Hi again & who wants to give me some genius guidance?

[Kelly Jones]

K: Logic is "when" awareness is identified as what it is (or as anything). Do you agree?

C: I would agree that it is logical to identify awareness as awareness.

Thinking the same as identifying logically. Do you agree?

-

[Carl G]

Thinking the same as identifying logically. Do you agree?

No, thinking involves more than correctly (logically) identifying, therefore is not the same as.

Again, what is your point?

[Kelly Jones]

K: Thinking the same as identifying logically. Do you agree?

C: No, thinking involves more than correctly (logically) identifying, therefore is not the same as.

So reasoning involves something more than making logical identities? What?

C: Again, what is your point?

Meditation is the same as thinking. Meaning, reasoning.

So, meditation means, finding the absolutely most rational value, and letting that value single-pointedly steer one's thoughts, wherever that may lead.


-

[Carl G]

You are talking about mentation, not meditation, by my definition. We've come around to the beginning again.

[Kelly Jones]

So reasoning involves something more than making logical identities? What?

[Carl G]

Reasoning? I thought we were talking about meditation. You keep trying to equate meditation with thinking, and, that's fine, if that's how you define it. I'm just saying, they are not the same by my, and others', definition.

[Kelly Jones]

K: Thinking the same as identifying logically. Do you agree?

C: No, thinking involves more than correctly (logically) identifying, therefore is not the same as.

K: So reasoning/thinking involves something more than making logical identities? What?

[Carl G]

Sorry. I missed the first part of that particular post.

C: No, thinking involves more than correctly (logically) identifying, therefore is not the same as.

Thinking can also involve following a process -- of experience, of identification, of feelings, whatever. Thinking can also involve making conclusions, and determining a course of action. These are beyond simple identification, which may be a component, because they involve judgment and learning.

[Kelly Jones]

No, thinking involves more than correctly (logically) identifying, therefore is not the same as.

Thinking can also involve following a process -- of experience, of identification, of feelings, whatever. Thinking can also involve making conclusions, and determining a course of action. These are beyond simple identification, which may be a component, because they involve judgment and learning.

Making conclusions involves identifying, logically, how a definition relates to some part of, or to the rest of, Reality.

Determining a course of action involves identifying logically, a particular purpose, and then how a defined event is likely to relate to some part of, or to the rest of, Reality.

-

[Kelly Jones]

So meditation, being awareness logically identified as itself, is thinking.

[Carl G]

Again your personal definition of meditation.

Edit: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation

Meditation is usually defined as one of the following:

* a state of relaxed concentration on the reality of the present moment
* a state that is experienced when the mind dissolves and is free of all thoughts
* "concentration in which the attention has been liberated from restlessness and is focused on God."[4]
* focusing the mind on a single object (such as a religious statue, or one's breath, or a mantra)
* a mental "opening up" to the divine, invoking the guidance of a higher power
* reasoned analysis of religious teachings (such as impermanence, for Buddhists).

There are various popular definitions; some do involve reasoning as the main focus. I personally do not see meditation as having an emphasis on thought, but rather as an exercise in allowing mental process to still itself. That's all I am saying.

Since we obviously have different definitions, I actually do not know why you are belaboring your point.

[Andrew]

What happens when everything you experience ---all the things--- are labelled "appearances", such that there are no real boundaries anywhere?

And what happens when the kid puts himself into the equation? Is he now still there?

Is anything?

Again, I can accept what you are saying. I can view everything (including myself) as being merely an “appearance”. But where is this leading?

I can accept (and already believe) that “really” there are no boundaries. But in order to make practical sense of the world (in order for us to function) we need to suppose these divisions and slice up reality into manageable chunks. We need to do the same in order to make computational models of parts of reality.

Is there something I am still missing? I have the impression that, through trying to model reality, supposed boundaries would keep breaking down until an understanding of the functioning of the Totality is found. A good example would be general relativity which found that matter and energy are actually the same thing. I might be deluded into thinking (in the way I described as bottom up) that first making sense of the parts, then using that understanding to derive an understanding of the Totality, would result in the most complete understanding. I think by this method, it may be possible to create a completely authentic virtual world, whereas understanding of the Totality by a top down method (finding a-priori arguments about it first) that only certain facts can be found which would be much less practical. Having said that, the top down method might show that the attempt to create a completely authentic virtual world would never work anyway (possibly because it could never represent a Totality).

