Consciousness

[godnotgod]

"Subjective" of "subjective mind" is an adjective descriptor--referencing mind and sensory processing that cannot be objectively decoded or experienced by other beings--it is subjective or private to the particular individual.

You see? You had to reference the 'subjective' mind in terms of the objective descriptor. The subjective mind is one aspect of the subject/object split, which the conditioned mind has created as a means of dealing with a reality it does not understand intuitively. The reality is that it is just a construct, as objectivity is. They are creations of the mind, and do not originally exist perse. That means they are illusory.

As I was saying previously, the awakened mind also processes sensory stimuli just as the ordinary man does, but unlike the ordinary man, the awakened mind does not attach itself to those perceptions as being 'my' perceptions. For him, they are just perceptions. The moment they become subjective, they are now 'my' perceptions, as compared to 'your' perceptions. The subject/object split is born, and delusion, then suffering eventually ensues. Subjectivity involves desire, and as a Buddhist, you know what THAT entails, I'm sure.

“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery"

Tao te Ching, Ch 1
Tao Te Ching, English by Arthur Waley - Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

 

[godnotgod]

No one can say definitively what exactly consciousness is, so claiming it is fundamental to anything is nonsense.

At least in our experience as humans, as well as the animal world, it seems to be in place prior to anything we think or do. When we look, we cannot find a beginning for it. It does not arise or subside. It's kind of like the world of Silence. Always there. Unborn, Uncaused, Unconditioned.

But you are correct in pointing out that one cannot nail it down, and that is because it is not a finite thing that can be nailed down by a finite mind. Once the finite mind is transcended, the view becomes quite different; a radical new view of reality occurs, and yet, things are as they have always been.

No one can tell you what consciousness is because you are using consciousness in that attempt, and in so doing, are at the beginning of your inquiry, one step removed from what it actually is. It is like the eye trying to see itself. IOW, consciousness cannot be an object of itself, because you are that very consciousness.

Consciousness is present before the mind's attempt to define what it sees. In that sense, at least on the human level, it is fundamental to all our experience.

 

[godnotgod]

"Tout logic so highly"? I haven't even gone past common sense and simple intuition yet. Firstly, a Metaphor is using a figure of speech to imply a similarity or a difference between two different things(although universality might qualify). But, an analogy is a logical argument explaining those comparisons or differences. In other words, a metaphor is always literally false, and an analogy is always literally true. I have no problem with you seeing the Universe in a grain of sand. My problem is when you try to logically justify it. Were you formless in 1810? Is a snowflake formless in the desert? Does the state of Universality, also include non-existence?

"The background canvas for the image of self is consciousness, for which there is no background canvas, because it IS the background canvas" Talk about circular logic, and begging the question. Again, not only is the mind and the perception of self dimensionless, static, and an illusion presented by a functioning brain, but It also suggests the existence of a universal consciousness, and a universal self. This idea needs to be implicitly addressed, not simply implied or omitted.

Close your eyes and cover your ears. Are you still aware of your position within space and time? Of course you are. Not only where you are, but also where every part of your body is. Think of your little finger. Do you know where it is without directly looking at it? I think that you are simply looking for cohesiveness in your search for personal enlightenment. But you are simply creating your own semantics, to justify your own logic. Neither is intellectually honest. If you still want a truer example of a canvas for human beings, try billions of years of Evolution, and trial and error. Don

The Big Bang, out of which Evolution emerged, is an ongoing event against the canvas of consciousness, or better, in consciousness itself, as 'canvas' implies flatness.

"Metaphor is using a figure of speech to imply a similarity or a difference between two different things", as in the similarity that snowflakes and humans exhibit, both in their uniqueness, and of their source as being universal. Therefore, universal water is to unique snowflake as universal consciousness is to individual self. All snowflakes are made of universal water as all selves are made of universal consciousness.

See how easy Logic 101 can be?
(On second thought, maybe you'd best stick with common sense.)

The consciousness that I am now is the same consciousness that was present in 1810. It is not MY consciousness; it is UNIVERSAL consciousness. You are confusing individual consciousness (ie 'mind') with universal consciousness that is empty of self. Individual consciousness is in Time and Space; it is Existence; universal consciousness is not in Time or Space; it is Being, not Existence. It is omniscient, in all times and all spaces at once.

A snowflake, whether in the desert or in the Arctic, always exhibits form, until it once again becomes formless water.
Formless consciousness is always present, whether it manifests itself as form or not. It is non-dual and non-local.

You cannot address consciousness in the manner of science. The moment you do, you're talking about something else; about the characteristics, the traces of consciousness. We can only talk about it in negative terms. There are only two choices. But if individual consciousness is an illusion, then the only other choice is universal consciousness, consciousness itself being self-evident.

