RE: Qualia - Everyone Sees The World Differently

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Qualia - Everyone Sees The World Differently

oendertuerk in #philosophy • 6 years ago

wow... first of all, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed comment and also for trying to answer some of my questions according to your point of view.

Well, your answers have made me wonder how you feel about the whole thing and I respect that you view a person's consciousness as a sequence and product of experience, of the brain. I know many who think that way. But personally I see it differently.

And yes, I know the attempts to measure human brainwaves and to reproduce them both visually and audioally. But what the program shows at the end is how the programmer sees things. My brainwaves will show the red what the programmer has programmed into the program as red. And so it is with many other things.

Which red is the truth now? Yours or mine? Does there even exist a red with a truth? It's the same with views and opinions. Which one of us is right? You with your opinion or I with mine? You see a 9 and think it's right and maybe the truth for you and I see a 6 and I think it's right for me and maybe its my truth.
You try to convince me of your opinion (your view = your truth = your reality) and I try to convince you of mine. (my view = my reality = my truth)

But I think that there is no ultimate truth. There are only views and everything is built on them ;)

6 years ago in #philosophy by oendertuerk

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

aakom 6 years ago

In ref to both @oendertuerk and @hartnell, before venturing towards an ultimate truth, it needs to be precisely worded - reminds me of the computer in Hitchhiker's Guide. So, if all we experience is our mind, is there any state of mind that is universal, something we can all agree upon? This is not dissimilar to Descartes' meditation, although the answer is different.

There is a state of pure awareness (or consciousness) devoid of any other experience. It is the ground state of consciousness. We don't usually notice it as our attention tends to focus on the phenomena generated by the mind, be they deemed external or internal (the mind doesn't seem to care). It has various names, depending on the language of the texts, but the definitions show such words to be synonyms, and hence the experiences to be the same.

How can one experience a kind of stateless state? What is interesting is that the state has no phenomena that one can point to, and yet the memory of the state remains - it is not a memory-less sleep, it is a conscious state. Indeed, if I was more skillful, and diligent, I should be able to extend such periods of consciousness - so-called sleep yoga claims to have techniques to achieve this.

When one comes out of the pure state, there is an admixture of our standard conscious mental activity with the ground state still present. Mental activities appear with a certain detachment. Without practice, the ground state fades back into the background, yet can be accessed - and it will always be the same state.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

oendertuerk 6 years ago

And yet all are in a different state, in which each one moves his reality.
is the highest state the truth? who determines the truth?

0.00 BPC

[-]

aakom 6 years ago

To give an analogy, a computer can run many programs, yet its kernel, the heart of the OS, is the same. It can even be thought of as the interface between machine and experience, between biology and experience, for us.

Truth? That depends on the question. The answers to many questions do not come in words but in experiences. Hence the fascination with things such as Zen koans, which make no sense unless you are inside having the experience.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

hartnell 6 years ago

I wanted to make it clear why I upvoted and make a comment on what appears to be a habit of yours that runs counter to it.

Truth? That depends on the question.

Brilliant! That's probably the most succinct, accurate and rational thing that any one of us have said on this post.

The answers to many questions do not come in words but in experiences. Hence the fascination with things such as Zen koans, which make no sense unless you are inside having the experience.

Why try to sound smart when what you've just said is actually really smart?

Boggles the mind.

0.00 BPC

[-]

hartnell 6 years ago (edited)

@aakom

In ref to both @oendertuerk and @hartnell, before venturing towards an ultimate truth, it needs to be precisely worded - reminds me of the computer in Hitchhiker's Guide.

Two points for the HHGTG reference. I agree, it's a damn good idea to define the problem before attempting to solve it. With that said...

So, if all we experience is our mind, is there any state of mind that is universal, something we can all agree upon

Define mind.
Define state of mind.
Make sure to define them definitively. ;)

This is not dissimilar to Descartes' meditation, although the answer is different.

If you mean "Cognito, ergo sum" then that would be a statement, not a meditation. Sure, it's a statement that summarizes the conclusion of a long chain of thought but unless you know that chain of thought and how that conclusion was reached, then it's mmmm tricky. In other words, it's about as useful as 42 without the question.

There is a state of pure awareness (or consciousness) devoid of any other experience.

There is a BDSM squirrel that plays blackjack with it's friends deep in the forest of zanzabar. If you don't get my sarcasm, allow me translate: "Sure, if you say so."

It is the ground state of consciousness.

Uh huh. hmmm..... go on...

We don't usually notice it as our attention tends to focus on the phenomena generated by the mind, be they deemed external or internal (the mind doesn't seem to care).

Hmm. This is overly complex and getting pretentious.

It has various names, depending on the language of the texts, but the definitions show such words to be synonyms, and hence the experiences to be the same.

Full on pretentiousness achieved.

How can one experience a kind of stateless state?

One could imagine that a bullet to the head might do the trick.

Then again, I have to admit, that two other possibilities are possible here:

"stateless state" is pseudo-profound bullshit.
"stateless state" is something you don't really understand.

What is interesting is that the state has no phenomena that one can point to, and yet the memory of the state remains - it is not a memory-less sleep, it is a conscious state. Indeed, if I was more skillful, and diligent, I should be able to extend such periods of consciousness - so-called sleep yoga claims to have techniques to achieve this.

