Mastering Things

[Red-Handed Jill]

Heh. Every once in a while they let me get a word in edgewise...

[PyratePhil]

This seems very Taoist to me, but does it make sense?

It's the Void that defines Reality, much as Female defines Male and Emptiness, Fullness.

[Misson]

True, but the void and reality are interdependent. By themselves, they can exist, but little else.

[PyratePhil]

True, but the void and reality are interdependent.

Of course.

By themselves, they can exist, but little else

That's just it - they cannot exist by themselves. It would be like having night without day - you wouldn't be able to differentiate. And differentiation is the crux of such human concepts as morals, values, judgments, love, hate and income taxes.

[Misson]

Actually, you can have void without...'reality' is the wrong word...matter? Somethingness? Non-void? But then it is just emptiness - it "exists", but without anything to observe its existence. (Yes, a tree makes noise even sans witness in my world.) Similarly, we can have somethingness without void (theoretically), but since this would be completely solid, I imagine it as being akin to total darkness, or total solidness. Every interstice is filled, no space exists and thus it is no more useful than total void. In fact, life (as we define it) could no more exist in total somethingness than in voidness in this scenario.

Though project yourself into being a living entity in total somethingness. You couldn't ever move. What would consciousness consist of? Could it be anything if movement were arrested? ...interesting

[PyratePhil]

Actually, you can have void without...'reality' is the wrong word...matter? Somethingness? Non-void?

Yeah, the word escapes me at the moment, too.

But then it is just emptiness - it "exists", but without anything to observe its existence.

Why must something be observed, or be observable, to exist?

Which in turn brings to mind the usefulness of emptiness...

(Yes, a tree makes noise even sans witness in my world.)

Well, that answers that LOL.

Similarly, we can have somethingness without void (theoretically), but since this would be completely solid, I imagine it as being akin to total darkness, or total solidness. Every interstice is filled, no space exists and thus it is no more useful than total void. In fact, life (as we define it) could no more exist in total somethingness than in voidness in this scenario.

And since when is life the qualifier for the existence of complete solid or complete emptiness?

I still believe that, much like the perfect woman, a perfect solid and/or perfect emptiness does not exist.

Though project yourself into being a living entity in total somethingness. You couldn't ever move. What would consciousness consist of? Could it be anything if movement were arrested? ...interesting

My apartment in college was like that...

[Misson]

Fortunately, the perfect anything doesn't appear to exist in our world, leaving lots of room for improvement, leading to potential for better mousetraps, leading to commerce.

And, for the record, I can't think of anything that would represent a total solid in our world. Perhaps the inside of a black hole? Except that isn't knowable right now, so it's just a possibility.

As for life in total solidness, I just maintain that the two couldn't co-exist as we define them. Without movement it would seem there cannot be life. Without space, there is no room for movement. Thus my thought experiment conclusion...

[Misson]

I am reading an overview book of theories of consciousness ( Consciousness: An Introduction by Susan Blackmore) for a paper I'm going to write. (For Psych 1, I decided to write about the adaptive unconscious, so it seemed like a good idea to write about the conscious for Psych 2.) I've come to the conclusion that consciousness is no kind of subject at all.

The experts can't even agree on what consciousness is and if we truly have it. Since it's such a mess and is open to so much interpretation, everyone gets in on the fray including psychologists, neurobiologists, philosophers, spiritualists, non-spiritualists, physicists, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. And, at the end of it, they still can't agree on what it is. So they argue about the fine points without actually determining what, exactly, they are arguing about.

What an absurd topic I have chosen. (I have, however, read about the things we discussed in the now deleted philosophy thread including the bicameral mind (which most of these people believe is incorrect) and the Cartesian theater - sort of a formalized version of Plato's cave (which nearly everyone believes is incorrect, including some proponents of parts of it. They take great pains to viciously attack it - which makes me a bit suspicious).)

I must say, I like the bundle theory most of all. It basically says what we call consciousness is just a bundle of experiences going on throughout the brain at a given moment that make up our awareness, or consciousness, in that moment - which varies in the amount of time it can last. The bundles are serially connected and may include memories, yet are not dependent on the actual memories to maintain their awareness. This would explain why at one moment we can be totally focused on the present with apparent "conscious" awareness only of the now and at the next serial "conscious" moment are totally or partially focused on some past event(s) and the effect on the present moment (bundle).

Personally, I think we are not ready to discuss consciousness like adults. Whatever an adult is conscious of. However, I've ordered two more books on the subject. (This is sort of fun - like particle physics and chaos theory. It's the sort of topic that the more I learn, the less I realize I understand.)

[Red Cat Jenny]

Mission,

For an interesting angle into concious awareness..you should look at the very recent discoveries in Autism and Autistic reasoning for that behaviour. I believe it might have been in TIME some months back, maybe last year. But the article was fascinating...and sad at the same time.

I suggest this because some forms of autism remove the usual form of awareness but not awareness itself. They have found that some people alter their beaviour in fact , to creat a conciousness which is otherwise scattered by the disease.

It also demonstrates what I was talking about before..all the clinicians and behavioural therapists who had declared through scientific fact what treatment and behaviour modification should be..and then wound up saying..."Oh..we were wrong..now we really get it.."

On a brighter note..what was learned has been greatly beneficial in the life quality for those with Autism and has been a major window into the disease.

[Misson]

I believe I have that issue of Time somewhere. If it's the one that I'm thinking about, I got through about half of the articles before I set it down (and put it God knows where).

There is a very interesting documentary out there called Autism is a World that I recommend if the topic interests you. It follows a autistic woman around who has autism, but has still managed to go to college with the aid of some volunteers and an interesting little electronic communication device.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Yes. That article was startling because it just proved how wrong people can be. It kind of made learned men as carnival guessers. But hey we can't know everything. That was just my point earlier. However the article was also very good news for intelligent advances into the treatment, prevention or cure of Autism.

[Misson]

Attachment leads to suffering

but

Does detachment lead to joy?