If I silently point to the moon, and you attack the pointing finger, you have missed seeing.

Again, your logic is erroneous. All you are referencing with closed eyes is the memory of a construct called 'Time and Space', and where your mind stashes the self away in that time and space construct. To break free of this fabrication is to experience reality as it actually is, before Time, Space, or Causation seemingly locked you up in bondage.

 

[godnotgod]

There is nothing mystical about quantum mechanics in any way shape or form. It's 100% hardcore and mathematically exact science. The mixing of QM with mystical realizations creates arrant nonsense.

Mixing? Aren't physicists employing consciousness to fiddle with their mathematics? Who's guilty of 'mixing' here?

Quantum Physics, unlike Newtonian physics which says that this a real material world, says that this world is a 'superposition of possibilities'. And now, some physicists are saying that what we thought to be a particle is in reality standing waves created by the surrounding field. That is starting to sound a lot like maya to me.

BTW, mystic does not mean something weird and mysterious, but simply means realization of union with The Absolute. You know. like The Universe, which is not just an absolute, but THE Absolute, and we are already at one with it. There's no escape as in 'I am over here, and the universe is over there'. Nope. You ARE it. The Universe, you see, is not a vessel that contains a collection of 'things'; it IS those very 'things'.

 

[sayak83]

Mixing? Aren't physicists employing consciousness to fiddle with their mathematics? Who's guilty of 'mixing' here?

Quantum Physics, unlike Newtonian physics which says that this a real material world, says that this world is a 'superposition of possibilities'. And now, some physicists are saying that what we thought to be a particle is in reality standing waves created by the surrounding field. That is starting to sound a lot like maya to me.

BTW, mystic does not mean something weird and mysterious, but simply means realization of union with The Absolute. You know. like The Universe, which is not just an absolute, but THE Absolute, and we are already at one with it. There's no escape as in 'I am over here, and the universe is over there'. Nope. You ARE it. The Universe, you see, is not a vessel that contains a collection of 'things'; it IS those very 'things'.

I am a scientist and a Vedantist Hindu. I am not sure how to explain this without giving you a course in Quantum Mechanics, but classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are both equally compatible with Hindu monism and QM haven't somehow made Hindu monism more plausible as a metaphysics compared to classical mechanics.

 

[godnotgod]

I am a scientist and a Vedantist Hindu. I am not sure how to explain this without giving you a course in Quantum Mechanics, but classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are both equally compatible with Hindu monism and QM haven't somehow made Hindu monism more plausible as a metaphysics compared to classical mechanics.

Is there a mystical and a non-mystical Vedantist view?

 

[sayak83]

Is there a mystical and a non-mystical Vedantist view?

The Vedantic view is that of monism in essence. QM or Classical Mechanics are about physical descriptions of the outer diversity of form and function of this essence. The one prediction of the Vedantic metaphysics is that the physics would see more and more underlying unity among phenomena the deeper it looks into the observable phenomena. This physics has found in it's 500 year search for even more general theories about phenomena. The specific theory that is considered the most successful in a current period of inquiry, be it Newtonian or Quantum or String Theory etc. is not a point of much concern for Vedantic thought. The increasing convergence of mathematics with physics is a cause for some excitement though as it hints that maybe in future soon, the abstract world of math and concrete world of physics maybe unified in some yet unforeseen way.

Does that help?

 

[crossfire]

You see? You had to reference the 'subjective' mind in terms of the objective descriptor.

Actually, I did that on purpose. I could have just as easily left out the word "objectively."

The subjective mind is one aspect of the subject/object split, which the conditioned mind has created as a means of dealing with a reality it does not understand intuitively. The reality is that it is just a construct, as objectivity is. They are creations of the mind, and do not originally exist perse. That means they are illusory.

Impermanence and dependently arising does not mean that it is an illusion any more than a cake that someone mixes and bakes, than eats is illusionary. I totally disagree with your assertion that this constitutes illusion.

As I was saying previously, the awakened mind also processes sensory stimuli just as the ordinary man does, but unlike the ordinary man, the awakened mind does not attach itself to those perceptions as being 'my' perceptions. For him, they are just perceptions. The moment they become subjective, they are now 'my' perceptions, as compared to 'your' perceptions. The subject/object split is born, and delusion, then suffering eventually ensues. Subjectivity involves desire, and as a Buddhist, you know what THAT entails, I'm sure.

You are changing the definition of subjective that I gave here. Awakened or unawakened, the subjectively processed information is still only available to the particular individual, which is the definition of subjective mind that I gave.

