• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Consciousness expansion

This is what separates mind from brain: There are no limits in the province of the mind. One can just imagine anything!!!!! The mind consists of infinite information that can be accessed. It can almost be said that every single piece of information possible already exists in a sort of plenum. This also connects with the source of the universe as "infinite possibilities" and offers a bit of support for parallel universes in the sense that if the mind can access any bit of information, then why cant there be infinite possibilities for existence?. Where does information go? It is not something you can see or really feel- but the mind can access it. Terence McKenna has some interesting lectures on this subject.

The "mind" may be a direct link to the infinite potentiality that underlies Everything.
 
Last edited:
>>One can just imagine anything!!!!!>>

I disagree.
1. I cannot imagine >3 dimensional space.
2. I couldn't have imagined "the" mystical experience prior to encountering it via psychedelics.

ebola
 
>>The study of exterior physical objective stuff is an actual 1st person, taking a 3rd person mode of perception, focused on a 3rd person. the study of interior psychological objective "stuff" is a 1st person, engaging a 3rd person mode of perception focused on a 1st person. I don't think you need to quarter off phenomenology but you are dealing with two differentiated points of perception, and as a result two different methodologies.>>

mmmm...but I think that the two methodologies can be fused (or rejoined) if we take the observer-observed complex itself as ontologically primary.

>>
I don't think a person has to conceptualize an experience as 1st person in order for it to be 1st person. >>

You're right, but we almost always do so.

>>Nonetheless, when dealing with children that have not developed an ego yet. What's surprising is, not that they haven't developed an ego. It's that they are all ego! For example, when you cover your face they think you have disappeared. Or when a toddler does something wrong, they automatically assume that you already know that they did it. They have not yet drawn the differentiation between a 1st and 2nd person, everything is in 1st to them. I'm not sure if this was a useful example for the direction I'm trying to take this, but my point is 1st person is pretty much straight out of the womb.( I probably should have made my argument structurally rather than by example ).>>

Mmmm...this is the sort of picture that I've encountered in my psychological training. Researchers for the most part assume that (pre)todlers experience the world in this way, with meager bits of illustrative evidence. I hesitate to put thoughts in the minds of beings who can't communicate with me. On the other hand, this assumption seems to me more likely than most other explanations of the experience of being so new to the world.

>>Ouch, that's a tough one. I'll have to answer that tomorow in the day.>>

Well, I neglected to define it too. ;)

>>If we all simply followed a dictum that implied adherence to actions which best correspond to the most probable cause of phenomena, science itself would never advance.>>

Why? While there's a certain amount of "black boxed" spontaneity in hypothesis generation, things still usually work out better if we entertain the simplest theoretical explanation we can come up with, given the empirical data before us.

>>One step further away from reality.>>

Why? My mind's certainly plenty real to me. :)

ebola

ebola
 
ebola? said:
>>The study of exterior physical objective stuff is an actual 1st person, taking a 3rd person mode of perception, focused on a 3rd person. the study of interior psychological objective "stuff" is a 1st person, engaging a 3rd person mode of perception focused on a 1st person. I don't think you need to quarter off phenomenology but you are dealing with two differentiated points of perception, and as a result two different methodologies.>>

mmmm...but I think that the two methodologies can be fused (or rejoined) if we take the observer-observed complex itself as ontologically primary.
Click to expand...
I think so as well, but in which way do you rejoin them? Stacking one methodology on top of another, implies that one perspective is of primary realness. Ofcourse for this to be logically complete it has to be stated within the context of a 1st person making this assertion. If 1st person is somehow secondary to 3rd, than you've got yourself a problem...

>>Nonetheless, when dealing with children that have not developed an ego yet. What's surprising is, not that they haven't developed an ego. It's that they are all ego! For example, when you cover your face they think you have disappeared. Or when a toddler does something wrong, they automatically assume that you already know that they did it. They have not yet drawn the differentiation between a 1st and 2nd person, everything is in 1st to them. I'm not sure if this was a useful example for the direction I'm trying to take this, but my point is 1st person is pretty much straight out of the womb.( I probably should have made my argument structurally rather than by example ).>>

Mmmm...this is the sort of picture that I've encountered in my psychological training. Researchers for the most part assume that (pre)todlers experience the world in this way, with meager bits of illustrative evidence. I hesitate to put thoughts in the minds of beings who can't communicate with me. On the other hand, this assumption seems to me more likely than most other explanations of the experience of being so new to the world.
Click to expand...
The definition of self is a big issue. If by 1st person we mean an ego, then yes there is a big question of whether a developing child has one( although observations seem to suggest that they do not in a sense ). But can we really reasonably question if a child has a subject that has the capacity to be aware of a soon to develop ego?

