Feelings v Reason and the Mind-Body Problem

[Pincho Paxton]

Emotion creates God, not reasoning. So David Quinn uses emotion, as he actually tend to speak for God too.

Emotion certainly creates Gods that are pleasing to the ego. But this has nothing to do with the spiritual path, which involves the logical uncovering of the nature of reality.

David Quinn....

From God's point of view, there is no purpose to existence. God doesn't care whether we exist or not. He doesn't even care if we abandon our delusions and realize his/our true nature. Nor does He care if we completely ignore Him. Such is the purity of His love.

That is an emotional post without doubt. How could reasoning decide what God thinks?

How could it not? It is only humans reigning in their own reasoning capacity out of fear that prevents them from accessing what God thinks.

-

My God thinks that God doesn't exist...paradox. Therefore god doesn't exist else he would be a paradox.

[Ataraxia]

Put down the Thomas Metzinger, mate. It's doing you no good. ;)

You may have a point there, but I don't limit myself to neurophilosophy, I study a lot of different lines of reasoning, and my reasoning here is not exclusively derived from Metzinger. However, Metzinger's conceptual models are some of the best for conceptually bridging the gap between the mind and brain. I trust you've made yourself familiar with his concepts.

In my view Metzinger's starting potion is all wrong, so what follows is going to be problematic. My criticism of him is somewhat similar to that of the Churchlands - he is special pleading for physicalism without first establishing the validitiy of that position, hence begging the question. Moreover he gets so bogged down in his own complex concepts he loses sight of of the forest for all the trees.

Take for example that lecture of his you posted recently. He cites Jackson's famous thought experiment: 'Mary's Room'. Of course Mary gains new knowledge of Reality when she ventures out into the coloured world for the first time. Unfortunately Metzinger and even Jackson himself were unwilling to fully accept the implications of this: not only does she learn something new about colour, prior to venturing out of the room she never really understood colour at all! At bottom theorizing about any phenomena is not telling oneself about it -one has to experience it. Experiencing colour is the creation of colour; giving it 'being' or boundedness.

So when you opine...

Maybe our mirror neurons are not equiped to simulate the experience of reality itself...

like Metzinger you still appear to be bogged down in the view that reality has thing-in-itself(ness) -or as they say at this forum, has inherent existence.

Yet, as we may often speak of others as being barely conscious or having yet to awaken, so might the reality beyond

ergo there is no 'reality beyond us'. It is what it appears to be.

[Animus]

In my view Metzinger's starting potion is all wrong, so what follows is going to be problematic. My criticism of him is somewhat similar to that of the Churchlands - he is special pleading for physicalism without first establishing the validitiy of that position, hence begging the question. Moreover he gets so bogged down in his own complex concepts he loses sight of of the forest for all the trees.

Take for example that lecture of his you posted recently. He cites Jackson's famous thought experiment: 'Mary's Room'. Of course Mary gains new knowledge of Reality when she ventures out into the coloured world for the first time. Unfortunately Metzinger and even Jackson himself were unwilling to fully accept the implications of this: not only does she learn something new about colour, prior to venturing out of the room she never really understood colour at all! At bottom theorizing about any phenomena is not telling oneself about it -one has to experience it. Experiencing colour is the creation of colour; giving it 'being' or boundedness.

It seems to me like you are in denial of physical reality. I don't disagree with the claim that our experience of colour is what makes colour colour. However, unless it can be demonstrated that physical reality changes as a consequence of conscious belief, than I am sticking with the view that physicalism, although it is bound-up in conscious experience, is never-the-less an adequate description of reality, adequate for several of our purposes and it does not change as a result of perceptual differences.

What Mary learns when she leaves her achromatic prison is; what it is like for Mary to experience colour. She does not learn anything more objective about colour than what she already knows and she does not learn what it is like for anyone else in the universe to experience colour. The only thing Mary learns is what it is like for her to experience colour. That's it, all that she learns is subjective not objective.

[Ataraxia]

It seems to me like you are in denial of physical reality.

Not denial. Seeing it for what it is. Why would I deny physical reality, it's all around me - it is me.

I don't disagree with the claim that our experience of colour is what makes colour colour. However, unless it can be demonstrated that physical reality changes as a consequence of conscious belief,

It's forever changing. In fact that is the one truth of existence: change. Subject and object arise, alter and fall together.

