|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2024 12:30:17 GMT -5
What does it mean to be an individual? It means you can awaken, and Tom, D!ck, or Harry or Mary, doesn't (some do, some don't). You take yourself to be one. You are not. There are parts of your self that exist on different levels. What's imaginary is the lowest level. What's not-imaginary stands on a much higher, or inner level, which is invisible to the sensory mind. The fact that there is an imaginary self does not necessarily mean there is no self in any sense. ~You~, can move up or down the stairway, or elevator in a NY second.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2024 14:15:31 GMT -5
I think that's a very good question. Maybe you should have asked this question in 2011, and we all just stuck with it. One big thread, 200000 pages long. In a way, it's the only question.
|
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 7:55:00 GMT -5
An individual is a creation of the mind based on memories of the past and projections into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2024 8:15:55 GMT -5
An individual is a creation of the mind based on memories of the past and projections into the future. Perhaps that's all it is, but there's still an experience of being individual, isn't there? (and there's the experience of values to go with it) If an 'individual' is just a product of memories/projections, what would you say makes humans different from sophisticated machines? |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 8:46:05 GMT -5
Sensate experience.
We interact with our environment through our senses and through through that realise we are also part of our environment. it is also a significant part of consciousness. I think there are 11 major senses, of the top of my head, which includes things like proprioception, the ability to feel pain and a bunch of other senses beyond the normal 5.
Machines may be programmed to mimic biological senses, but only if a human has the wherewithal to do that, and to build the necessary mechanisms to do so
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2024 9:00:59 GMT -5
Sensate experience. We interact with our environment through our senses and through through that realise we are also part of our environment. it is also a significant part of consciousness. I think there are 11 major senses, of the top of my head, which includes things like proprioception, the ability to feel pain and a bunch of other senses beyond the normal 5. Machines may be programmed to mimic biological senses, but only if a human has the wherewithal to do that, and to build the necessary mechanisms to do so Why do you think a machine can only mimic, rather than experience? (To be clear, I agree with you there). Do you think a machine can be given the mechanical technology to have these senses for real (can we include inspiration, imagination and intuition in that)? It might seem like we are drifting from SDP's question, but I don't think we are. But this is an example of why I said that we could probably have held every conversation we've ever had, under this one question. It covers SO much potential ground. |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 9:10:05 GMT -5
haha...this is interesting given my response to our parallel conversation in another thread.
I believe consciousness is a property of living systems. I have pondered, and continue to ponder whether consciousness is a quality, or function, of matter, in a similar manner to gravity, but have got nowhere on that one so far. Living systems have an intrinsic ability to respond to their environment. Human created machines do not.
We can map the rationale behind the responses of the machines we build. Given the paucity of our understanding of ourselves and of living systems in general, it seems like enormous hubris as well as illogical, to me, to attribute qualities that we have, but do not understand, to the things we make.
|
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 9:12:04 GMT -5
Is this question really any different to the perennial conundrum, "Who am I"?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2024 9:32:48 GMT -5
haha...this is interesting given my response to our parallel conversation in another thread. I believe consciousness is a property of living systems. I have pondered, and continue to ponder whether consciousness is a quality, or function, of matter, in a similar manner to gravity, but have got nowhere on that one so far. Living systems have an intrinsic ability to respond to their environment. Human created machines do not. We can map the rationale behind the responses of the machines we build. Given the paucity of our understanding of ourselves and of living systems in general, it seems like enormous hubris as well as illogical, to me, to think the things we make our able to do things we can do, but cannot understand. Yeah I can see what you are seeing there in your last sentence, though I'll be honest, that my science brain is very sketchy, so when a conversation begins to drift a little too much that way, I have to slip innocuously back into the bushes lol. I take responsibility for my role in drifting us that way. Relating to the other convo....in a way, SDP's question was asked from within the context of belief. As you said, we can observe that the individual is created in the mind through memory/projection. So whether there's anything beyond that would have to be belief. But I see this as quite interesting, and different to other beliefs, in that there's no avoiding the experience of individuality. It seems to be an experience that we are stuck with, and that the experience of individuality, is intrinsic to 'experience' itself i.e without any experience of individuality, is there any experience at all? I think we could say though that there is a way to transcend the experience of ' being an individual', and this very much relates to the non-dual investigation/pathless path. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2024 9:41:23 GMT -5
