|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:58:36 GMT -5
It's interesting how much the recent work in AI for self-driving cars reflects all this. Basically, there are steps... 1. Camera sensors, radar, etc, take in raw photons and create a pile of raw "data". It's like the visual field, but just raw color, no "ideas". 2. (The hard part) A massive amount of software translates that field of color/data into "things", drawing outlines and labeling them "person", "lane divider line", "crosswalk", "car", "stop light", "roadkill". 3. Programmed rules like "follow line", "avoid person", etc. It's not surprising of course, because they are attempting to recreate human intelligence. But when you have to build it from scratch you really get to see all the parts. Without #2, the car has no "intelligence" and can't drive itself. Yes, what seems simple and effortless to us, is incredibly complex and requires enormous processing power for a machine. Which should make us appreciate the elegant awesomeness and perfection of our own biology in comparison. This is also a good analogy for the two different basic approaches to life. Life approached from the natural state is easy and effortless and doesn't require any explanation, but life approached from thinking and reasoning is hard and exhausting and can never get enough explanations. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 14:03:46 GMT -5
So when you are on the 'down side', is your way of handling that (or protecting yourself), 'to know that you are on the down side of the rollercoaster'? It keeps you calm rather than getting stressed and anxious about the unhappiness? Sort of a form of stoicism. That's also my impression. To me it basically is giving up, giving in to circumstances because nothing that one tried to get control over one's life worked. It's more like resignation (accepting bondage) than walking off the battlefield (which would be liberation). Which means instead of a life in flow and thriving and fulfilling your potential, you will get an even distribution of good and bad, i.e. a life of mediocrity. The thing with feeling bad, is that we are compelled to act on it in some way ('well-being' is calling us back to alignment). There are many different kinds of action to be taken, some actions make things worse, some actions are destructive to our health....we learn all sorts of nonsense strategies when we are young, though to be fair, some of these strategies do sort of work for many people (until the sh/t hits the fan). I do recall that 'this too will pass' has been a strategy that worked for me at times, at it's best it's a 'surrender to life's movements' (or a walking of the battlefield) At it's worst, it's a resignation, as you say, and does create mediocrity. Though I guess I'm less concerned with how Gopal deals with 'the down', than I am the possibility that he limits how good he can feel, on the false basis that it would then inevitably make him feel really bad. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 14:06:34 GMT -5
Yes, I really don't mind what words people use, but obviously it helps if we each understand the definitions that people are using. Pretty sure I understand what you mean by 'imagination' and it makes easy sense to me. Though actually, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word 'distinction' (I had a quick glance at SDP's thread too). The way I use the word, there would be no experience/perception without distinction. It's where the rational/calculating aspect of the mind comes in useful, without that aspect there would be no contrast, so no feeling, touching, seeing etc. So for me, the problem isn't 'distinction', it's the super strong emphasis that humans put on distinctions, which then creates a sense of 'object separation' (or meta-reality) So I think you are using the word 'distinction' a bit differently....? He means categorizing, classifying, labeling. Ah okay, that makes sense. Is that right ZD? Yes, I consider those three 'ings' to be deep in the 'rational/calculation' aspect of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 14:14:53 GMT -5
So when you are on the 'down side', is your way of handling that (or protecting yourself), 'to know that you are on the down side of the rollercoaster'? It keeps you calm rather than getting stressed and anxious about the unhappiness? Sort of a form of stoicism. That's also my impression. To me it basically is giving up, giving in to circumstances because nothing that one tried to get control over one's life worked. It's more like resignation (accepting bondage) than walking off the battlefield (which would be liberation). Which means instead of a life in flow and thriving and fulfilling your potential, you will get an even distribution of good and bad, i.e. a life of mediocrity. It's because Gopal IS his ego, is the construct. He can't get around this no matter how much people have tried to point this out over the years. It's probably the last battlefield, the last stand. Generally, it's a fear of death (I don't know if this is true in Gopal's case), not being able to get beyond ego. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 14:15:09 GMT -5
He means imagery or abstraction, (mental) representation would also work. The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. It's not nebulous if you look at it in terms of the seer, the seeing and the seen being one vs. the seer, the seeing and the seen being separated. What the intellect essentially does is re-presenting sensory input to your field of awareness. Which will give you an after the fact, second hand experience as opposed to an immediate, first hand direct experience when the intellect doesn't interfere. When the intellect interferes, experience becomes lifeless, dead and a mere data point that you can measure, categorize and store in your memory. It can be recalled again at will and experienced again. When the intellect doesn't interfere, experience becomes alive, vibrant which cannot be measured, categorized or stored somewhere. It can only be experienced here and now. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 14:22:06 GMT -5