K: All one needs is a logical definition for "thing" (e.g. appearances), and "cause" (e.g. whatever brings a thing into existence). Then put these two ideas together.

A: I can accept that what you say about "things" and "causes" is true, but I would have to take it on faith that this was actually going to lead me anywhere particularly worthwhile. Worse still I am quite convinced I have already gone down that road and it has not led me to any breakthroughs. Also, I am suspicious, along with what Jason implied earlier, that there is no greener grass on the other side. Perhaps I already do understand "Reality".

K: Your philosophising seems to be driven by a need to experience something. Whereas I see philosophy as finding out what is ultimately true. And letting my desires for something to live on .....die.

Jason has been asking me how I am motivated and I’ve actually found that very hard to answer which probably spells trouble for me! Ultimately, I’m driven by interest. But why I am interested in this is much harder to pinpoint. Part of it is as I said earlier the desire to avoid suffering. Another part of it is the desire to be “right” or at least not to be “wrong”. By that I am talking about both logical right and wrong as well as ethical right and wrong. Probably the main reason is simply the excitement I envision to make some kind of major breakthrough. As I said earlier, I have read a great deal about people experiencing revelations which currently seem way over my head.

Regarding Nietzsch, I find his style of writing extremely difficult to follow. I’ve looked at it closely and come to the conclusion that somehow the way he orders sentences are absolutely the reverse to the way I would like/expect the information to come. Hence my mind has to play leapfrog to sort out the mess before I can understand what he is saying. This is incredibly frustrating and the sole reason I have not read much of his writing yet.

It would be nice in future if you could simply give me the gist of what he said. But if I gather what he is saying correctly, he is simply commenting that many philosophers appear to be driven by many different drives other than simply the drive for knowledge. My take on that is that perhaps Nietzsche is simply not introspective enough to be capable of deducing his own drives. Sure he (and others) may find themselves interested in developing greater knowledge, but one can always ask “Why?” If he were to respond, “I just do”, this comes across to me as either avoidance to dig further for some reason, or inability to do so.

A: Perhaps the real issue is that while I have no problem understanding the Totality, I hunger for a more categorised, practical understanding. As an example, I have studied AI in great depth, but have discovered that there is no theory which is anywhere close to being able to model conscious perception in the same sense that we are experts at modelling many physical interactions. In order to model a "hill" object, we just need to define it according to a set of criteria we choose. But for some reason there is a complete absence of criteria by which we can model a pain sensation "object". It seems to absolutely escape any objective categorisation.

K: I have no problem defining a pain sensation according to a set of criteria I choose. I don't know, ultimately, whether the pain sensation is really a pain sensation, but that doesn't stop me having quite a lot of success in staying alive. That's scientific uncertainty for you: causes are infinite, so the things we experience cannot be pinned down as intrinsic. No one knows ultimately what particular things really are. Or rather, they aren't ultimately anything. Or even more accurately, they are just what they are.

We can model a pain sensation on the effects it has on a particular person. For instance, I can look at a friend of mine who is in pain and model it as a “state” within my friend’s mental processes. If I were to create a computer model of my friend’s mind, I would specify a set of criteria which would trigger this pain state, and a set of effects (such as causing a scream, increased heart rate etc).

But these are criteria that you can pick up through analyzing other people. This seems to completely miss what we currently understand as the experience of pain. (As is often said – how do you actually know that other people are conscious anyway?) What about the actual *feeling*. Surely simply specifying the inputs and outputs does not model the feeling itself. Considering the actual feeling, there seems to be absolutely no way to categorise it. What intrinsic differences can we point out between a pain sensation and a pleasure sensation, or even the experience of the colour blue, etc.

And, if your scenario were taken to its extreme, the fundamental error is that any model created as an ultimate representation for consciousness, is appearing in, and affected by, consciousness. And trying to model the Totality is an extremely impractical way to approach it.

I mean, how can you ever represent something that has absolutely no ultimate nature at all? Any model that is made-up is completely decentralised. The meaning for the Totality can not be anchored anywhere.