1st person can signify both( as if it wasn't confusing enough ).

I'm afraid we've strayed into recursive lines of thought now. 8o



>>Ouch, that's a tough one. I'll have to answer that tomorow in the day.>>

Well, I neglected to define it too. ;)
Click to expand...
Looking for a decent place to start I wiki'd

"The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions."

I think that's a good definition right there( minus the rational ). Is there not an agent with the capacity to exert control arising?
 
To MrM:

Yes, I agree.

That's why I'm having a problem saying consciousness comes from the brain, but I'm repeating myself now.
 
>>If we all simply followed a dictum that implied adherence to actions which best correspond to the most probable cause of phenomena, science itself would never advance.>>

Why? While there's a certain amount of "black boxed" spontaneity in hypothesis generation, things still usually work out better if we entertain the simplest theoretical explanation we can come up with, given the empirical data before us.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'black boxed spontaneity, are you referring to Locke? My point was that 'simply entertaining the simplest theoretical explanation' does allow things to work out better, in our daily lives (eg - Newtonian mechanics is better suited to guiding me on throwing a ball, than quantum mechanics, but that at the same time the advancement of scientia is best served by not entertaining the simplest theory, but striving to re-examine the theoretical status quo, and many advances in science have been achieved by doing just that. How we live our lives for the sake of convenience has little to do with the ultimate reality upon which it rests.


The search for simplicity to my mind leads to overly reductionist theories, that obfuscate the search for objective knowledge (scientia).
 
ebola? said:
>>One can just imagine anything!!!!!>>

I disagree.
1. I cannot imagine >3 dimensional space.
2. I couldn't have imagined "the" mystical experience prior to encountering it via psychedelics.

ebola
Click to expand...


Yes but the possibility remains accessible through the mind.
 
>>I think so as well, but in which way do you rejoin them? Stacking one methodology on top of another, implies that one perspective is of primary realness. Ofcourse for this to be logically complete it has to be stated within the context of a 1st person making this assertion. If 1st person is somehow secondary to 3rd, than you've got yourself a problem...>>

An interaction based ontology joins objective observation and phenomenology as follows:
1. The interaction, as a process, produces the subject and object as its elements.
2. The percept and object relate dialectically. Matter must be described in terms of perception. Perceptions are brought into being causally by matter.

>>But can we really reasonably question if a child has a subject that has the capacity to be aware of a soon to develop ego?>>

Yes. It could be the case that children begin with absolutely no awareness, as "meat robots".
As I am a vegetarian, I think you can guess how likely I think this is. :)

>>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'black boxed spontaneity, are you referring to Locke? My point was that 'simply entertaining the simplest theoretical explanation' does allow things to work out better, in our daily lives (eg - Newtonian mechanics is better suited to guiding me on throwing a ball, than quantum mechanics, but that at the same time the advancement of scientia is best served by not entertaining the simplest theory, but striving to re-examine the theoretical status quo, and many advances in science have been achieved by doing just that. How we live our lives for the sake of convenience has little to do with the ultimate reality upon which it rests.>>

I think that we're on the same page. Because hypothesis-generation isn't itself rationalized, there are numerous (infinite?) theoretical complexes that could describe a particular observation, and likely multiple hypotheses at the lowest level of simplicity. Because we cannot be certain about whether we've generated "true" hypotheses, we must examine the world through both theoretical interrogation and empirical observation.

What scientific shifts are you thinking of?

IIRC, the Copernican revolution was brought about by new observations (and the recent invention of the telescope). Einstein produced the theory of relativity "psuedo-empirically" with a thought-experiment. Quantum mechanics has its origins in numerous experiments.

ebola
 
ebola? said:
>>I think so as well, but in which way do you rejoin them? Stacking one methodology on top of another, implies that one perspective is of primary realness. Ofcourse for this to be logically complete it has to be stated within the context of a 1st person making this assertion. If 1st person is somehow secondary to 3rd, than you've got yourself a problem...>>

An interaction based ontology joins objective observation and phenomenology as follows:
1. The interaction, as a process, produces the subject and object as its elements.
2. The percept and object relate dialectically. Matter must be described in terms of perception. Perceptions are brought into being causally by matter.
Click to expand...
That still suffers from the same logical incompleteness. Either we've hit a limitation of logic, or there is something missing from the picture.

1) Where is the property of sentience located? In the process or static objects? There is a big step missing here. I'm not so sure you can think of causality in systems as you can between simple static objects. One is linear, while the other can be recursive.


>>But can we really reasonably question if a child has a subject that has the capacity to be aware of a soon to develop ego?>>

Yes. It could be the case that children begin with absolutely no awareness, as "meat robots".
As I am a vegetarian, I think you can guess how likely I think this is. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true. It's just difficult to do so, when a childs/animals actions so obviously reflect your own interior existance. By the same account I could dismiss everyone's sentients other than my own.
 