How can I demonstrate to you that "physical reality changes as a consequence of conscious belief" when you believe that physical reality is a "fixed" entity in the first place? Where you have fixed physical reality in the first place is an arbitrary position. You have probably watched this before but I recommend you watch it again - Dan explains it a lot better than I could hope to.

than I am sticking with the view that physicalism, although it is bound-up in conscious experience, is never-the-less an adequate description of reality adequate for several of our purposes and it does not change as a result of perceptual differences.

As philosophers we are attempting to transcend the adequate, however. I agree it is useful for science and making predictions about the physical world, but it is not what the Philosophy of mind is, or should be, about.

What Mary learns when she leaves her achromatic prison is; what it is like for Mary to experience colour. She does not learn anything more objective about colour than what she already knows and she does not learn what it is like for anyone else in the universe to experience colour. The only thing Mary learns is what it is like for her to experience colour. That's it, all that she learns is subjective not objective.

At bottom there is nothing "objective" to learn about colour. We can describe how it fits into the wave spectrum and what-have-you but to really know colour is to experience it. Colour is not "out there". That is the "truth of Subjectivity" that Kierkegaard speaks of.....

Kierkegaard: The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical.

[IJesusChrist]

Emotions are goverened by the less evolved part of the brain, as well as the sub-conscious. They are the 'think before thinking' and they can be much more powerful and complex than our small logic areas.

If you have read the book Blink, I would argue that this type of thought is subconscious, and emotion is actually directly connected to this type of sub-thinking. It's much faster and more tied to connections you have made to the outside world, where logic is more internal, and learned pathways of calculation.

I would have to say to be a happy person, and sociable one must understand their emotions are extremely important. Do not kid yourself that you can live with only logic, or only emotions, either way I would not call that state 'living'.

I have wondered for quite some time, one of more recent endeavors however, how important are emotions, and what would happen if I gave them up?

Logic will make me intelligent, allow me to spread insight, open a door for people.
Emotions will allow empathy, connections, and love and kindness to others, allowing them to grow, helping them up.

They can obviously be synergistic in their power, but it takes a great amount of both to realize this.

Boobs!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I was influenced by Antonoio Damasio's book Descartes' Error in which he hypothesized that reason was useless when disconnected from the emotional system, and various experiments revealed that it was still effective at determining the truth, but incapable of putting it into significant action. The individuals became uninterested in the personal application of what they knew.

Animus, the ideas of Damasio which I've read with great interest a few years ago, do contain some problematic logical errors. Two years ago I was writing something about it here where I remarked that the observation of certain damages influencing emotional capacity as well as decision making or rationality doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion about how emotion is 'needed' for rationality and proper decision making. Also I mentioned the counter arguments of Aaron Sloman, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, who caught a similar problem.

In another thread The Secret History of Emotion, I referred to an interesting book from Daniel M. Gross who argues for a purely social function instead of a connection to deeper drives, based on a more historical, review based on actual meanings in our language, a view which I find way more accurate to address the subject.

If you want to discuss either avenue, feel free to raise a point. While ultimately the fundamentals can be learned from existential insight and our own experiences, it can be interesting to explore the academic or scientific angles, to see where they lead and where they never seem to be willing to lead.

[Animus]

Hmmm

I'm beginning to wonder if there is anything you guys can teach me. This conversation is bringing clarity to my thinking, however, I'm not finding any of the views expressed here to be particularly genius.

First of all, to say that physical reality is bounded by consciousness, and then to admit that perceptual differences do not alter physical reality, is a contradiction. Now, if physical reality was manifest in conscious experience in accordance with a shared manifold, that I can see. Look through any infrared lens and you will see the same basic perceptual content of the physical world as you would through any other infrared lens, except for maybe those with scratches or other abnormalities in them. Now, the same applies to conscious experience, we all basically share the same perceptual vantage on reality, and it remains relatively consistent. Thus "objective" reality, although it cannot be described in the absence of conscious perception, is constant. Any other interpretation is high-hopes or simply flawed reasoning.

