WendyDarling
You already seem sane to me, so I would not worry about it - as long as you know what snake oil for the consciousness looks like you will be fine - from what I can tell, you can already smell a rat. You know the old saying: Wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think it would be difficult to peddle snake oil to you.
There is no ‘you’ separate from the combination of mind and body. Therefore your body cannot hold ‘you’ back. The mind and body achieve results together. One of the results is ‘you’.
Amen! Too much of metaphysics aspiring to be spiritual depends on body hatred.
Ah, but there is a “me” separate from the combination. On the medical front, when your brain malfunctions, your consciousness has perception problems, processing of information issues, and connection/expression difficulties. The brain is a relay zone, not the home of your consciousness so when your brain goes on the blink, your consciousness loses its ability to be “you” outwardly and “you” stop learning.
My examination has revealed the difficulty I am having in communicating is the source or how we see things. I am a “Panpsychist.” I see that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. On the other hand, everyone I have encountered on this forum are logical positivists or logical empieircists, or a combination of the two which is neopositivists,
Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Parmenides, Plato, Averroes, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Taoism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism. The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has revived interest in panpsychism.
Neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was verificationism, a theory of knowledge which asserted that only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful. The movement flourished in the 1920s and 1930s in several European centers.
Efforts to convert philosophy to this new “scientific philosophy”, shared with empirical sciences’ best examples, such as Einstein’s general theory of relativity, sought to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.
- - - [3 ∨ 2 ∨ 1] - - -
I am not certain there is much of a debate here - except maybe in the interpretation of the words being used to express ourselves.
So far humans have used heuristic techniques among others to try and answer the question; I believe all the techniques have fallen short; which is why after centuries of thought and debate we are still here asking the same questions; heuristic techniques themselves are confined.
To find out for certain - will possibly/probably require some serious mathematical analysis to confirm whatever we come up with - and I mean some really serious stuff - embedded in this analysis will likely be heuristics and logic. I do not believe in 2017 that the mathematics or logic required has been properly formulated to give us a conclusive answer. Mathematical techniques are also confined.
It leaves me with but one thought - what we are talking about is itself bounded - that unless we acknowledge the limits we will never know.
In other words: It is possible that we are overthinking it.
I see no real problem with this - I was commenting on the mind-body problem. The mind I imagine is what you are conscious of. The mind is generated from the body id est the brain. There is no enmity between the body(brain) and mind. Consciousness on the other hand is something that can grow - your awareness outside of the consciousness is what I see stumbles people. Consciousness itself is the state of awareness. The mind is a function of the body(brain) and the consciousness is the awareness of that function.
Allow me to present another interpretation.
The mind allows you to think and feel - the mind is the faculty of consciousness. Being self-aware indicates that the consciousness is a faculty of mind. Like the husband and wife they are one flesh but at the same time separate.
I am not sure what else to say on the matter at the moment. Maybe except to say that consciousness is the feeling of self awareness or a continual discrete set of thoughts leading to self awareness or both - terminating at death. Take away the mind however: is the consciousness still there?
I am certain of one thing however and that is the body, mind and consciousness are of “one metaphorical flesh”.
Before the end you get to choose whatever you believe.
You kill the body - you kill the mind and consciousness. It has not been conclusively proven that anyone has come back to tell us otherwise.
I am still uncertain about what the source is that is involved in the difficulty I am having in communicating how I see things. I will say however it is nice to finally know where you are coming from. It should be much easier to approach you in conversation now that I have some benchmark to work with. I am a software engineer - everything I make seems to work pretty well - so if I fall into any philosophical category then at least I know which ever one that may be has some sort of merit - do you think I am one of those neopositivists that you refer to? I ask because I am fairly new to philosophy per se.
My somewhat diminished self esteem tells me not to hit the submit button.
On the other hand - I am eager to know what others think.
Therefore I now hit the submit button . . . Oh yes I have always wondered why it is that we feel so distinct as individuals . . . submit
How do Panpsychists feel about the sacred nature of private property … material and intellectual?
Encode_Decode – Your last post is a good argument and it is logical to those who is not a panpsychist, regardless of what they may or may not be called. The reason being, “we can only recognize that which is contained within us.”
Someone who has never been addicted to drugs sees things differently than someone who has been both, addicted to drugs and who is now a recovered addict. Experiencing the difference between them provides additional insight and understanding. Likewise, until you experience the view of a panpsychist, you will not be able to see things differently or as I do. Thus, what I say will not make sense to you. This is the realization which needs to be seen
Pilgrim-seeker_Tom –
My ignorance prevents me from comprehending what you are asking. What makes it even more confusing is the word “sacred.” How do you define sacred? You might ask yourself, “What is the source of material and/or intellectual property?” The answer to this question may answer what you asked me.
Sacred as in ‘sacred cow’ … enshrined in human custom/tradition … human laws … and so on.
Are panpsychists generally cool with the pursuit of prosperity? … personal wealth? … fame and fortune.
eaglerising
Controversial. I also think all this mystery is not a great persuasive technique in a philosophy forum - people have better things to do than be baited. This type of persuasion is not the type that is using reasoning but the other type that uses temptation.
