Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Poid]
    #13275104 -

i left it unanswered because i have no better term for what i mean to indicate

trust me, if i could find the words to correctly "box" the phenomenon i'm trying to point at, i'd be all over that shit

what's funny is that everyone i've explained this idea to in person grasped it immediately


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13276334 -

Most people you meet day to day have zero capacity for rational thinking and given time I've found you can convice them of almost anything. :sheepie:


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Grapefruit]
    #13276379 -

yes, because i just go around telling people i meet at Starbucks about this :rolleyes:

i'm referring to the friends i smoke weed and philosophize with
one of whom introduced me to Dennett's book Consciousness Explained
those kind of people

obviously the fact that these people understood me is irrelevant to the strength of my argument here, i'm just surprised at how stark the difference is


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13276416 -

That's who I was on about too, many of my friends are intelligent just the same as I am but some just have that knack for getting their point across. I'm guessing you are like that aswell as a fair few others here.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13277148 -

laserpig said:
so far, it seems a grand total of zero people have understood the meaning of my basic statement that subjective experience is "a different type of thing" than physical matter





Add me to the list, I don't think I understand what your trying to say.  The things i take from your post don't seem to jive with your other statements.  Could you explain your argument again?


Quote:
unless i'm greatly mistaken, the confusion is a result of people having different definitions of the same word (isn't it always?)
unfortunately, i have no better label for what i am attempting to describe


Yes, it is often a result of differing definitions, which is why I suspect your unhappy with the response.  Reading your original post, it is hard to figure out what your saying- surely if you have a discreet idea that is meaningful you can explain it more fully.

Quote:
subjective experience is not reducible to physical process, and the physical world is not reducible to subjective consciousness

both exist, and the two are not identical
so everyone, please stop claiming that one is just a bag of tricks produced by the other



Seems to me subjective experiences can easily be reduable to physical processes.  I touch my arm and feel it.  I don't touch my arm and I don't feel it.

Voila, I've just demostrated my perception is a result of a physical process, yes?  The only other thing I can see your post to mean is a semantic claim that relies upon the differing definitions of the undefined classes used in your premise: subjective, physical- and it appears you feel your idea has some independant meaning so I'm guessing that's not what your trying to say.



What exactly are you claiming?


edit: formating fix

Edited by johnm214 (10/02/10 11:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: johnm214]
    #13278493 -

laserpig, I've think you've explained it easily enough. You're attempting to claim that although the brain gathers information from the physical world and interprets it subjectively, the experience itsself is a projection onto another dimension.

Just  because I may or may not agree with you doesn't mean I don't grasp your ideas. Now I'm asking you to test your own ideas and go further. For instance, how do dreams play into this? Do dreams exist in the same orthoganol dimension you describe?

Also, if there is another dimension, in which the subjective experience exists, that means that there is information passing to and from our 3D universe to this extra dimension, right? Then should we not be able to detect this flow of information?

Stop repeating yourself and push your ideas further

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13279020 -

laserpig said:
subjective experience is not reducible to physical process, and the physical world is not reducible to subjective consciousness



Would this mean that objective exerience IS reducible to a physical process? I say no because there is a subjective experience.

Is the physical world reducible to an objective consciousness? No because there is a subjective one.

If my statements cant be true then I dont see how yours can be.

The experience is objective physical process, the physical worldprocess is a subjective consciousness. They are married. Not separate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: jozef]
    #13279122 -

jozef said:
Stop repeating yourself and push your ideas further


:awebig:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280125 -

laserpig said:
what's funny is that everyone i've explained this idea to in person grasped it immediately

How do you know they grasped it immediately? Did they just nod their heads in agreement (:yesnod:), or did they actually put into words what they thought of your proposition (:otd:)? If it's the latter, then what did they say?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Poid]
    #13280231 -

when i discussed this with my friends, we went on to ponder the specifics of the dimensional metaphor -- we did not rehash the premise which all of us came to the table with, ie that subjectivity is a "different kind of thing" than matter
since it is that premise which all of you are hung up on, nothing from our conversations will be helpful to you

i came up with this as an explanation for people like myself who already feel that subjectivity is of a different order than matter

if you don't feel the same way, then there's really no reason to care about anything i've said


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280241 -

laserpig said:
when i discussed this with my friends, we went on to ponder the specifics of the dimensional metaphor -- we did not rehash the premise which all of us came to the table with, ie that subjectivity is a "different kind of thing" than matter
since it is that premise which all of you are hung up on, nothing from our conversations will be helpful to you

I understand your premise that subjective experience exists in another dimension, I just don't see proof of it. Especially since you refuse to define what you mean by 'subjective experience'.


laserpig said:
i came up with this as an explanation for people like myself who already feel that subjectivity is of a different order than matter

if you don't feel the same way, then there's really no reason to care about anything i've said

I sort of feel the same way, but then again, I understand that feelings aren't always correct; I'd rather prove that my feelings are correct than merely assume that they are. :shrug2:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Poid]
    #13280286 -

the descriptions we have of matter, which generally fall under the "billiard balls" model, leave no room for awareness of what is happening

through complex feedback in the billiard ball system, stimuli can be sensed, computed upon, and reacted to, but nowhere in this process is there or does there need to be any subjective "internal" corollary to the computation

this is what i meant when i said "if matter were all that existed, we would be nothing but blind automatons"

clearly, we do have this "internal" subjective experience, and just as clearly, this experience is not literally internal to our bodies, because you can perform an exhaustive search of our material bodies and find only matter -- matter which, by itself, needs no subjective awareness to get the job done
yet we know that subjectivity exists

thus my proposition that there is an extramaterial dimension to the universe, into which subjectivity is "projected" from material processes

but again, i'm only rehashing what i said earlier
i really have exhausted my argument, and we're still at an impasse


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280302 -

Why a separate dimension, though? Just because it cannot be found?