I know that some of you feel strongly about your deliberations and I know how strongly many of you feel against religion and certain ideas which you've trained yourself to detest, but this is only a limitation of your perception, selling yourself short. Because I'm not proposing any particular view of any particular religion, I am simply basing my view on logic and observation. As I say, regardless of the fact that you cannot describe reality outside of the boundedness of consciousness, it does not mean that objective reality is not real. One of two possibilities can solve this problem; (A) there is an objective reality which fully determines the contents of our minds, although the contents of our minds are not 1-to-1 descriptions of objective reality, (B) the collective content of all conscious experience determines - in tandem - the content of objective reality. Anything else, it seems, is leaving out part of the picture. Feel free to propose any alternatives, but I highly doubt there are any.

As regards emotions and reason, quite paradoxically, I've at once been accused (By Cory) of drawing lines where no lines need be drawn, and been accused of saying reason and emotion are the same thing. Can anyone here actually understand what I am saying? It seems as though individual biases are propelling all of you into positions within which I stand strictly opposed to your personal viewpoint, but this isn't the case at all. I'm speaking of both how to become true and what is in-fact true. In my experience logic is inseparable from the experience of emotions, but not your run-of-the-mill emotions to which you people endlessly refer. You seem incapable of making a distinction between the feel of a broken heart and the feel of cognition.

Finally, Antonio Damasio's view has never been that the limbic (emotional) system is necessary for cognition, and this isn't the claim I am making either. Damasio's view (and mine) and what the observational evidence suggests is that when cognition and the limbic system are separated an individual can not put to practice what they are able to understand. That is, they fail to use their understanding for their or anyone else's gain. Even so, I'm not suggesting that the limbic system is required for cognition, so its not worth debating.

[Animus]

How can I demonstrate to you that "physical reality changes as a consequence of conscious belief" when you believe that physical reality is a "fixed" entity in the first place? Where you have fixed physical reality in the first place is an arbitrary position. You have probably watched this before but I recommend you watch it again - Dan explains it a lot better than I could hope to.

You see, I'm not saying reality is 'fixed', I'm fully aware of the fact that it changes. The phantom you are battling here must be in your own consciousness because its not in mine. Now that brings us back to the original debate between us, if your consciousness dictates that I am speaking of a static reality and my consciousness dictates that I'm speaking of a dynamic reality, then is somebody incorrect, or are we both correct and reality itself is a contradiction?

[Animus]

Emotions are goverened by the less evolved part of the brain, as well as the sub-conscious. They are the 'think before thinking' and they can be much more powerful and complex than our small logic areas.

If you have read the book Blink, I would argue that this type of thought is subconscious, and emotion is actually directly connected to this type of sub-thinking. It's much faster and more tied to connections you have made to the outside world, where logic is more internal, and learned pathways of calculation.

I would have to say to be a happy person, and sociable one must understand their emotions are extremely important. Do not kid yourself that you can live with only logic, or only emotions, either way I would not call that state 'living'.

I have wondered for quite some time, one of more recent endeavors however, how important are emotions, and what would happen if I gave them up?

Logic will make me intelligent, allow me to spread insight, open a door for people.
Emotions will allow empathy, connections, and love and kindness to others, allowing them to grow, helping them up.

They can obviously be synergistic in their power, but it takes a great amount of both to realize this.

Boobs!

Honestly, I have read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (I'm currently reading What The Dog Saw by the same author), but over and above Blink I've done a fair amount of study of the neurophysiology of the brain. When the pathways connecting the rational prefrontal cortex is severed from the limbic system, a person is still capable of learning patterns, but incapable of gut feelings about them and/or putting what they've learned into applicable action.

So yes, whether or not people want to admit it, if they had no emotions they wouldn't lift a finger to post on this board. The reason this board was created was emotional, at the very least, an emotion tied to the proclamation of logical truth, which I know can be quite strong.

I'll put it out there again; anyone here who honestly believes that the physical brain is not important to consciousness, I'll PM you my address, you can box up your brain and mail it to me, if you can I might believe you. But I'll go as far as to predict that none of you will even make an attempt because you know I am right.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Finally, Antonio Damasio's view has never been that the limbic (emotional) system is necessary for cognition, and this isn't the claim I am making either. Damasio's view (and mine) and what the observational evidence suggests is that when cognition and the limbic system are separated an individual can not put to practice what they are able to understand. That is, they fail to use their understanding for their or anyone else's gain. Even so, I'm not suggesting that the limbic system is required for cognition, so its not worth debating.

