|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
Quote:
Heroic Dosage said: I once remember thinking that consciousness could adequately be defined as the presence of short and long term memory.
If we strip someone of memory entirely, including memories of a few microseconds ago, are they conscious? ...
if they stop making memory & perceiving (i.e. having a memory reflex from the context of mental contents being sensation and previous perceptions) then they have stopped being conscious.
this is slightly more precision (provable down to alpha and theta waves), but essentially , yeah, I believe you are right.
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562076 - 11/30/23 12:10 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I don't think you'll find meaning if you use words that don't have any
Quote:
When I say oneness Iām not just talking about feeling one with other people and animals, Iām talking the entire universe.
Oneness with the universe you say, and you don't mean pansychism? Right.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly] 1
#28562115 - 11/30/23 12:46 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Iām starting to feel as though you donāt understand what Panpsychism is.
I said a feeling of oneness. Again⦠āfeelingā being the word that really matters to solve your confusion.
When I say I experience a feeling of oneness, it is a claim about what consciousness feels like while being free of the self, free of thought, in a state of meditation. It is a claim about what it feels like to just focus on that one thing that we know we truly have our entire lives. It is not a claim about the material world, or which forms of matter give rise to consciousness and when. This oneness that I describe is there every time I look, regardless of whether panpsychism is true or not.
It isnāt my job to convince you, you need to experience it for yourself. Which is why I recommended Sam Harris and Alan Watts to guide you there. But if youāre not up for it then thatās your decision man⦠not much else I can say or do for you š¤·š¼āāļø Check out Douglas Harding, āOn Having No Headā as well if you want.
Iām interested to know if youāve ever experienced oneness on psychedelics?
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 01:08 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562156 - 11/30/23 01:21 PM (1 month, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I know the experience you're referring to in regard to psychedelic experience, I'd call it serenity though, less wishy washy room for misinterpretation.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562198 - 11/30/23 01:51 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
But you can be lost in thought, not focusing on the nature of consciousness while experiencing a serene environment. They are not the same thing when used in the way I am using it. Serenity does not equal oneness.
One can feel serene when experiencing oneness.
Serenity = calm, tranquil, at peace Oneness = a deep feeling of connection to oneās environment. The opposite of separateness.
I know itāll probably seem like Iāve come up with a different definition here, but Iām trying to describe the same thing using different words.
Anyway, you could be using those words synonymously for all I know.
Have a good one man š
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 02:25 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562238 - 11/30/23 02:28 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
agreed, a feeling of oneness is not the same as serenity, but I would go for serenity rather than oneness any day.
I get oneness all the time with salvia or with shrooms weed and acid but I get serenity when the meditation has stabilized, or close to the end of 40 minutes of sitting, and it is more spacious and interesting than oneness which can be exciting, but usually is not serene.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
|
Interesting. I guess I just find the oneness so fascinating at the moment. I definitely do love feelings of serenity too.
And the feeling of oneness really quashes my overthinking and anxieties so Iāve been finding it very useful when Iām able to concentrate to get there.
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 02:51 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562293 - 11/30/23 03:03 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Serenity = Serenity
Oneness = serendipity?
I mean you can experience serendipity. Kind of like nostalgia I suppose.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562442 - 11/30/23 05:05 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
No, oneness is not serendipity either.
I think I understand what people mean now by self evident š
I have a feeling I wasnāt quite grasping what that meant in regards to how we communicate about truth. Iām stupid.
I canāt use language (mathematics or not) to describe to someone what the experience of the colour green is like, but it is self evident to everyone what the colour of green is like. This makes me feel funny haha
What I mean by we canāt prove anything absolutely is that we canāt use any language (including mathematics) to perfectly describe this experience of being conscious, or the workings of the material world I think. But even though this is true at this point in time, it might not always be true right?
|
Blue_Lux
ĻĻ Īŗį¾°Ļį¾°ĻεĻĻĻĪŗĻĻ ĻĻονĻιĻĻĪ®Ļ


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy] 1
#28562529 - 11/30/23 05:39 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I know that Iām experiencing something that I call consciousness, and I can prove that to myself in each moment by paying attention. But I cannot prove that I experience consciousness to anyone else
"I know (subject) that I'm experiencing something (object) that I call consciousness (concept)."
