25 replies to this topic

[Frank Merton]

Mr Right Wing, on 02 February 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

What part of the rabbit is made out of something other than perception?

Ok that's much deeper than I intended.  My point is that our ego is our point of view and to not have an ego is to not have a point of view, but that is not possible with only one pair of eyes.

What I think you are pointing out is that what I think is a rabbit is entirely a creation of my brain.  The rest is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something rabbity out there).

[Mr Right Wing]

Frank Merton, on 02 February 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Ok that's much deeper than I intended.  My point is that our ego is our point of view and to not have an ego is to not have a point of view, but that is not possible with only one pair of eyes.

What I think you are pointing out is that what I think is a rabbit is entirely a creation of my brain.  The rest is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something rabbity out there).

I always use colour perception to show that theres no division between mind and reality. If you think about it colour exists outside of your head not within the confines of your skull. As colour is perception and all around you the conclusion is your mind exists outside of your head.

There is no division between the rabbity thing and your mind. Instead of limiting your view to you being a human and there being a rabbit over there you should see yourself as all of reality lol.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 02 February 2013 - 05:07 PM.

[Frank Merton]

We don't know what exists outside our heads.  We get sense input mostly in the form of vibrations of light, for vision, and vibrations of air, for hearing.  From these we create shape and motion and pitch and color and so on.  The latter are entirely in our heads and have only a partial correspondence with the waves coming in, which in turn have only a partial correspondence with the object observed.

This is the case with most if not all "sensate" beings.  We also have internal senses telling us things about our body, such as pain and kinesthetics.  Finally we have emotions, which seem to have the same roots (you know, what is the sound of one hand clapping, to which a popular answer is, "frustration.")

Here, rather than at intelligence or consciousness, is where the Buddha drew the line.  All sensate beings are special and have Buddha nature.  This derives from the fact that they don't see things, they experience things (the current word for this is "qualia.")

With this elaborate introduction, to your point.  There is no particular way I "should" see all this.  I can see them as separate things, as a single thing united by the act of observation, or even as a small part of all of reality.  We usually and for efficiency generally should use the first approach.  The others can be dangerous unless you are safely tucked away somewhere in a meditative posture.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 02 February 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

I always use colour perception to show that theres no division between mind and reality. If you think about it colour exists outside of your head not within the confines of your skull. As colour is perception and all around you the conclusion is your mind exists outside of your head.

Ofcourse you do, however all that shows is you don't understand external stimuli being interpreted by the central nervous system.

[Frank Merton]

What I don't see is how the central nervous system generates the experience I call green.  I could understand it if it told me the object out there is reflecting certain wavelengths, which is how a computer sees, but that it not what happens.  What happens is that I experience something called green.

[Rlyeh]

Frank Merton, on 02 February 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

What I don't see is how the central nervous system generates the experience I call green.  I could understand it if it told me the object out there is reflecting certain wavelengths, which is how a computer sees, but that it not what happens.  What happens is that I experience something called green.

How would you be experiencing these different wavelengths? How would it tell you?

[Frank Merton]

I'm not sure I understand your question.  One presumes I would be told the way a computer is told, by being given the wavelengths.

I have no proposition here to offer to the fact that we experience our environment through these tokens we call color and pitch and so on.  I don't see how it happens, but draw no conclusions from that.

[Mr Right Wing]

Frank Merton, on 02 February 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

We don't know what exists outside our heads.  We get sense input mostly in the form of vibrations of light, for vision, and vibrations of air, for hearing.  From these we create shape and motion and pitch and color and so on.  The latter are entirely in our heads and have only a partial correspondence with the waves coming in, which in turn have only a partial correspondence with the object observed.

This is the case with most if not all "sensate" beings.  We also have internal senses telling us things about our body, such as pain and kinesthetics.  Finally we have emotions, which seem to have the same roots (you know, what is the sound of one hand clapping, to which a popular answer is, "frustration.")

Here, rather than at intelligence or consciousness, is where the Buddha drew the line.  All sensate beings are special and have Buddha nature.  This derives from the fact that they don't see things, they experience things (the current word for this is "qualia.")

With this elaborate introduction, to your point.  There is no particular way I "should" see all this.  I can see them as separate things, as a single thing united by the act of observation, or even as a small part of all of reality.  We usually and for efficiency generally should use the first approach.  The others can be dangerous unless you are safely tucked away somewhere in a meditative posture.

Does the light exist before your eyes detect it?

Frank Merton, on 02 February 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

What I don't see is how the central nervous system generates the experience I call green.  I could understand it if it told me the object out there is reflecting certain wavelengths, which is how a computer sees, but that it not what happens.  What happens is that I experience something called green.

Yep lol

[Rlyeh]

Frank Merton, on 02 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.  One presumes I would be told the way a computer is told, by being given the wavelengths.

Computers operate on data, they don't experience in the way you're describing.
My question is how would you be told of these wavelengths?

[Jinxdom]

@Seeker79: I totally agree with your statement and your topic, just not the part about people not thinking about their ego always and forever after the fact(Which you didn't say ). It can be before, during, or after. Every person realizes certain things at different times or sometimes not at all this would including ego.

Just trying to describe the workings of my brain and how I formulate ideas from mind to paper is very tricky and you come off sounding crazy.

The computer is a good analogy for it simply because of the interaction we have with them, Stored data can do some really weird things to the programming and you might get unexpected results.(That whole ghost in a shell thing or I Robot) Wavelengths would compare to fingers on the keyboard and mouse in that analogy, while data is well data and the programming is the nervous system.

[ava1enzue1a]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Interesting points, especially these:

Seeker79, on 02 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Ego can be dissolved during altered states of conciousness, but you are right, it can only be contemplated after the fact. The experience of ego dissolution can go to memory but during it it is completely impossible to realize. Some consider it blissful some consider it disturbing.

Seeker79, on 02 February 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

During a positive dissolution experience it can feel like your mind has expanded into everything and you are in and apart of everything. You don't have a sense of self, there is nothing but expanded existence. it's very moving to come back from. It often changes people's lives. Haveing figured out how to create the experience, I have actually have come to appreciate the ego more. It takes the ego to reflect upon the non ego and remember, contemplate, and appreciate the non ego state which of course at that point is just a memory. During a negative ego dissolution instead of feeling you are expanded into everything, it feels like everything has been blasted at you or stuffed inside you. It is horribly terrifying, but yet again during it, you don't know who you are and cannot contemplate what is happening. Only after do you realize you might have been flirting with death. It changes lives to, but it usually scares people straight from using mind altering substances.

Thanks again.

Edited by ava1enzue1a, 03 February 2013 - 06:49 PM.