I’m really not sure what you mean. If what you are saying rules out that we could ever create a model in order to program a computer to feel something, does this not also mean that no computational entity can experience feeling? Hence, why are we conscious?

A: I am interested in [consciousness] because I don't understand it. Or at least I am suspicious of my understanding of it.

K: So you would throw away the Absolute, for some thing that has meaning relative to the Absolute?

Why do you find this kind of "greener pasture" more satisfying, I wonder........

I am here because I think that understanding of the Absolute would help me understand consciousness, or perhaps simply because I am interested in the Absolute. Nevertheless, I am sceptical that understanding of the Absolute will help me to (for example) model consciousness. It seems to me that if one were to accept that boundaries are non-existent, and to avoid basing programming on such boundaries, then understanding of the Absolute would stand in the way of software development!

Regarding the greener pasture, I’m only suspicious that it might be there. If I find it, *then* I will be able to judge whether or not it is greener according to whatever criteria I choose. Probably the best way to define my current quandary is that I don’t even have a certain measure by which to judge what is “better”. Overall, I’m currently using reason – but as we have covered, the reasons why I am using reason are uncertain.

A: I'm also interested in it because many have said that breaking down one's delusions about the nature of consciousness is necessary to understand "Truth". I think the most direct way to do this may be to try and "see" consciousness for what it is, rather than try to find arguments to construct an understanding of it.

K: Again, the nature of consciousness can only be found by understanding the nature of Reality.

There is no other certain and logical way to do it.

Consciousness is a part of the Totality. What is true for the Totality is necessarily true for all its parts.

Maybe that’s true, but I still think there’s 2 ways to approach it. Your way may rule out much of what I’m aiming for as impossible, but I don’t think your way can show everything that is possible – and specifically how to achieve it. But, I can accept I don’t understand “your way” so can’t make such claims with any degree of certainty.

The approach to understanding the Totality is not top-down vs. bottom-up. It is simply that what is true for the Totality is true for all its parts.

One's aim should be to find out what is the ultimate, true, nature for anything. So, instead of looking at the unique identity for any particular thing, such as "white, shiny, square, heavy, perishable" and so on, one should be looking at the ultimate identity for the Totality.

It's really very simple. It isn't a particular form.

And that is Ultimate Truth, present everywhere. One's own true nature.

What is true for the totality is true for all its parts, granted. But Newtonian physics was never actually “true” but nevertheless useful. Current physics is pretty certainly likewise not true either. But both approaches are practical. Does knowing what is ultimately true actually help us to find useful, yet false theories about the nature of reality? I suppose what I’m wondering is – what does knowing the Ultimate Truth actually do? What is your interest in it? I am still curious at to whether or not I am on the same page as you. Is it simply that we have different motivations, or am I not understanding something fundamental about your philosophy?

[Kelly Jones]

I personally do not see meditation as having an emphasis on thought, but rather as an exercise in allowing mental process to still itself. That's all I am saying.

You earlier wrote:

I would agree that it is logical to identify awareness as awareness.

So how do you know that mental processes are still or active, without identifying them as what they are (which means, to use logic)?

Do you hang around for 20 minutes or so in a state of suspended conscience, after which you can say, "Yep, I was being still, but I wasn't allowed to know it"..... ?

Since we obviously have different definitions, I actually do not know why you are belaboring your point.

I was just meditating on ideas.

-

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

hi, Sorry, I did not follow the entire argument up to here but I have been thinking about the nature of reality for a while now. The thing I notice about reality here on earth is that everything exists in opposites with variations of these opposites. Ok, so, the universe results in countless realities in this way. For example, nothingness and somethingness exists together, at the same time, but in the forms of consciousness and non-consciousness. Hence the result that a thing is both real and unreal. There is and is not the reality. Now I can't figure out why this should be this way. Why not select one reality? Of course then the logical reply: Why? Does the universe not have a brain? Is it so indecisive that it must spit out new realities all the time? Think about it: Why do things move, change, become life and then die? It's all an effort of the universe to create new individual realities. But why? But why not? This is the problem, the universe seems captured by its own laws of logic. But why? Why should we assume the universe has no brain? You have a desicive brain and you exist as part of the universe, for example...The universe, however, I believe, functions both logically and illogically. This is itself a logical conclusion, but also illogical in the sense that I used logic to arrive the the illogical. OK, my brain is fried! : )

[Kelly Jones]

Andrew,

Kelly: What happens when everything you experience ---all the things--- are labelled "appearances", such that there are no real boundaries anywhere? And what happens when the kid puts himself into the equation? Is he now still there? Is anything?