I think that we're on the same page. Because hypothesis-generation isn't itself rationalized, there are numerous (infinite?) theoretical complexes that could describe a particular observation, and likely multiple hypotheses at the lowest level of simplicity. Because we cannot be certain about whether we've generated "true" hypotheses, we must examine the world through both theoretical interrogation and empirical observation.

What scientific shifts are you thinking of?

IIRC, the Copernican revolution was brought about by new observations (and the recent invention of the telescope). Einstein produced the theory of relativity "psuedo-empirically" with a thought-experiment. Quantum mechanics has its origins in numerous experiments
Click to expand...


I agree, I think we are on the same page, my comments were a reply to several posts in the thread that refered to Ockham’s Razor as some kind of panacea to the problems of epistemology. I cannot entirely agree with your statements about scientific shifts. The Copernican revolution was in part based on new observations, but the erratic movement of the planets had been observed for millennia. It was by assuming a less likely/intuitive model – heliocentric (which after all does not accord with our ‘common sense’ observations), that allowed for the shift. Einstein’s theories of relativity were anything but empirically derived, pseudo- or otherwise. The empirical data confirming his theory came only after he had posited it, and one can hardly say that the fusion of space and time in to one substance came about by accepting the most likely explanation for the existence of gravity??
 
Alephnul said:
one can hardly say that the fusion of space and time in to one substance came about by accepting the most likely explanation for the existence of gravity??
Click to expand...


there was no explanation of gravity.

Newtonian physics just explained gravity's effects,
not what it actually is.


The question still exists.



Einstein's theories most simply explained the observed phenomena.
Thus, they were genius. and probably (seemingly) most probable.


There may be simpler and yet more probable explanations for observed phenomena.

When proposed, they will be the most logical models to follow.
 
it seems the brain is the only thing seperating our consciousness from all other life. its our brain that turns each of us into an individual, rather than experiencing the constant flow of life as plants, and non-"intelligent" life forms do.
 
ebola? said:
>>One can just imagine anything!!!!!>>

I disagree.
1. I cannot imagine >3 dimensional space.
2. I couldn't have imagined "the" mystical experience prior to encountering it via psychedelics.

ebola
Click to expand...

I disagree, you could've imagined your experience prior to psychedelics, but human domestication etc.. puts so much limitation on the thought process that it restricts you making you think you couldn't have possibly thought such things.

put beautifully by James L. Kent:
"I think people sell the human imagination short when they say things like, "No one could ever envision such things on their own." Maybe people raised on the limited flotsam of TV and pop culture can't, but brilliant creative types sure can. "
 
>>
ebola:
>>

An interaction based ontology joins objective observation and phenomenology as follows:
1. The interaction, as a process, produces the subject and object as its elements.
2. The percept and object relate dialectically. Matter must be described in terms of perception. Perceptions are brought into being causally by matter.
That still suffers from the same logical incompleteness. Either we've hit a limitation of logic, or there is something missing from the picture.>>

>>yougene:
1) Where is the property of sentience located? In the process or static objects? There is a big step missing here. I'm not so sure you can think of causality in systems as you can between simple static objects. One is linear, while the other can be recursive.>>>>

Well, sentience would emerge in the subject-object interaction. It would in this way need be processural. In these terms, though, sentience would be another emergent level of analysis (a level of analysis that curiously includes itself. Recursive?).

And yes, this paradigm requires systems logic, feedback loops, reciprocal causation, and so on. Linear causation is really an analytical tool, to pull out "useful" information.

>>The Copernican revolution was in part based on new observations, but the erratic movement of the planets had been observed for millennia. It was by assuming a less likely/intuitive model – heliocentric (which after all does not accord with our ‘common sense’ observations), that allowed for the shift.>>

Good point. You're likely more knowledgeable than I.

>>Einstein’s theories of relativity were anything but empirically derived, pseudo- or otherwise.>>

But Einstein began with a thought experiment...what if you were traveling parallel to an adjacent train, but one of you was traveling at the speed of light? Einstein didn't began with an assessment of the proper axioms but rather with this pseudo-empirical exercise.

>>I disagree, you could've imagined your experience prior to psychedelics, but human domestication etc.. puts so much limitation on the thought process that it restricts you making you think you couldn't have possibly thought such things.>>

I don't have much more than intuition to go from here. When I imagine, I appear to end up with recombinations of prior experiences (albeit novel ones). Psychedelia can lead us into experiencing TRULY new things.

ebola
 
as i posted in the ego thread, psychedelics un-tether consciousness from mundane reality.

unless Einstein used psychs, his already was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top