Is your consciousness really something distinct from your experiencing? How can you experience what you yourself are? This is to divide yourself into two conceptual parts that really do not exist.
"Prove" is a loaded term. The fact you exist is a postulate that must be the case or else communication is not possible. It is clear that communication is possible, as communication face to face is actually mostly non-verbal. Ergo, the idea that you do not exist is absurd. Therefore, unless you are ai programmed by humans, you must exist.
To exist is really ecstasy, that is ekstasis, standing out, as the word exist comes from Latin existere which literally means to stand out. The fact something is standing out against a blank backdrop is existence.
Proving to yourself that you exist is inconsequential, because it presupposes existence as a predicate, which is something that can be had or lacked. Only nothing can lack existence. Furthermore, you cannot have existence because that implies that it is a quality of some distinct thing. Existence is not a quality. 'it' is what must be (in the subjunctive) for there to be anything in the first place.
This is truly a problem of English, as subjunctives are easily taken as active. 'it' is, in this case, a placeholder for our consciousness that has literally moved in time.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562596 - 11/30/23 06:08 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I think the linguistics are there to do it, but that we as individuals need to be able to articulate that, to keep trying until we can.
I get the feeling that if it's real there's a way to explain it, but but pinpointing how you feel at any given point can be hard, I get that.
I would've thought something self evident would be articulable.
I'll speak for myself here, but oneness still means nothing to me, you could say shifubizka to the same effect.
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562598 - 11/30/23 06:10 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Amen.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Blue_Lux
ĻĻ Īŗį¾°Ļį¾°ĻεĻĻĻĪŗĻĻ ĻĻονĻιĻĻĪ®Ļ


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562731 - 11/30/23 07:15 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If that about subjunctivity was confusing, here may help. I, at least, think it is a good explanation.
Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat. -Cicero about Socrates "to know nothing, the only thing he himself knew" "the only thing he himself 'claimed to know' was nothing" scire means to know
'sciat' is in the subjunctive, because it is not literal. You cannot literally know nothing.
the word 'scit' would be "he knew"
"The subjunctive expresses an element of uncertainty, often a wish, desire, doubt or hope."
This really shows part of the beauty of Latin philosophical constructions.
Subjunctive expressions concerning the words are and is use the words sit and sint in Latin, as opposed to just est (is) and are (sunt). although sum is i am and sumus is we are, etc. etc. The confusion of philosophical language in English really has everything to do with the ill-defined subjunctive and the tendency for colloquialisms and hypostatizations, wherein the subjunctive is taken literally.
|
Blue_Lux
ĻĻ Īŗį¾°Ļį¾°ĻεĻĻĻĪŗĻĻ ĻĻονĻιĻĻĪ®Ļ


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562773 - 11/30/23 07:43 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
well if you want to be technical sciat is present. sciit would be in the past tenst. scit is present so it would technically be he knows. the point is 'sciat', which is present tense, cannot be directly translated in that sentence into english, so it takes a past tense to make sense. it would really sound something like this
"ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" he himself nothing to know thing only he (noncertainly) knows
perhaps a more direct translation would indeed require the word 'noncertain'
"to know nothing is the only thing he himself knows noncertainly" to know nothing is all he were to have known
it is so short and concise in Latin. English is truly vulgar.
you read it like this
ipse se . nihil scire . id unum sciat . in chunks
ok that should suffice
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28562975 - 11/30/23 09:13 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
No, I donāt believe my consciousness is something separate from experiencing. Iām not splitting those two things apart like you say. Iām using āexperiencing consciousnessā as a placeholder for just the word āconsciousnessā I think because it made more sense to me to write it that way. Thanks for pointing that out though š
|
Blue_Lux
ĻĻ Īŗį¾°Ļį¾°ĻεĻĻĻĪŗĻĻ ĻĻονĻιĻĻĪ®Ļ


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28562989 - 11/30/23 09:28 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
"You're always aware you're more than you're aware of. You are what you're not, and you're not what you are." Sartre
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28562995 - 11/30/23 09:31 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I think the linguistics are there to do it, but that we as individuals need to be able to articulate that, to keep trying until we can.