“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery"

Tao te Ching, Ch 1

Tao Te Ching, English by Arthur Waley - Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

Yes, the awakened mind recognizes the perceptions of the subjective mind as perceptions, not the reality. The awakened mind does not confuse the subjective for the objective; to do so would be delusion. The map is not the territory. The perception of the unity of perceptions is tied to the common source of the subjective perceptions of the subjective mind forming a map, and does not necessarily extend to objective reality.

 

[godnotgod]

The Vedantic view is that of monism in essence. QM or Classical Mechanics are about physical descriptions of the outer diversity of form and function of this essence. The one prediction of the Vedantic metaphysics is that the physics would see more and more underlying unity among phenomena the deeper it looks into the observable phenomena. This physics has found in it's 500 year search for even more general theories about phenomena. The specific theory that is considered the most successful in a current period of inquiry, be it Newtonian or Quantum or String Theory etc. is not a point of much concern for Vedantic thought. The increasing convergence of mathematics with physics is a cause for some excitement though as it hints that maybe in future soon, the abstract world of math and concrete world of physics maybe unified in some yet unforeseen way.

Does that help?

Well, I am trying to understand your protest regarding mystics interpreting the science of Quantum Mechanics. That's why I asked whether Vedanta had both mystical and non-mystical branches. You say you are a Vedantist, so does that mean you are a mystic, and if so, then what is your gripe about a mystical view of QM?

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, I did that on purpose. I could have just as easily left out the word "objectively."

Even when left unmentioned, it's inseparable relation to 'subjective' is implied. If there were no such relationship, it would be unnecessary to add 'subjective' as a descriptor to the word 'mind'.

Impermanence and dependently arising does not mean that it is an illusion any more than a cake that someone mixes and bakes, than eats is illusionary.

I totally disagree with your assertion that this constitutes illusion.

That wasn't the argument I was currently making. What I am saying is that the ordinary mind, due to social indoctrination and other conditioning factors, creates a subject/object split where none exists in actuality. But putting my view aside for a moment, what is it about 'subjective mind' that makes you consider it to be real?

You are changing the definition of subjective that I gave here. Awakened or unawakened, the subjectively processed information is still only available to the particular individual, which is the definition of subjective mind that I gave.

If what you say is the case, then why not just say that perceptions are processed individually as physical sense-data.
How the individual interprets them is another issue. That would be subjective in the sense of being personal, or what Buddha referred to as 'self-view', the way the conditioned mind sees reality.

Yes, the awakened mind recognizes the perceptions of the subjective mind as perceptions, not the reality. The awakened mind does not confuse the subjective for the objective; to do so would be delusion. The map is not the territory. The perception of the unity of perceptions is tied to the common source of the subjective perceptions of the subjective mind forming a map, and does not necessarily extend to objective reality.

The awakened mind sees that the objective view and the subjective view are two aspects of the same experience, which is consciousness, and so, in the transformation of consciousness from a conditioned to an unconditioned state, the two merge as one.

On the level of reality that is perceptual reality, that world is real. From the POV of Ultimate Reality, perceptual reality is a dream.

 

[crossfire]

Even when left unmentioned, it's inseparable relation to 'subjective' is implied. If there were no such relationship, it would be unnecessary to add 'subjective' as a descriptor to the word 'mind'.

Other individuals cannot subjectively decode another individual's sense data without invoking such things a psychic abilities, but that was not necessary to this argument.

That wasn't the argument I was currently making. What I am saying is that the ordinary mind, due to social indoctrination and other conditioning factors, creates a subject/object split where none exists in actuality. But putting my view aside for a moment, what is it about 'subjective mind' that makes you consider it to be real?

A lack of reason or evidence refuting its reality, and evidence supporting its reality. A model of the psyche including a subjective mind would explain the observed effect we call delusion and individual qualia.

If what you say is the case, then why not just say that perceptions are processed individually as physical sense-data.

How the individual interprets them is another issue. That would be subjective in the sense of being personal, or what Buddha referred to as 'self-view', the way the conditioned mind sees reality.

Well, because the interpretation of the unity of all perceptions being a reflection of reality is an interpretation unique to the individual, which is the point I've been trying to get across.

On the level of reality that is perceptual reality, that world is real. From the POV of Ultimate Reality, perceptual reality is a dream.

lol, first the two become one in the enlightened view, but they are separated in the Ultimate view?

 

[sayak83]

Well, I am trying to understand your protest regarding mystics interpreting the science of Quantum Mechanics. That's why I asked whether Vedanta had both mystical and non-mystical branches. You say you are a Vedantist, so does that mean you are a mystic, and if so, then what is your gripe about a mystical view of QM?