I think my argument is relative. I do not know it to be true with absolute certainty but I do keep my eyes open for new information to hopefully dismiss some things that need to be dismissed and add whatever it is that is necessary. I am curious; do true Panpsychists exercise logic? I have been considered by many to be a polymath and I am led to believe that Leibniz also held this same title - given that Leibniz was able to develop differential and integral calculus I think the question: do true Panpsychists exercise logic? is reasonable to ask a Panpsychist given that Leibniz was a Panpsychist. The statement “we can only recognize that which is contained within us” might be true to a Panpsychist but I believe this is up for debate - I also think my belief is justified given that ‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’ is a statement that keeps on proving itself to be somewhat correct - it is this statement and many others like it that give me new ideas and leads me to new questions - new ideas and questions can be formed unconsciously too for that matter.
I also believe that someone who is still addicted to drugs sees things differently on the whole. This however is not my chosen method to experience insight and understanding - I find heuristics one such way to achieve the same thing. The sentence fragment ‘or as I do’ indicates a level of egocentrism on your part - is that a prerequisite to becoming a Panpsychist? I am pretty certain I have many methods that can give me insight into what makes sense. I implore you to let me be the judge of whether what you say will make sense to me or not. I don’t know about the realization which needs to be seen - like everything else it would be limited and in need of some form of proof.
I think proof is in order before I go running off to become anything other than what I already am.
I am humble enough to ask questions and accept my limited capacity.
I would happily respect your beliefs if I had some idea what they were. I do however see in you some level of insight but I see this in many people on this forum.
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Maybe it goes deeper than that but that is also a fit description.
The land where the Native Americans are buried is sacred to them because those who they have/had loved and experienced reside there. It is not the land per se but the relationship between the mind and the heart and what inter-connects us to others which gives the essence of sacred.
Sacred is holy meaning wholeness.
Sacred is what we individually reverence and love, what holds our passion and our awe, what we experience deeply within our core. It gives the Self meaning and gathers it together in wholeness and harmony. I think that is where the experience of the sacred enters in.
It could be a thunderstorm or an equation.
No god has to be a part of it.
eaglerising,
From first…then to… and finally…
Couldn’t you say that seeing yourself in this way is still fractured or fragmented?
The Self is like a diamond. It has different aspects to it but it is still all and the same as One.
There is a strong inter-connectedness between the mind and the body. One affects the other and vica versa in positive and negative ways.
You may be right here. I may be wrong here but is that even possible —regardless of what I am doing?
Wouldn’t it DEPEND on what you were doing? But I may be wrong.
Pilgram-seeker_tom –
No, they are interested in peace, happiness, and the quality of their lives.
eaglerising wrote:
Encode_Decode – Your last post is a good argument and it is logical to those who is not a panpsychist, regardless of what they may or may not be called. The reason being, “we can only recognize that which is contained within us.”
Encode_Decode:
The following is a simpler example of what I was attempting to communicate. You can get from one place to another on land using an automobile, but you cannot get from New York to Paris, France with an automobile. You have to use a different vehicle such as a plane or ship to get there. Likewise, you have to use something that is different and is not a product of information, knowledge, belief, or perception to understand what I am saying.
Encode_Decode:
I understand that. In fact, based upon the vehicle you are using, you cannot think or perceive anything differently.
Encode_Decode:
Yes, I use logic, but often what I understand isn’t logical to the human mind due to its limitations.
Encode_Decode:
Can you recognize an animal, plant, or mineral that you have never seen before? You cannot because it isn’t contained within your memory or perception. Thus, it is UNKNOWN to you.
Your understanding of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is based upon the vehicle you use to understand it. Likewise, how you view or perceive me to be egocentrism. I have often wondered if it is ignorance or arrogance or both, for thought to comprehend what is beyond its ability to comprehend. Unfortunately, neither thought nor knowledge is aware of their limitations.
Everything? Don’t you think that if that was the case, we humans might implode?
That’s a lot of excess baggage being dragged along. If that were the case for me, I may have become insane by now. lol
If we do, in fact, let go of, detach, from certain experiences, beliefs, thoughts, then who do we become? Just who are we then in the present moment?
Or are we dirty rivers dragging along everything within our wake?
WendyDarling
I know that this was not addressed to me but…
But memory and emotion are not necessarily heightened awareness in the moment, self-awareness, realizations, epiphanies…
But they are part of the intel which is consciousness.
But I may be using the word wrong here.
Consciousness is something which has evolved and continues to evolve/develop within us, if we’re lucky, perhaps something like a light which flickers on or off, or pales, at different moments.
Consciousness gave way to fire. Perhaps consciousness can be compared to “living fire”.
But they can sometimes swim in the same waters, can’t they? Our memories bring on past emotions (like hand-me-downs) and our emotions are capable of conjuring up memories, some which are not even actually legitimate ones. We sometimes “remember” things or can be manipulated to remember things which ARE illusions.
Personally, I don’t "see"an absolute consciousness. It’s the same as speaking of the Self as an absolute Self.
A lot of things can resemble a lot of things but none of that tells me what a thing is. Try to explain the ultimate consciousness further.
[/quote]
Your physical body allows for heightened awareness not your consciousness. Epiphanies are newly discovered connections between memories that are founded in emotions.
That is because memories are tied to our emotions, same waters.
eaglerising wrote:
What is it that you are naming here?
Encode_Decode wrote:
That’s a very good question. Can it still be there somewhere as long as the brain itself is there within the head? Perhaps I just showed my stupid side 
BUT how do we know if consciousness cannot somehow reside outside the brain and body. Doesn’t the scent of the rose also reside outside the rose?
I bet you didn’t figure someone would jump over that cliff and question that. 