Andrew: Again, I can accept what you are saying. I can view everything (including myself) as being merely an “appearance”. But where is this leading?

If absolutely every thing is identified as exactly the same thing, then there are no inherently different things. There are, logically, no truly separate things.

Moreover, there's no "non-appearances", or "unity", or "oneness", "multiplicity", "ultimate nature".

I can accept (and already believe) that “really” there are no boundaries. But in order to make practical sense of the world (in order for us to function) we need to suppose these divisions and slice up reality into manageable chunks. We need to do the same in order to make computational models of parts of reality.

If we consider it valuable to have a practical purpose, like, enabling the biological organism to survive, then, yes, we continue to create divisions.

But I wouldn't consider it valuable to create a computational model of reality itself, since that's idiotic, and I don't consider idiocy valuable.

Is there something I am still missing? I have the impression that, through trying to model reality, supposed boundaries would keep breaking down until an understanding of the functioning of the Totality is found.

Just as I wrote above, that there's no "ultimate nature", also, there is no "functioning".

Or, more accurately, things function according to cause and effect.

Any model of causation is futile, since causation has infinite processes. However things are divided up, that is how cause and effect works. Models are by nature finite: a model, not a not-model (everything else).

A good example would be general relativity which found that matter and energy are actually the same thing. I might be deluded into thinking (in the way I described as bottom up) that first making sense of the parts, then using that understanding to derive an understanding of the Totality, would result in the most complete understanding. I think by this method, it may be possible to create a completely authentic virtual world, whereas understanding of the Totality by a top down method (finding a-priori arguments about it first) that only certain facts can be found which would be much less practical. Having said that, the top down method might show that the attempt to create a completely authentic virtual world would never work anyway (possibly because it could never represent a Totality).

The problem is that the Totality can be divided infinitely, so one could never make sense of the parts accumulatively.

One could only ever approach the understanding of the Totality through using an absolute logical relationship, between a part, and the Totality. That is, finite vs. Infinite.

As you say, understanding that the Totality is infinite (meaning, not-finite, rather than a mathematical infinity, or an expanding thing) means one cannnot pin the Totality down. So, any representation of the Totality would fail, in the act of trying to represent the Totality as something finite.

K: Your philosophising seems to be driven by a need to experience something. Whereas I see philosophy as finding out what is ultimately true. And letting my desires for something to live on .....die.

A: Probably the main reason is simply the excitement I envision to make some kind of major breakthrough. As I said earlier, I have read a great deal about people experiencing revelations which currently seem way over my head.

Do you think that a revelation should serve as a kind of model for the Infinite?

An absolutely reliable guide for life?

Regarding Nietzsch, ...he is simply commenting that many philosophers appear to be driven by many different drives other than simply the drive for knowledge. My take on that is that perhaps Nietzsche is simply not introspective enough to be capable of deducing his own drives.

I think he was pointing out that the will to truth is very rare.

Perhaps the real issue is that while I have no problem understanding the Totality, I hunger for a more categorised, practical understanding. As an example, I have studied AI in great depth, but have discovered that there is no theory which is anywhere close to being able to model conscious perception in the same sense that we are experts at modelling many physical interactions. In order to model a "hill" object, we just need to define it according to a set of criteria we choose. But for some reason there is a complete absence of criteria by which we can model a pain sensation "object". It seems to absolutely escape any objective categorisation.

There is no absolute logical model for consciousness. Use deductive logic: an accurate model requires an inaccurate model, to be known as accurate. Regarding consciousness, an inaccurate model is simply unknowable. So whatever model one uses for consciousness is really only a model of some aspect of consciousness, rather than consciousness per se.

The sane way to approach understanding consciousness is via logic: definitional truths.

So, as mentioned above: "appearances" or "constructions" or "forms" or "things" or "experiences". And, of course, the logical correlatives for all these entities is completely unknowable.