He means imagery or abstraction, (mental) representation would also work. The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. But the 'representative' aspect of the mind IS the so-called SVP/ego/small s self. That's all it can do, it is always at least once removed from *reality*. That's it's job description. Most people consider this aspect ~ to be~ their self. Gopal (see post above) is in this category. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 14:24:15 GMT -5
The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. It's not nebulous if you look at it in terms of the seer, the seeing and the seen being one vs. the seer, the seeing and the seen being separated. What the intellect essentially does is re-presenting sensory input to your field of awareness. Which will give you an after the fact, second hand experience as opposed to an immediate, first hand direct experience when the intellect doesn't interfere. When the intellect interferes, experience becomes lifeless, dead and a mere data point that you can measure, categorize and store in your memory. It can be recalled again at will and experienced again. When the intellect doesn't interfere, experience becomes alive, vibrant which cannot be measured, categorized or stored somewhere. It can only be experienced here and now. Exactamente. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 14:25:19 GMT -5
The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. It's not nebulous if you look at it in terms of the seer, the seeing and the seen being one vs. the seer, the seeing and the seen being separated. What the intellect essentially does is re-presenting sensory input to your field of awareness. Which will give you an after the fact, second hand experience as opposed to an immediate, first hand direct experience when the intellect doesn't interfere. When the intellect interferes, experience becomes lifeless, dead and a mere data point that you can measure, categorize and store in your memory. It can be recalled again at will and experienced again. When the intellect doesn't interfere, experience becomes alive, vibrant which cannot be measured, categorized or stored somewhere. It can only be experienced here and now. I get it, but even so, when a dog sees food, it recognizes food! There is a representation happening there. I think the 3 words you used illustrate the difference here....'categorizing' was one of them. Categorizing is a very human thing to do, it requires a strong 'representing' capacity. In really simple terms, humans depend far too much on their categorizing capacity. In certain ways, the intensity of categorizing is getting really ridiculous these days (modern gender ideology springs to mind) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 14:28:14 GMT -5
The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. But the 'representative' aspect of the mind IS the so-called SVP/ego/small s self. That's all it can do, it is always at least once removed from *reality*. That's it's job description. Most people consider this aspect ~ to be~ their self. Gopal (see post above) is in this category. I can see the connection you are making between the representative aspect and 'ego'. In which case, I would have to logically argue that there is always an ego aspect of mind...even animals have an ego aspect of mind. In this sense, I see our personal stories (and attachment to them) as the problem, rather than ego itself. And again, it's that heavy reliance/dependence on that aspect of mind that creates a 'strong' ego. To add a bit more, there's not actually 2 realities. Bearing in mind you view on 'essence', I would not say that there's a reality for essence, and a reality for ego. It can seem like there's 2 realities because of the nature of perception shift, but there's not, it's just a perception shift away from the strong representing/categorizing aspect. Or in non-dual terms, there's not a reality AND a disconnected/separate 'meta-reality'. There's just a perception shift in which the aspect of our mind that creates the meta-reality loses its dominance. It doesn't cease to function altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:28:23 GMT -5
TR realization supersedes ideation. For Gopal, there is no such thing as TR, because according to him nothing exists outside of ideation. That's what I also assumed. Too bad because there's so much more to discover than that.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:29:56 GMT -5
He means categorizing, classifying, labeling. Ah okay, that makes sense. Is that right ZD? Yes, I consider those three 'ings' to be deep in the 'rational/calculation' aspect of mind. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:33:39 GMT -5
The conceptual distinction between (mental) representation and (non-mental) representation is a useful one, and I respect the value of it, but as we look closer at the line between the two, it seems nebulous. That's when Tenka steps in and says, 'it's all a thought/representation', and I respect his point of view on that too. I think my honest position is that it's a matter of degree. If there's too much trust and value in the 'representative' aspect of the mind, it intensely filters our experience in such way that creates a sense of 'separate things' ('meta-reality/mental representation'). At the other end of the scale, there's an off switch which is 'absolute samadhi'. It's not nebulous if you look at it in terms of the seer, the seeing and the seen being one vs. the seer, the seeing and the seen being separated. What the intellect essentially does is re-presenting sensory input to your field of awareness. Which will give you an after the fact, second hand experience as opposed to an immediate, first hand direct experience when the intellect doesn't interfere. When the intellect interferes, experience becomes lifeless, dead and a mere data point that you can measure, categorize and store in your memory. It can be recalled again at will and experienced again. When the intellect doesn't interfere, experience becomes alive, vibrant which cannot be measured, categorized or stored somewhere. It can only be experienced here and now. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2022 14:37:28 GMT -5
