Fine, then we agree there is no supernatural source for consciousness. THAT was my point.
Evan Harris Walker, in his book The Physics of Consciousness, describes consciousness as real, but non-physical -- i.e., as intangible or, in common street parlance, "immaterial."
It wasn't the definition I had a problem with, but you seemed to be saying that since it was 'immaterial' it must have some 'other source' than the natural world. If I have this wrong then we agree.
Well, not me. But then, who’s to say that specifically located individual consciousness is not itself also an “inherent property of the universe?”
Yes, precisely. I see no reason to make the distinction.
In making a choice from among a set of possibilities, we set up a cascade of events that extends well beyond the securing of our intended goal, events that run invisibly away from us, like ripples spreading over the surface of a pond….
What lovely poetry you write.
The dualistic idealism that you seem to attribute to me is not the last word about how I conceive of this issue. I have already confessed to be a “closet monist!” :^)
Whether it is 'dualistic idealism' or not I don't really know or care. Sometimes I think people are too quick to name other people's beliefs, so that once they get that 'handle' on it they now know everything about it, and are then free to ridicule it. Happens to me all the time. I don't really want to go back and drag up the words where you were questioning me about how consciousness could arise in the purely material natural world, but for me 'purely material' begs the question that it is 'purely material' and this was the point I was making. If you agree it isn't necessarily purely material then fine.
"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."
This was along the lines expressed by Jung when first observing the vast African plain with its writhing mass of wildabeasts, zebras, lions, elephants, giraffes, gazelles and all the rest. He said this was why we existed in the first place, because without an observer none of that would have existed either.
As for the quote itself, it is fine as poetry. First he says,There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. then he says, "Our observation – our coming together – created matter." which is an utter contradiction. If it wasn't 'created' then there wasn't anything to 'come together' and if it was created by observation, then it cannot be separate from the mind.
Then there is, Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace." The first sentence is sheer poetry, meaning it has no discernable meaning, but it sounds pretty, and the second is an unwarranted conclusion derived from nothing. There is no connection between this last and all that went before.
First you say your not saying there is a separation then you give me a quote from a guy who says there is a separation.
Oh, and proper meditation is silent. Maybe that is the problem, you ever stop thinking about the unthinkable?
[You:] Fine, then we agree there is no supernatural source for consciousness. THAT was my point.
I didn’t exactly say that there is no supernatural source for consciousness. I guess that would depend on how one defines “supernatural.” I’m not sure I know how to do that. In a certain way, merely to define the thing would instantly cut it off from “nature” by converting it into an abstract object – an object created by an intending mind. Such a procedure seems virtually to eliminate the entire idea of the supernatural, while clearly putting a premium on the operations of conscious mind.
Let me try to make a difficult distinction clear. There are the laws of physics, physical theories of the universe, mathematics, et al. Arguably, all these things are mental constructs, descriptions of the nature and properties of the physical universe. What they are not is the physical universe itself. The description is already a “once remove” from the Reality it observes and articulates. It is not that Reality itself.
So, are such powerful and enduring mental constructs “natural”; or might they be regarded as “supernatural” in some way? Though perhaps not in the way we usually understand that term these days?
Similarly, is conscious mind – most particularly in its aspect of will (i.e., the power to discriminate and select from alternative potentialities, to make choices) – natural? We can’t say it’s unnatural; for clearly it appears in nature -- at least in terms of its observable effects.
Yet if it’s not strictly “natural” (since it can intervene in the natural and transform it), and it can’t be unnatural, where do you have left to go but to supernatural – if you have a mind to classify such things in the first place?
* * * * * *
Shifting gears. You wrote:
Oh, and proper meditation is silent. Maybe that is the problem, you ever stop thinking about the unthinkable?
Which leads me to depart from my normal custom and actually take umbrage with a correspondent, on two points. First, apparently you didn’t conduct a meditation on the Walker passage I quoted. You analyzed it instead. There is a big difference in the respective procedures. And I’m sorry you didn’t do the meditation, because Walker ended it with a perfectly lovely Zen koan that I thought you would find particularly appealing.
Second, you must think me a moron to advise me that “proper meditation is silent.” Well, Duh! Your reference to me “thinking about the unthinkable,” and do I ever stop doing that, is perfectly gratuitous, and misses the point of the meditation to which you seem to refer entirely.
That particular mental operation involves clearing the mind of all thoughts, of getting rid of all words. Its object is to completely “still the mind.” There is to be no “thinking.” Then, if you can hold this state for long enough (and that’s surprisingly difficult), you get to see what happens next – which is the object of the exercise.
What you describe as “unthinkable” is, thus, partially right. But it misses the object, which is to experience consciousness as a state of pure awareness – that is, keenly aware of the presence of a unique self, a conscious mind, that precedes all thought and which constitutes the matrix in which all thought takes place.
IMHO, you don’t want to “fiddle around” with that particular meditative form.
Meditating a good koan usually is challenge enough. Such a meditation would be “silent,” too.
Thanks for writing, LogicWings.