The fact that you "hunger" for a "more categorised, practical understanding" of the Totality arises from not using the correct tool.

Have you a particular image of your life, that you'd label "scientific" more than "philosophical" ? If so, you should recognise which tools are appropriate for which type of knowledge.

A: What about the actual *feeling*. Surely simply specifying the inputs and outputs does not model the feeling itself.

I think you have to define "pain" or "feeling" first. If your purpose is the survival of consciousness then pain will mean something different to when your purpose is the improvement of consciousness.

I'm thinking of how Sam Harris is trying to find neurogenetic causes for immorality (my guess), as if truths are proved by chemical or genetic analysis.

Also, as you say, you can never be certain that the model of consciousness you've created really works, because even when you plug in two different "consciousness" chips, to analyse differences, you're still using a more fundamental "control group" for analysing consciousness, rather than one of those chips. The "control" is reason.

K: And, if your scenario were taken to its extreme, the fundamental error is that any model created as an ultimate representation for consciousness, is appearing in, and affected by, consciousness. And trying to model the Totality is an extremely impractical way to approach it. I mean, how can you ever represent something that has absolutely no ultimate nature at all? Any model that is made-up is completely decentralised. The meaning for the Totality can not be anchored anywhere.

A: I'm really not sure what you mean. If what you are saying rules out that we could ever create a model in order to program a computer to feel something, does this not also mean that no computational entity can experience feeling? Hence, why are we conscious?

We've confused two things. One is the fundamental nature of consciousness - which cannot be modelled. The other is different levels of consciousness, like "ability to experience/compute vs. no ability to experience/compute" - which can.

A: I am sceptical that understanding of the Absolute will help me to (for example) model consciousness. It seems to me that if one were to accept that boundaries are non-existent, and to avoid basing programming on such boundaries, then understanding of the Absolute would stand in the way of software development!

Some confusion could be avoided if you wrote "model the ability to experience/compute".

Things don't exist absolutely, but relatively. If they behaved differently when one had an "enlightened mindstate", then they'd still be existing relatively and non-inherently, as the example demonstrates.

A: Probably the best way to define my current quandary is that I don’t even have a certain measure by which to judge what is “better”. Overall, I’m currently using reason – but as we have covered, the reasons why I am using reason are uncertain.

Well, it just depends on your main purpose in life.

Once you know that, then reason or not will be used for that purpose.

My main purpose in life, that I try to live by, is to submit the ego to Truth, and to help others do that too.

A: I'm also interested in it because many have said that breaking down one's delusions about the nature of consciousness is necessary to understand "Truth". I think the most direct way to do this may be to try and "see" consciousness for what it is, rather than try to find arguments to construct an understanding of it.

K: Again, the nature of consciousness can only be found by understanding the nature of Reality. There is no other certain and logical way to do it. Consciousness is a part of the Totality. What is true for the Totality is necessarily true for all its parts.

A: Maybe that’s true, but I still think there’s 2 ways to approach it. Your way may rule out much of what I’m aiming for as impossible, but I don’t think your way can show everything that is possible – and specifically how to achieve it. But, I can accept I don’t understand “your way” so can’t make such claims with any degree of certainty.

What do you think consciousness ultimately is? What is your definition, and the reasoning that you use to construct this definition? How do you know this definition is absolutely true?

Does knowing what is ultimately true actually help us to find useful, yet false theories about the nature of reality?

Ultimate Truth has no use. If it did, it would be false.

I suppose what I’m wondering is – what does knowing the Ultimate Truth actually do? What is your interest in it? I am still curious at to whether or not I am on the same page as you. Is it simply that we have different motivations, or am I not understanding something fundamental about your philosophy?

Ultimate Truth has no utility whatsoever, other than being ultimately true.

My main interest in Ultimate Truth, is an interest in Nature. It's a biological interest, that wants to understand Life. To know exactly how things work.

I also have more base, but less powerful, interests in Truth, which are slowly becoming more pure. For instance, on a more emotional level, there's concern about being soulless and insane, and about being absolutely powerful. The latter is quite a helpful one, because of the word "absolutely". It tends to struggle with logic, and death in the arms of causation.



-