:: senses Tenka about to enter the conversation ::  |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 26, 2024 10:00:49 GMT -5
haha...this is interesting given my response to our parallel conversation in another thread. I believe consciousness is a property of living systems. I have pondered, and continue to ponder whether consciousness is a quality, or function, of matter, in a similar manner to gravity, but have got nowhere on that one so far. Living systems have an intrinsic ability to respond to their environment. Human created machines do not. We can map the rationale behind the responses of the machines we build. Given the paucity of our understanding of ourselves and of living systems in general, it seems like enormous hubris as well as illogical, to me, to think the things we make our able to do things we can do, but cannot understand. Yeah I can see what you are seeing there in your last sentence, though I'll be honest, that my science brain is very sketchy, so when a conversation begins to drift a little too much that way, I have to slip innocuously back into the bushes lol. I take responsibility for my role in drifting us that way. Relating to the other convo....in a way, SDP's question was asked from within the context of belief. As you said, we can observe that the individual is created in the mind through memory/projection. So whether there's anything beyond that would have to be belief. But I see this as quite interesting, and different to other beliefs, in that there's no avoiding the experience of individuality. It seems to be an experience that we are stuck with, and that the experience of individuality, is intrinsic to 'experience' itself i.e without any experience of individuality, is there any experience at all? I think we could say though that there is a way to transcend the experience of ' being an individual', and this very much relates to the non-dual investigation/pathless path. Nail - head  My next question is how does one turn intellectual understanding into lived experience? It's late. Nice chatting. Time for bed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2024 11:51:18 GMT -5
Is this question really any different to the perennial conundrum, "Who am I"? Here's a potential usage of intellect that isn't necessarily a complete waste of time. It's possible to notice that there really is only one existential question, and intellect can be used to translate any particular form into self-inquiry.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2024 12:37:29 GMT -5
Yeah I can see what you are seeing there in your last sentence, though I'll be honest, that my science brain is very sketchy, so when a conversation begins to drift a little too much that way, I have to slip innocuously back into the bushes lol. I take responsibility for my role in drifting us that way. Relating to the other convo....in a way, SDP's question was asked from within the context of belief. As you said, we can observe that the individual is created in the mind through memory/projection. So whether there's anything beyond that would have to be belief. But I see this as quite interesting, and different to other beliefs, in that there's no avoiding the experience of individuality. It seems to be an experience that we are stuck with, and that the experience of individuality, is intrinsic to 'experience' itself i.e without any experience of individuality, is there any experience at all? I think we could say though that there is a way to transcend the experience of ' being an individual', and this very much relates to the non-dual investigation/pathless path. Nail - head My next question is how does one turn intellectual understanding into lived experience? It's late. Nice chatting. Time for bed. Cool, yeah good chat, cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 27, 2024 14:12:33 GMT -5
:: senses Tenka about to enter the conversation :: Is there any point flogging a dead horse, that's not really a horse at all? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 27, 2024 14:21:28 GMT -5
What does it mean to be an individual? It means you can awaken, and Tom, D!ck, or Harry or Mary, doesn't (some do, some don't). You take yourself to be one. You are not. There are parts of your self that exist on different levels. What's imaginary is the lowest level. What's not-imaginary stands on a much higher, or inner level, which is invisible to the sensory mind. The fact that there is an imaginary self does not necessarily mean there is no self in any sense. ~You~, can move up or down the stairway, or elevator in a NY second. This is the whole point of having foundations that match one's actions / behaviours / beliefs. It's easy to say no one is here, or there is an illusory person saying there isn't a person here at all ... Butt, you're right in the way you are putting this forward, and it reflects what peeps often quote masters saying when it comes to absolute truths etc. It's true enough to say that some peeps awaken, some don't, some realise what they are, some don't, some find true love, some don't. The list is endless. Now one has to have a pretty good explanation as to why someone who isn't here as an individualised spirit /soul can experience what they do and for reasons why or for why there is no experience happening at all. I haven't as yet met an illusory individualised peep that can explain anything that makes any sense at all regarding this. |
|