It's interesting how much the recent work in AI for self-driving cars reflects all this. Basically, there are steps... 1. Camera sensors, radar, etc, take in raw photons and create a pile of raw "data". It's like the visual field, but just raw color, no "ideas". 2. (The hard part) A massive amount of software translates that field of color/data into "things", drawing outlines and labeling them "person", "lane divider line", "crosswalk", "car", "stop light", "roadkill". 3. Programmed rules like "follow line", "avoid person", etc. It's not surprising of course, because they are attempting to recreate human intelligence. But when you have to build it from scratch you really get to see all the parts. Without #2, the car has no "intelligence" and can't drive itself. Yes, what seems simple and effortless to us, is incredibly complex and requires enormous processing power for a machine. Which should make us appreciate the elegant awesomeness and perfection of our own biology in comparison. This is also a good analogy for the two different basic approaches to life. Life approached from the natural state is easy and effortless and doesn't require any explanation, but life approached from thinking and reasoning is hard and exhausting and can never get enough explanations. Many years ago I read Jeffrey Satinover's book The Quantum Brain, it was just out (he's a pretty smart guy). From it I realized we would never have true AI unless and until computers were connected to cameras and had hearing devices so that they could collect their own data from the world. (I would define true AI by the capacity to program themselves, and ultimately have the ability to repair and multiply themselves, that is, make copies, build more and more improved). This is the way AI has evolved (developers have progressed), especially robots (self-locomoting AI). Eventually all this will ~take off~ with quantum computing. I think Moore's Law still holds, which is quite amazing in itself. Last I recall, Satinover started working on a PhD in quantum physics. I check from time to time to see if he has a new book out. If and when, it should be really good. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2022 14:38:15 GMT -5
But the 'representative' aspect of the mind IS the so-called SVP/ego/small s self. That's all it can do, it is always at least once removed from *reality*. That's it's job description. Most people consider this aspect ~ to be~ their self. Gopal (see post above) is in this category. I can see the connection you are making between the representative aspect and 'ego'. In which case, I would have to logically argue that there is always an ego...even animals have an ego. In this sense, I see our personal stories (and attachment to them) as the problem, rather than ego itself. And again, it's that heavy reliance/dependence on that aspect of mind that creates a 'strong' ego. Ramana and many of us usually go much further than that. Ramana once told a seeker, "There is no ego. Ego (and the sense of being a SVP--my addition) is the fundamental illusion." Many posters claim that ego is a survival mechanism, but this is also false. Without a sense of doership everything will still get done. To verify this one only needs to become silent and watch. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2022 14:51:14 GMT -5
I can see the connection you are making between the representative aspect and 'ego'. In which case, I would have to logically argue that there is always an ego...even animals have an ego. In this sense, I see our personal stories (and attachment to them) as the problem, rather than ego itself. And again, it's that heavy reliance/dependence on that aspect of mind that creates a 'strong' ego. Ramana and many of us usually go much further than that. Ramana once told a seeker, "There is no ego. Ego (and the sense of being a SVP--my addition) is the fundamental illusion." Many posters claim that ego is a survival mechanism, but this is also false. Without a sense of doership everything will still get done. To verify this one only needs to become silent and watch. yes, the sense of being an SVP is an illusion, I agree. In my way of expressing this, when we depend heavily on that categorizing aspect, it creates a sense of separate objects, including 'ourselves'. That is an illusion. It's false. And yes, ego too can be said to be an illusion, in that it seems that there is an 'individual' attention/awareness (in actuality, or in terms of 'Self', there is no 'individual' attention). So in every moment there is a relationship, or interaction, or 'conversation', happening with your tools, your body, your wife, your car etc. In this sense, if ego is an illusion, it is a persistent illusion, probably only gone in absolute samadhi. So in its purest sense, ego is 'individual' attention/awareness. This can be said to be illusion. In simpler terms (at least to me!), when there is experiencing, there is representing happening. How intensely that representing is happening varies radically from individual to individual, but there's not 2 different levels of experiential reality. There's not a 'representing reality' and a 'no representing reality' (I think it can be reasonably stated that absolute samadhi is a 'no representing reality') |
|