I did write "rationality" and "decision making" as used by Damasio but you turned it into "cognition" in general. I've been reading and discussing Damasio and Dennet for years, and am a great fan, so please give me the benefit of the doubt here that I'm not ranting from a safe distance.

The problem is Animus that you seem to jump very quickly from thought to thought. It needs slowing down and a great deal more of carefulness if you want to address this stuff. And by all means follow your own path, I mean, who cares what Cory once said to you. It's not you against a them, or a you guys - it never is. And it's also possible you're looking for a kind of knowledge that is just not of interest in the context of this forum. And if you ever would find that knowledge it will not help to bring clarity to your thinking, as only more questions and mystery will present itself. That's my experience talking but feel free to believe it might pan out differently for you.

This to me is all about going for the essential, the "genius" [from Latin: as in spirit, nature, way or essence] of existence, this world, this place and the only use of the intellect here is to catch the intellect in fooling you into unfounded beliefs. A process which mostly takes place in your personal perception and group think and is very hard, but not entirely impossible, to address fully in a message board conversation.

[IJesusChrist]

Honestly, I have read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (I'm currently reading What The Dog Saw by the same author), but over and above Blink I've done a fair amount of study of the neurophysiology of the brain. When the pathways connecting the rational prefrontal cortex is severed from the limbic system, a person is still capable of learning patterns, but incapable of gut feelings about them and/or putting what they've learned into applicable action.

So yes, whether or not people want to admit it, if they had no emotions they wouldn't lift a finger to post on this board. The reason this board was created was emotional, at the very least, an emotion tied to the proclamation of logical truth, which I know can be quite strong.

I'll put it out there again; anyone here who honestly believes that the physical brain is not important to consciousness, I'll PM you my address, you can box up your brain and mail it to me, if you can I might believe you. But I'll go as far as to predict that none of you will even make an attempt because you know I am right.

I really took little from Malcom's book Blink, and don't plan to read many others by him. If you do find his stuff interesting I strongly suggest the book "The Brain that Changes Itself". Which basically gives you enough insight to push off from all psychology/neurology. I've read a bit of psychology/neurology layman's books, and that is by far the most interesting.

But for anyone who doesn't believe consciousness is only a product of the brain, good for you. You're stubborn as hell. I personally believe consciousness is a very odd by-product of short-term memory. I cannot yet explain it fully but I think I may be on to something. Without the ability to store memories, I don't think you can be conscious. I.E. the part of your brain that is involved with storing the short term & long term is the sole reason we are conscious.

But, I am experimenting more & more with this.

[David Quinn]

As regards emotions and reason, quite paradoxically, I've at once been accused (By Cory) of drawing lines where no lines need be drawn, and been accused of saying reason and emotion are the same thing. Can anyone here actually understand what I am saying? It seems as though individual biases are propelling all of you into positions within which I stand strictly opposed to your personal viewpoint, but this isn't the case at all. I'm speaking of both how to become true and what is in-fact true. In my experience logic is inseparable from the experience of emotions, but not your run-of-the-mill emotions to which you people endlessly refer. You seem incapable of making a distinction between the feel of a broken heart and the feel of cognition.

Evidently, then, you are defining "emotion" in a very broad manner, far broader than what is commonly accepted. Would you call the intellectual affirmation of 1+1=2 an "emotion"? And if so, for what purpose?

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Here he is, painting the intellects essence as mere deliverance from its errors! (:D)

Very well! The source of suffering holds naturally as well the key to salvation. In a way this is the essence of the intellect: to endlessly correct itself, to cut into itself as deep as necessary. And within the whole process, from errand to completion, creation happens.

[IJesusChrist]

Poor Animus.

[Ataraxia]

You don't think the universe is in itself? What's it in?
Why so loose with words?

.

My words were fine - I was speaking ontologically. It appears you aren't familiar with the concept of the 'thing -in-itself'.

[Jamesh]

Evidently, then, you are defining "emotion" in a very broad manner, far broader than what is commonly accepted. Would you call the intellectual affirmation of 1+1=2 an "emotion"? And if so, for what purpose?

It is correct to view emotions and any form of feeling as being within the same category. Anything which creates chemical signals to the body to do something via the direct action of the brain is an feeling and emotions are merely forms of feeling. The active desire to scratch an itch is no different a process than the desire to kill someone, they are just different in the types of chemicals each situation creates. Admittedly, the higher the degree of desire the more something will be considered an emotion, rather than just a feeling.

