To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/10/04 06:35
Subject: [K-list] Consciousness
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/10/04 06:35, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
11:40:30 Mon, 4 Oct 1999
Ville Vainio at Ville Vainio <vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi> writes:
>On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
>
>> >It's the ego that prevents you from seeing "how". It's quite simple,
>> >really. It just can't be explained with words in any satisfactory way.
>
>> That's no good to me, then.
>
>That's quite restrictive. Give reality a chance, and stop thinking with
>words.
>
I don't see what the ego has to do with it, really. An experience
doesn't need an ego to be an experience.
>> >I believe experience is not a fundamental property of universe in any way.
>> >It's just stuff that happens. Matter doing the thing matter does.
>
>> To me, that means that it is a fundamental property (much like
>> electromagnetism, or space-time). Or perhaps you mean that it is just an
>> effect, a by-product, like light from the Sun is a by-product of fusion.
>
>No, I mean that it's an abstraction: we lump a group of phenomena
>(electrical/cellular) together and label it "experience", and start
>treating it as a unit itself - we forget with time that it's just an
>abstraction (or more often, we realize the abstraction long before we
>realize the things it is abstracting).
I doubt that it is an abstraction, I suppose. For example, it is clear
that electricity "is" a flow of electrons and depending on which way you
want to look at it, either the electricity or the electrons or both are
an abstraction. However, it is not at all clear to me that consciousness
"is" a flow of electrons and other particles, although what else it
might be isn't clear to me either. You say it is nothing. I don't buy
that at the moment.
> In fact (almost) all things we
>currently know are abstractions, but the abstractions that get problematic
>are the ones we start to accept as "real things", and treating them as
>axioms.
>
We're tending towards solipsism here. Well, why not? I would probably
agree with you on that.
>Thinking through abstractions is sort of useful since we have to simplify
>the reality enough to cope with the everyday life, but when it comes to
>philosophy its harmful baggage. I don't like dissecting the reality into
>effects, actors and products - all in all, the whole thing is just an
>ongoing, all-encompassing "effect". Reality at time T+1 is a direct result
>of reality at T.
>
We're all one with the Cosmos. It just doesn't always seem that way. I
know. I still what to know just how this illusion works, though.
>> >Forget the consciousness and experience, and focus your attention on the
>> >matter alone. See if you would get the "Aha!" matter-movement from that.
>> >Hard-core materialism is the closest western approximation of the wisdom
>
>> I fully accept Western materialism. Its results are easily demonstrable
>> in any suitably equipped laboratory, so hearsay is minimised (but not
>> eliminated, of course). But I want to extend it to areas it fails to
>> explain as well, such as consciousness - or find alternative
>> explanations.
>
>I don't think materialism fails to explain consciousness. It gives us all
>the tools we need to make the explanation ourselves. We just have to take
>the last step.
>
Which is to accept that it is just a bunch of molecules moving about? Or
that it is ubiquitous and therefore unanalysable at present?
>> >Of course you have experiences - the mistake you make is (IMHO)
>> >labeling them "experiences", and giving them a special place in your
>
>> database. The special place is that they don't have an adequate
>> explanation in physics, as yet.
>
>I assume you mean biology. Physics has no problem with consciousness, as
>from the physic's viewpoint it's clear (as for now, at least) that
>consciousness doesn't exist. Of course many of the physicist's disagree,
>since they are as much slaves of their own ego as any man on the street.
>
Consciousness is beyond the scope of physics at present as it cannot be
measured directly. But to say that consciousness doesn't exist to me
makes no sense: experiences are happening, aren't they? (I tie
experiences in with consciousness in that it seems to me that
experiences don't happen to the unconscious/non-conscious.)
>> >> To have solved the problem of consciousness, it must be necessary to
>> >> be able to show unambiguously whether any given entity is conscious or
>> >> not.
>> >
>> >The straightforward solution: nothing is conscious.
A common argument from philosophers such as Dennett, as far as I can
see. But it fails to explain the phenomenon in question to simply deny
it. I could equally say that nothing is alive. Clearly, we are all made
from dead matter, yet life is a useful concept nevertheless. An
explanation for life is equally lacking, by the way: again, we can't
tell just what it is that causes something to be alive rather than
inanimate (for want of a better word).
> Consciousness doesn't
>> >mean anything. If you can get an intuitive grasp of this idea, it's
>> >extremely liberating and blissful. In the Samadhi experience one sees that
>> >Everything is conscious, which is the same thing as Nothing is conscious
>> >(ie. the attribute "conscious" is useless... kinda like saying everything
>> >is everything).
>
>> It is strange, because this is clearly true - yet consciousness doesn't
>> seem like that.
>
>It's the ego again.
I don't think so... Just what has ego to do with it? Are you saying that
someone without a personal history in their mind cannot experience?
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.