My gripe is it's mostly nonsensical word salad.
I have had mystical experiences. I am not however a sannyasin.

 

[godnotgod]

lol, first the two become one in the enlightened view, but they are separated in the Ultimate view?

The person that dreams is the same person that awakens. What he dreams is not real, though it seemed real while asleep. This is called Waking Sleep, or Identification.

 

[crossfire]

The person that dreams is the same person that awakens. What he dreams is not real, though it seemed real while asleep. This is called Waking Sleep, or Identification.

OK. So is the dissolution of subject and object a product of dreaming? (Surrealistic distortion of perception. When you sense sensory distortions while dreaming, this often triggers lucidity--the realization that you are dreaming. Perceptions don't always reflect reality, and the perceptive map is just a map, not the reality.)

 

[godnotgod]

OK. So is the dissolution of subject and object a product of dreaming?

No, the product of realization.

So, according to The Master Game by Robert deRopp, the first level of consciousness is Sleep without Dreams; the second is Sleep with Dreams; the third is Waking Sleep, or Identification, which is the level most everyone finds themselves on when waking from each night's sleep, and where most experience the subject/object split. The fourth level, Self-Transcendence, is where the subject/object split is merged, and the self, acting out its drama on the third level, is seen as fiction. This is the first level of spiritual awakening. There are several levels of consciousness beyond the fourth, all awakened states.

 

[godnotgod]

My gripe is it's mostly nonsensical word salad.

Can you provide just one or two examples of what you consider to be 'word salad'?

 

[sayak83]

Can you provide just one or two examples of what you consider to be 'word salad'?

That the results of quantum experiments depend on the consciousness of the experimenter is one such nonsense flying around. The properties of quantum events depend on the type of interaction between the quantum system and the surrounding this system is interacting with. This surrounding may be a natural one (as in radioactive decay) or may be an experimental set up (as in a double slit experiment). In either case, the quantum wavefunction is a mathematical structure that provides the type of property and the probability of the quantitative values of this property that emerges from this system-surrounding interaction. They occur regardless of any consciousness is present or not. What has been loosely termed as "quantum properties depend on the type of observation" is actually a short hand for "properties of a quantum system emerge and are jointly determined both by the quantum system itself and the manner in which it interacts with it's surroundings which, in experiments, include the experimental set up used to measure the properties." Whether a conscious entity is there to observe the results of these experiments or not is completely irrelevant and affects nothing at all.

 

[godnotgod]

That the results of quantum experiments depend on the consciousness of the experimenter is one such nonsense flying around. The properties of quantum events depend on the type of interaction between the quantum system and the surrounding this system is interacting with. This surrounding may be a natural one (as in radioactive decay) or may be an experimental set up (as in a double slit experiment). In either case, the quantum wavefunction is a mathematical structure that provides the type of property and the probability of the quantitative values of this property that emerges from this system-surrounding interaction. They occur regardless of any consciousness is present or not. What has been loosely termed as "quantum properties depend on the type of observation" is actually a short hand for "properties of a quantum system emerge and are jointly determined both by the quantum system itself and the manner in which it interacts with it's surroundings which, in experiments, include the experimental set up used to measure the properties." Whether a conscious entity is there to observe the results of these experiments or not is completely irrelevant and affects nothing at all.

From what I've seen so far, it is the double slit experiment that is either held up as the example where consciousness affects the experiment, or does not. The following is a modification of that experiment. Is it, in your professional opinion, just a case of more poppycock and woo woo?

 

[godnotgod]

Other individuals cannot subjectively decode another individual's sense data without invoking such things a psychic abilities, but that was not necessary to this argument.

OK, so you are referring to the individual as the processor of all perceptions which you call 'the subjective mind'. I think a much better, and less misleading term for 'the subjective mind' would be 'the subject', partly because, as you stated, it does not matter whether his mind is awakened or conditioned. It is the subject in either case that processes all perceptions. 'Subjective mind' suggests a state of mind, as compared to other possible states of mind, all of which are irrelevant to the processing of perceptions.

 

[crossfire]

OK, so you are referring to the individual as the processor of all perceptions which you call 'the subjective mind'. I think a much better, and less misleading term for 'the subjective mind' would be 'the subject', partly because, as you stated, it does not matter whether his mind is awakened or conditioned. It is the subject in either case that processes all perceptions. 'Subjective mind' suggests a state of mind, as compared to other possible states of mind, all of which are irrelevant to the processing of perceptions.

Regarding "subjective mind," I am specifically referring to the base-sense processing center of a sentient being for sensory information, including sensing ideas, as well as the processing center for abstract thought.