In terms of 1+1=2 then I imagine as a child when this was first understood that there was some obvious emotional joy. The brain though has evolved to be capable of learning. It is not that stupid that it endlessly finds emotion in oft repeated events. It learns that to send signals to the body for mundane things is a waste of resources and would be a massive distraction to more important new events for one's survival.

The purpose of treating 1+1=2 as an emotion is really an egotistical action to show that your insistence on the separation of emotions from "thinking reality" in the enlightened is a little misguided. More deeply though, it is to make room within your hard core philosophy of enlightenment to actually be "alive". As it has been pointed out, consciousness without feelings would be a form of death, particularly as for so many people, nihilistic feelings would strengthen as truth gradually destroys the more positive emotions. Few of all can find any form of emotional satisfaction with your God, other than the passing emotion of understanding as new truths are discovered (an emotion which we also build up a tolerance for after a certain level).

[David Quinn]

The purpose of treating 1+1=2 as an emotion is really an egotistical action to show that your insistence on the separation of emotions from "thinking reality" in the enlightened is a little misguided. More deeply though, it is to make room within your hard core philosophy of enlightenment to actually be "alive". As it has been pointed out, consciousness without feelings would be a form of death, particularly as for so many people, nihilistic feelings would strengthen as truth gradually destroys the more positive emotions. Few of all can find any form of emotional satisfaction with your God, other than the passing emotion of understanding as new truths are discovered (an emotion which we also build up a tolerance for after a certain level).

The funny thing is, the less reliant one becomes on the emotions to sustain one's life, the less one misses them. Although the idea of abandoning the emotions appalls most people - who, as you say, think of it as a living death - the spiritual person continues to enjoy a rich form of existence. It is rich when his emotions are still active, such as when he experiences the joys of attaining freedom and understanding, and then when his emotions aren't active, he no longer experiences a lack for anything.

-

[Animus]

If you do find his stuff interesting I strongly suggest the book "The Brain that Changes Itself". Which basically gives you enough insight to push off from all psychology/neurology. I've read a bit of psychology/neurology layman's books, and that is by far the most interesting.

I have this book also. Read this: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/215/3/216

[Animus]

David,

I really want to address you more in this conversation, as I've read through your books and don't find that I disagree with you on most things. In-fact there are only two areas I tend to disagree and that is the strict dichotomies between man-woman and emotion-reason. Let's tackle the emotion-reason dichotomy.

It is not that I disagree with what you are saying. Certainly the less I rely on my emotions the less I will care for them as well. Strangely, philosophy has brought out more emotion than I've felt in a long time. The emotions I feel though are not of desire for anything but truth, or of a longing for anything but truth. I'm relatively unaffected by most happenings. The feelings that philosophy has brought out are feelings of isolation, being trapped, connecting with others, etc... feelings characteristic of philosophy. And those feelings vary depending on the insight.

Now, these feelings are of the same classification of what you regard as originating from ego. On this I agree with you. However, there is still the desire which brings us to this forum and is the source of our discussion. I specifically worded my first paragraph to illustrate the fact that I desire a conversation with you. Even if that desire is tiny, it is a desire none-the-less. On most subjects I don't converse directly with you, for whatever cause. But on this one I have cause to desire a conversation with you specifically. What is the source of this desire? If you do not respond to me at all, I will survive and continue doing what I'm doing. My sanity does not hang in the balance of you responding to me, or even agreeing with me. So what is the source of this desire? Its quality is elusive, it is not a strong presence, however it appears to be of the basic format as all other desires.

Why do you post on this forum? Why was this forum created? Whatever the reason, isn't it obvious that it was motivated by a desire of some kind? There are different kinds of feelings and/or emotions. It does well to define what we are discussing, but ultimately we are carving up a continuum of conscious phenomena, all of which share the same basic lack of substance. It seems to me that life is driven by emotion. The word (emotion) itself connotes action and originates from words meaning motion. A complete lack of emotion would be a complete lack of action. Its not that emotions are especially bad, they operate by logical means like anything else in the universe. The problem is that they are goal-directed towards egotism. If a person loves wisdom with all of their heart, so much that they are driven to their own ruin, then that could hypothetically serve as a logical means of attaining enlightenment, insofar as their journey involves the realization of the ego and the emotions.