What if it is quite simply no thing and can only be seen to exist through things?


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280315 -

laserpig said:
the descriptions we have of matter, which generally fall under the "billiard balls" model, leave no room for awareness of what is happening

Matter is made up of both waves and particles (see: wave-particle duality)--I don't see how this leaves no room for what you define as being 'awareness' because you have not provided that definition.


laserpig said:
through complex feedback in the billiard ball system, stimuli can be sensed, computed upon, and reacted to, but nowhere in this process is there or does there need to be any subjective "internal" corollary to the computation

So what makes you think that the sensed stimuli isn't itself subjective experience?


laserpig said:
this is what i meant when i said "if matter were all that existed, we would be nothing but blind automatons"

clearly, we do have this "internal" subjective experience, and just as clearly, this experience is not literally internal to our bodies, because you can perform an exhaustive search of our material bodies and find only matter -- matter which, by itself, needs no subjective awareness to get the job done
yet we know that subjectivity exists

It doesn't make sense to expect to find another person's subjective experiences through your own subjective experiences, now, does it? How could it be possible to experience the workings of another person's brain through the experience of the workings of our own?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Kickle]
    #13280332 -

Kickle said:
Why a separate dimension, though? Just because it cannot be found?

What if it is quite simply no thing and can only be seen to exist through things?


at last, a real question!

because it isn't only seen to exist through physical things
if i look at you, yes, your subjectivity is only apparent through your actions
but i am my own subjectivity, as much as or more than i am my own body
thus it (my subjectivity) is immediately apparent, and undeniably extant

take this statement
"it exists nowhere"
now, how is that at all different from saying "it does not exist?"
you said "what if it is no thing"
well, if it's nothing, it doesn't exist
if it's nowhere, it doesn't exist

but subjectivity exists
and subjectivity seems to have everything to do with the physical process of the brain
thus my proposition that it exists in a dimension and location orthogonal to the 3-D space and process of the brain

dimensionality is really the only metaphor i can think of that resolves this confusion, but i'm open to others if you have any


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Poid]
    #13280377 -

poid, i get the sense that you think i'm defending some kind of cartesian dualism
i'm not
as i have repeatedly tried to stress, this orthogonal dimension must have everything to do with the physical processes it rides along with
i'm suggesting they're co-extant, not separate


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280413 -

What does awareness do? What is it that turns awareness into a subject? IMO and IME awareness is not a subject as it is no thing. It is the things that turn it into a subject. And as awareness can do nothing because it is nothing, it does not resist. Your definition of existence relies on things, but I see no reason why nothing can not exist. It simply exists as no thing.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Kickle]
    #13280488 -

i'm not talking about any mystical concept such as "pure awareness" etc
i'm talking about the phenomenon of subjective experience
subjective experience is content-laden, and thus it can't be nothing


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: laserpig]
    #13280524 -

IMO the dimension you are trying to describe, the place of projection, is pure awareness.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: modern science and ancient mysticism are both wrong [Re: Kickle]
    #13282949 -

Quote:
through complex feedback in the billiard ball system, stimuli can be sensed, computed upon, and reacted to, but nowhere in this process is there or does there need to be any subjective "internal" corollary to the computation


From my understanding sensing, computing and reacting all change the billard ball model. You cannot measure something without changing it. Basic principle isnt it? That is the subjective "internal" corollary to the computation. Sensing, computing and reacting are all the subjective part of the physical process.

Rattlesnakes basically have two sets of eyes. Somewhat normal eyes for the visual spectrum. Then two heat sensing eyes. The thing is the nerves from both connect before it reaches the brain. So it is thought that they see much like the alien Predator from the movies. Only without the need for electronics. So what does their subjective world look like? A lot different than ours.

What I think is that there is only one dimension and it just depends on what you can see. What if you could see more than the visible spectrum? Add xrays, gamma rays, ultraviolet etc. What would our subjective experience look like then? What if you could see everything there was to see? Feel everything? Eyes are a type of antenna, receiving light. If you had an organ that could receive all stimuli the world would look a whole lot different. The subjective experience would be wholly different.

Still though, you cant separate the objective from the subjective. They are one. They are also different for everyone and everything. Except for whatever being that has the ability to see it all at once.

Your writing and thoughts are mostly incoherent gibberish according to my subjective experience. Seems like most posting have told you the same thing already. I put it in more plain English for you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Mysticism - The Ultimate Science Source 1,628 18 04/10/04 01:44 AM
by Swami
* chaos mage talking about science imstoned420 2,534 15 02/01/02 05:30 AM
by mm.
* Science isn't philosiphy?!?!?!
( 1 2 all )		 gluke bastid 3,255 36 10/11/02 10:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Why science is stupid
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 2,330 36 11/13/03 07:45 PM
by Strumpling
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,367 42 10/07/02 04:00 PM
by Zahid
* Psychedelics and mysticism Kid 2,971 16 06/30/01 07:45 PM
by davidgergen
* Ignorance and Mysticism
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,329 22 04/08/04 01:43 PM
by CleverName
* Is Science a form of Mythology?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Adamist 4,784 52 01/23/03 03:21 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,832 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.