« Pink Panther and Alan Watts on nonduality | Main | Not only the devil, but also reality, is in the detail »

September 06, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In other words, perception is just one brain's "take" on what-is, and more useful for what it tells us about a particular brain than for what it tells us about what actually is.

We've known for some time that the brain does not record experience so much as interpret it, and that every interpertation must be tested, measured by that which can be shown to be factual before giving it much credence.

If the human brain could be as accurate and impersonal as the recording technology we now have, we wouldn't be "human" as we know it, i.e., biased. Then what? If everyone was as rational as a Vulcan, then personal identity would amount to no more than a set of circumstances which would always be subject to reason rather than to tradition, religion, ideology, whim, ambition, vanity, vengeance, voices, etc. Unthinkable!

But nowadays we get to have it both ways. We have the means to prove how biased our perception is, while at the same time allowing for all the emotional response that makes us human. By patiently entertaining nuttiness (be it our own or another's) and attempting to reason with it, we acknowledge our humanity and our need for sanity.

Evolutionary biologists have come to the inescapable conclusion, based upon hard, incontrovertible evidence, that bodies are specifically (and somehow, deliberately) designed to disintegrate. There is simply no other way to ensure the propagation of life - which is the tendency of a molecule to replicate itself. It's kinda like - if life could construct a permanent enclosure, there would be no point in replication. An immortal body would be abhorrent to genes (if they could actually think).
Which brings us to the subject of the brain, which could be said to actually do the thinking for the genes. As individuals, we hold forth in the face of the inevitability of what we subsume under the label of "Reality".
I myself am of the opinion that there is a distinction between awareness and consciousness. Consciousness is the functioning of the brain, but awareness is equivalent to "Reality". "Reality" is not in any way, shape, or form physical or even existent. Physical reality, even the entire universe, is of no consequence to "Reality", because existence can do nothing to modify it. There isn't anything to modify.
When the body disintegrates, there is no longer any consciousness. What knows this? Awareness, which is to say - Reality.

Willie R.

Nice comment.

You mentioned,

"Consciousness is the functioning of the brain, but awareness is equivalent to "Reality". "Reality" is not in any way, shape, or form physical or even existent. Physical reality, even the entire universe, is of no consequence to "Reality", because existence can do nothing to modify it. There isn't anything to modify."

---Is "Reality" the non-conceptual no-thing-ness? Could you write something additional to explain what you mean by Reality?

Roger - in my estimation, any attempt to describe "Reality" ends up sounding like metaphysical gobbledygook. That is because it actually IS metaphysical gobbledygook!

But I do not say that like it's a bad thing. Ordinarily, consciousness feels like it is simply resident inside the human skull. But when we attempt introspection, consciousness itself becomes objectified. What is it that notices the objectification? What is it that attempts to look at what's looking? There is nothing physical inside the brain that is objectifying consciousness.

The universe, bodies, consciousness - the who megilla is happening, but it is not happening TO anyone or anything. But it is Reality. To say so is metaphysical - but only because the conclusion that Reality is ultimately and only physical is equally metaphysical. There is no one for whom Reality could be physical or non-physical. Another Oops! I have drifted back into metaphysical gobbledygook.

Reality has no need of consciousness. Consciousness comes; consciousness goes. Reality does not.

Reality has no need of consciousness. Consciousness comes; consciousness goes. Reality does not.

In the case of the moon, this may be true because the moon is doing fine without consciousness

But if by "reality" we mean all that has actual existence (including the moon), and seeing as how earthly life is conscious, the statement that "reality has no need of consciousness" is true only on the moon.

Thanks Willie R.

You mentioned,

""Reality" is not in any way, shape, or form physical or even existent."

---Still not sure what you mean by this statement. This is no big deal. However,
non-things(non-conceptualized things) would have non-conceptualized presence or existence, or non-conceptualized non-physical form.

I would use the term non-conceptualized Reality for such. This would be the no-thing-ness, Void, etc.

The conceptualized physical form or realm would be objectified Reality. This Reality would be the world,etc., we percieve(brain activity) and live in. This objectified Reality would have a need for consciousness. Still, consciousness comes and goes, with changes placed upon objectified Reality.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.