It seems to me that you're just aping understanding of what happens when you enter a state without ready associations to reference it by while in other states. I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's something called "sleep yoga", especially since sleep is a primary metaphor in esoteric schools. Waking consciousness is regarded as a form of sleep. The point is to wake the fuck up.

(15 minutes of research later)

Well dammit, my first impression in the above paragraph was wrong.

What you're talking about is "yoga nidra", which, from the very first sentence of the wikipedia article the plot thins considerably.

Yoga nidra (Sanskrit: योग निद्रा) or yogic sleep) is a state of consciousness between waking and sleeping, like the "going-to-sleep" stage, typically induced by a guided meditation.

In other words, it's hypnosis. Since a lot of people fear hypnosis, hypnotists (points to self[1]) have a practice of referring to a "talking induction" as "guided meditation." 'Cause that's what guided mediation is: an induction and reading of some kind of script to the hypnotee.

If you're really into this, you would do better to find some crazy local individual who geeks out on this sort of thing to hypnotize you or otherwise just to look into self-hypnosis. Better yet, learn hypnosis yourself. It's not that difficult and really really fun if you learn from the likes of Richard Bandler, Major Mark, and Ross Jeffries. Especially Ross Jeffries. :)

[1] This is a hypnotist joke you won't get. I've included it to entertain myself as the butt of the joke is myself. :)

0.00 BPC

[-]

aakom 6 years ago

You assume too much yet know so little.
So, tell me, what is the deepest possible state according to hypnosis and what does it feel like?
In your own words, of course, and from experience, if possible.

0.00 BPC

[-]

hartnell 6 years ago

You assume too much yet know so little.

So, tell me,

Look, I was just giving you a heads up, and point out where there's some good fun the be had, you can take it or leave it. If you want to ignore it because you think you're somehow special, you're welcome to do that, too.

I'm a pragmatic guy.

what is the deepest possible state according to hypnosis and what does it feel like?

There's no such thing as "according to hypnosis." Hypnotism isn't some kind of authority that makes definitive statements about itself that all the little padowans must believe.

Using the "deep" metaphor to describe hypnosis is a pet peeve of many a hypnotist, so there's a clue for you right there.

In your own words, of course, and from experience, if possible.

I can't answer that, as asked. The best answer I can give is: hypnosis feels however the hypnotist wants it to feel.

0.00 BPC

[-]

hartnell 6 years ago

@oendertwat (one good misspelling deserves another. :) )

wow... first of all, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed comment and also for trying to answer some of my questions according to your point of view.

It's twat I do. You're welcome.

Well, your answers have made me wonder how you feel about the whole thing and I respect that you view a person's consciousness as a sequence and product of experience, of the brain.

Maybe I totally mucked it up, but that's not at all what I was saying.

My point was that experience (not consciousness) is a product of brain function. Is that clearer? The hard problem of consciousness isn't well named. It's precisely the hard problem of experience.

To summarize:

We have experience.
WTF?!?

Note the lack of the word "consciousness" in that summary. To be fair I think I did use the word "consciousness" out of convenience.

I know many who think that way. But personally I see it differently.

I honestly don't care how someone "sees" it (unless it's a personal issue.) I'm a pragmatist, so I kinda stick to the domain of demonstration and doing what works.

And yes, I know the attempts to measure human brainwaves and to reproduce them both visually and audioally.

That's not at all what said researchers are doing.

But what the program shows at the end is how the programmer sees things.

There's no "programmer" who decides what is seen in this case. Instead, machine learning is used to decode the brainwaves. At any rate, what's going on is like listening to the circuitry of a television to determine the picture that's being displayed on the TV.

My brainwaves will show the red what the programmer has programmed into the program as red. And so it is with many other things.

Actually, the color red is generated in an opponent process with the color green (cyan, really). It's hardwired into us as much as breathing. It exists both because of this process and because it's hardwired. You can experience this yourself by fatiguing one side or the other of the opponent process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent-process_theory

Don't take my word for it! See it for yourself!
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/light/complementary-colours.htm

Here is a really wild example of fatiguing an opponent process at work (I know it says "hypnotize yourself" but that's not really what's going on.):

Variations can exist in individual perception of colors, but not due to some "mystery of individual consciousness." This is well known and as I sarcastically pointed out, easy to test for. I'm sure you've seen these.

Which red is the truth now? Yours or mine? Does there even exist a red with a truth? It's the same with views and opinions. Which one of us is right? You with your opinion or I with mine? You see a 9 and think it's right and maybe the truth for you and I see a 6 and I think it's right for me and maybe its my truth.
You try to convince me of your opinion (your view = your truth = your reality) and I try to convince you of mine. (my view = my reality = my truth)

But I think that there is no ultimate truth. There are only views and everything is built on them ;)

No offense, but this can only come directly from the armchair. I'm not trying to convince you of "my opinion." The idea of some "ultimate truth" doesn't even register on my radar as anything worth considering.

I am describing things that can be directly demonstrated. From my first comment:

If your brain no process, you no experience. If your brain processes differently than it did a minute ago (say, with the help of some psychoactive substances or a really solid kick to the head), then your experience also changes.

Hell, you can verify this yourself without any drugs, swift kick, or special equipment. Just hold your breath until your brain is starved of oxygen enough that it can't process normally and stars will begin to appear.

0.00 BPC