I get the feeling that if it's real there's a way to explain it, but but pinpointing how you feel at any given point can be hard, I get that.
I would've thought something self evident would be articulable.
I'll speak for myself here, but oneness still means nothing to me, you could say shifubizka to the same effect.
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
You cannot describe what it is like to see to a blind person such that they know what it is actually like to see. I think this example should get my point across. Language is no replacement for experience.
I can describe what itās like to take mushrooms to someone who has never taken them. I can write a book the size of the Bible about it and I bet my life that once the person actually takes the shrooms they will still be as surprised as if I had told them almost nothing.
The fact that I canāt describe oneness to you and have you know exactly what Iām talking about is evidence that experience of oneness is necessary to be able to understand it.
I think youāre being a little bit deliberately obtuse if you say that shifubizka would mean as much to you as oneness.
Oneness from the dictionary: the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts. "the oneness of all suffering people" ā now extend this example outward to say that we can feel oneness with all people. Then extend it further to all animals and plants. Then to the rocks. Then to space and time and the stars. Everything. You can experience this kind of feeling if you meditate on the fact that there is no centre to your consciousness.
If youāre making the claim that language can describe the world perfectly then I say⦠prove it. Lol. Iām assuming you meant ānot perfectlyā though because you said āmore or lessā
Edited by Bardy (11/30/23 09:42 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563053 - 11/30/23 10:34 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I obviously don't know what you're referring to by oneness then because I've said to me it's either our ancestral lineage or serenity and you've disagreed with both.
Blind people have stereognosis too, so you can describe objects in that sense for them to visualise.
I get the feeling both you and I would describe what it's like to experience a mushroom trip differently. Even if we had the same dose and environmental setup. Given our different use of descriptive terms etc.
I still have no idea what oneness is, not when you've used it, not when Asante used it, not when anyone talking about pansychism or not has used it. Especially in regard to the universe.
We are all foundationally from stardust is the only point I'd gather.
I don't know what you're trying to unify with the term oneness if it isn't subjectivity and objectivity.
Do you distinguish between sympathy and empathy? I do. Because I can be sympathetic to a lot of things but I don't have empathy for cancer patients or people who have lost limbs because I haven't had those experiences, I can only sympathise for experiences I haven't had.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563056 - 11/30/23 10:37 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Sudly, I do think that sunburn is proof that the sun exists. And the fact that I can see it. And the fact that people have taken photos of it⦠lol. Iām not sure why I didnāt make that clear yesterday⦠I was just totally absorbed by thinking about consciousness and nothing else. Sorry if that caused some anguish
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 21 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563069 - 11/30/23 10:51 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I understand that we might be able to describe to them what seeing is like with some accuracy. But what Iām saying is that it would never be accurate enough such that they would have the perfect idea of what being able to see is like. It would never convey to them the experience of being able to see.
Same way I could describe the taste of chocolate to someone that has never tasted chocolate and theyād never know until they tasted it.
Iām not trying to unify anything man⦠Iām not talking science. Iām talking about a feeling. Itās a feeling you get when you stop thinking and all of a sudden it dawns on you that youāre a part of everything. But youāre not thinking āIām a part of everythingā. Itās weird⦠and very, very hard to describe. But Iāve experienced it. And many other people have as well. Itās not hocus pocus.
I love the thinking that weāre all star dust.. but I also love going a step further and thinking about how weāre Big Bang jizz
|
|