eyes, but it works the same for all 5. Photons hit your eyes, some hit the rods, some hit the cones, rods gives you black and white, cones gives you color, red, green and blue (only those colors). Then, this information travels down the nerves to the brain. The light stops at the eyes, it then becomes coded traveling the nerves. When it gets to the brain the info is passed around to about 6 or 7 vision centers, different areas of the brain. These different areas interpret different parts of the info, different patterns. One area deciphers vertical and horizontal. Then, the info is compared to already-existing data in the brain. Say the brain has already experienced an elephant. The brain is basically a prediction machine. So the brain takes the sensory data, it's processing the info. At some point it says, yea, that's an elephant you're seeing, and combines its existing elephant-patterns with the incoming data, and you see an elephant. All this happens in a fraction of a second. I've studied perception extensively, this is essentially how it works. There are sensory neurons which carry data from the outside world to the brain. There are motor neurons going out from the brain to the muscles telling them what to do. But there are no nerves going back to the outside world. So, everything you are seeing, right now, it occurring inside your own brain. You are not seeing the outside world, you are seeing your brains representation of the outside world. Now, I saw all of that at age 18, I traced it all out just like that, on my own, I later read it and confirmed in from books on perception. (Philosophy 101 got me going there, Hume, Locke, but especially Bishop Berkeley). Bertrand Russell gives a good account of this in one of his books. Later, I had a class, Descartes to Kant. We spent about 3 weeks on Descartes, we spent one day on Kant, and it was a lunch-party-seminar at the professors apartment. Kant is really hard, but he knew all this also. Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what's-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels). Gopal is absolutely refutable, believe me, I've tried. All this is why I say the world is a hall of mirrors (I didn't originate that). Our own ~psychology~ is even more devious. Our own psychology performs the same operation in relation to experiencing other people, and understanding other people and events. We see other people and events according to how-we-are, we don't see objectively. So we are always *projecting*, ourselves, out on-to other people and events. So what we see is merely a reflection of who-we-are. Thus, the world is a hall of mirrors, it reflects back to us, what-we-are-inside. That's why everybody has their own opinion, or even their own data, we *~twist~* everything that enters our consciousness (enters the brain, then, the result enters-forms our consciousness). This is VERY difficult to see, it is exceptionally difficult to be objective. Because everything validates our own view of the world, because the only thing we see is our own view. It's exceptionally difficult to get outside of our own view. You'll read all this, according to your own view, and immediately call it bs. See how that works? It's almost foolproof. Almost, but there is a way out. So, it's almost nonsense to say what ~operates~ in-us, is the Whole. Yes, it's the Whole, but it all passes through our own body-brain-mind-consciousness, our own psychology. This is crystal clear to me, how human consciousness operates, how it operates in-relation to what's-out-there.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 10:05:02 GMT -5
You can reduce the world to an appearance until you see that what identifies as you is also that, then things change drastically. Mountains become mountains again. I agree, but it's more complicated than that. See post above. There is Consciousness, and then there is consciousness. consciousness is a subset of Consciousness, and is subject to what's gone in-to somewhat in the post above. So I'd say it's rather difficult to get past-one's-own-psychology/consciousness. And we can fool ourselves because of the very nature of our consciousness in relation to Consciousness. But of course, here, for 14 years, I've basically been beating my head against a wall.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 10:20:42 GMT -5
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . 'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right. andrew, you might be the only one here on ST's forum with the patience to read my (longer) reply above. But if you go through it, it explains Gopal's position. We can only know our own experience, that's what Gopal is saying. And corollary to that, we cannot know that-which-is-feeding our consciousness, that, could be merely an appearance (gone into in the longer post). It could be a false data feed, it could be imaginary. There is a WALL which separates us from everything else. We ARE the wall. Plato saw all this clearly, thus his allegory of the cave. Gopal is half-way out of the cave. He knows he's only seeing shadows on the wall, but he hasn't climbed out to see the actual Sun and the actual world, yet. But what Gopal sees is HUGE.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 23, 2023 11:06:48 GMT -5
You can reduce the world to an appearance until you see that what identifies as you is also that, then things change drastically. Mountains become mountains again. I agree, but it's more complicated than that. See post above. There is Consciousness, and then there is consciousness. consciousness is a subset of Consciousness, and is subject to what's gone in-to somewhat in the post above. So I'd say it's rather difficult to get past-one's-own-psychology/consciousness. And we can fool ourselves because of the very nature of our consciousness in relation to Consciousness. But of course, here, for 14 years, I've basically been beating my head against a wall. So when Gopal loses consciousness, is there still a Gopal?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2023 11:21:02 GMT -5
I agree, but it's more complicated than that. See post above. There is Consciousness, and then there is consciousness. consciousness is a subset of Consciousness, and is subject to what's gone in-to somewhat in the post above. So I'd say it's rather difficult to get past-one's-own-psychology/consciousness. And we can fool ourselves because of the very nature of our consciousness in relation to Consciousness. But of course, here, for 14 years, I've basically been beating my head against a wall. So when Gopal loses consciousness, is there still a Gopal? That's a very good question. Maybe Gopal can answer.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 23, 2023 11:26:29 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence. So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no? So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain. ... Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels) .... If he knows the outer world doesn't exist, that doesn't leave any room for not-knowing in the case of reefs. Reefs would have to be merely appearance by default, and therefore not conscious. I mean, what's the alternative .... potentially two innies interacting, with no outies? It becomes nonsensical. He says he knows the consciousness of the rock, or rather the absence thereof. Which is not a courtesy he extends to reefs. Thats the point, that discrepancy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 11:43:52 GMT -5
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . I don't understand what from your perspective the difference is between the appearance 'rock' and the appearance 'reefs'? Both are appearances to you, right.
So how can you be sure the rock is not conscious (because it is appearance) but can't know whether the appearance reefs is conscious or not. It doesn't track. So can you explain the apparent distinction you are making between rock and reefs in order to reach your conclusions? Ultimately rock and reefs don't differ for me because both are appearing to me. But reefs is appears to be conscious but rock is not. But reefs appears to be conscious doesn't make more better than rock. Ultimately One can't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 11:44:57 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence. So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no? So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain. No, no you are correct with your reasoning. yes, rock and reefs doesn't differ in any way. Both are appearances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2023 11:48:34 GMT -5
Gopal, If I remember correctly, you define appearance as that which does not exist in its own right, or in itself. That which has no independent existence. So, the question is, if both reefs and rock appear to you, what is the distinction. How can you be certain rock does not fit that criteria but be uncertain whether reefs does or not. Both are subject to same process of perception, no? So I feel like I must be missing something in your reasoning. Please explain. Let me try (not to speak for Gopal). This is probably more of an analogy (that's important, for Gopal, see it?). Take your body (or your own consciousness). ~You~ kind of exist inside the black box of your brain-mind-body. It's dark in your brain, no light. The world touches your senses, lets take the eyes, but it works the same for all 5. Photons hit your eyes, some hits the rods, some hit the cones, rods gives you black and white, one gives you color, red, green and blue (only those colors). Then, this information travels down the nerves to the brain. The light stops at the eyes, it then becomes coded traveling the nerves. When it gets to the brain the info is passed around to about 6 or 7 vision centers, different areas of the brain. These different areas interpret different parts of the info, different patterns. One area deciphers vertical and horizontal. Then, the info is compared to already-existing data in the brain. Say the brain has already experienced an elephant. The brain is basically a prediction machine. So the brain takes the sensory data, it's processing the info. At some point it says, yea, that's an elephant your seeing, and combines its existing elephant-patterns with the incoming data, and you see an elephant. All this happens in a fraction of a second. I've studied perception extensively, this is essentially how it works. There are sensory neurons from the outside world to the brain. There are motor neurons going out to the muscles telling them what to do. But there are no nerves going back to the outside world. So, everything you are seeing, right now, it occurring inside your own brain. You are not seeing the outside world, you are seeing your brains representation of the outside world. Now, I saw all of that at age 18, I traced it all out just like that, on my own, I later read it and confirmed in from books on perception. (Philosophy 101 got me going there, Hume, Locke, but especially Bishop Berkeley). Bertrand Russell gives a good account of this in one of his books. Later, I had a class, Descartes to Kant. We spent about 3 weeks on Descartes, we spent one day on Kant, and it was a lunch-party-seminar at the professors apartment. Kant is really hard, but he knew all this also. Now back to Gopal. Now, I had to say analogy, as Gopal says the outer world does not exist. But all this works the very same for the consciousness of Gopal. Gopal (says he) can know only his own consciousness. So you see it's all quite simple. Descartes goes into a long scenario how there can be an evil demon which is feeding false data to your senses, and so you are not seeing what-out-there, you are seeing only the info the demon is feeing you. This is why Gopal says: I can't know. He can only know his own consciousness, and it could be deceived, could be a real person there, it could be merely a false-data-feed, it could only be an appearance (a false data feed). Now, does all this sound familiar? Yep, seems the Wachowski brothers were very good philosophers, all this is a basis for the film The Matrix (and 3 sequels). Gopal is absolutely refutable, believe me, I've tried. All this is why I say the world is a hall of mirrors. Our own ~psychology~ is even more devious. Our own psychology performs the same operation in relation to experiencing other people, and understanding other people. We see other people and events according to how-we-are, we don't see objectively. So we are always *projecting*, ourselves, out on-to other people and events. So what we see is merely a reflection of who-we-are. Thus, the world is a hall of mirrors, it reflects back to us, what-we-are-inside. That's why everybody has their own opinion, or even their own data, we *~twist~* everything that enters our consciousness (enters the brain, then, the result enters-forms our consciousness). This VERY difficult to see, it is exceptionally difficult to be objective. Because everything validates our own view of the world, because all we see is our own view. It's exceptionally difficult to get outside of our own view. You'll read all this, according to your own view, and immediately call it bs. See how that works? It's almost foolproof. Almost, but there is a way out. So, it's almost nonsense to say what ~operates~ in-us, is the Whole. Yes, it's the Whole, but it all passes through our own body and our own psychology. This is crystal clear to me, how human consciousness operates, how it operates in-relation to what's-out-there. You still haven't seen the fact that consciousness creates the reality. Change your belief, you will witness the world changes too. Consciousness is simply changing it's appearances. that's all.
|
|