So, I suggest that egotism may be undesirable for the truth-seeker, but a love of wisdom, or love of God or Nature need not necessarily be bad. I can hardly listen to a video by Dan or Kevin without detecting the emotive tone in all their verbiage. I however, think its often well placed. But that's not the point.

[David Quinn]

David,

I really want to address you more in this conversation, as I've read through your books and don't find that I disagree with you on most things. In-fact there are only two areas I tend to disagree and that is the strict dichotomies between man-woman and emotion-reason. Let's tackle the emotion-reason dichotomy.

It is not that I disagree with what you are saying. Certainly the less I rely on my emotions the less I will care for them as well. Strangely, philosophy has brought out more emotion than I've felt in a long time. The emotions I feel though are not of desire for anything but truth, or of a longing for anything but truth. I'm relatively unaffected by most happenings. The feelings that philosophy has brought out are feelings of isolation, being trapped, connecting with others, etc... feelings characteristic of philosophy. And those feelings vary depending on the insight.

Now, these feelings are of the same classification of what you regard as originating from ego. On this I agree with you. However, there is still the desire which brings us to this forum and is the source of our discussion. I specifically worded my first paragraph to illustrate the fact that I desire a conversation with you. Even if that desire is tiny, it is a desire none-the-less. On most subjects I don't converse directly with you, for whatever cause. But on this one I have cause to desire a conversation with you specifically. What is the source of this desire? If you do not respond to me at all, I will survive and continue doing what I'm doing. My sanity does not hang in the balance of you responding to me, or even agreeing with me. So what is the source of this desire? Its quality is elusive, it is not a strong presence, however it appears to be of the basic format as all other desires.

Why do you post on this forum? Why was this forum created? Whatever the reason, isn't it obvious that it was motivated by a desire of some kind? There are different kinds of feelings and/or emotions. It does well to define what we are discussing, but ultimately we are carving up a continuum of conscious phenomena, all of which share the same basic lack of substance. It seems to me that life is driven by emotion. The word (emotion) itself connotes action and originates from words meaning motion. A complete lack of emotion would be a complete lack of action. Its not that emotions are especially bad, they operate by logical means like anything else in the universe. The problem is that they are goal-directed towards egotism. If a person loves wisdom with all of their heart, so much that they are driven to their own ruin, then that could hypothetically serve as a logical means of attaining enlightenment, insofar as their journey involves the realization of the ego and the emotions.

So, I suggest that egotism may be undesirable for the truth-seeker, but a love of wisdom, or love of God or Nature need not necessarily be bad. I can hardly listen to a video by Dan or Kevin without detecting the emotive tone in all their verbiage. I however, think its often well placed. But that's not the point.

Most of what you say here makes sense to me. The thing to remember is that when a persons starts out seeking the wisdom of truth, he is necessarily ignorant and emotional. He has yet to seriously tackle the foundations of his own ego. And so he has to rely on his emotions to help motivate him to love wisdom and drive his spiritual progress, all of which is perfectly natural and fine.

But then, as he advances, and the belief in the existence of his own self diminishes, the driving force inside him begins to change. It becomes less powered by emotional needs and gradually gives way to the force of momentum and habit. The neural pathways which revolve around the valuing of wisdom have become more deeply-etched, which makes going down them easier and more effortless.

It is a bit like walking tracks in a forest. Those that are well-used become wider and easier to follow, while those that are neglected become overgrown and gradually fade away.

In this way, the perfectly-enlightened person who is wholly beyond emotion and desire is the beneficiary of the great ball of momentum generated by his earlier emotional efforts to become wise. The emotions are no longer there, but equally there is no longer anything inside him to halt the momentum. His valuing of wisdom has reached a stage where it is effortless and natural and continues to form the basis of his decision-making.

To use an analogy, we can compare the emotions to the rocket fuel needed to lift a spaceship into orbit, and the effortless motivation of a sage to the momentum and inertia enjoyed by the ship in outer space. The ship can now keep traveling indefinitely, without requiring any further effort of its own.

-

[Animus]

Most of what you say here makes sense to me. The thing to remember is that when a persons starts out seeking the wisdom of truth, he is necessarily ignorant and emotional. He has yet to seriously tackle the foundations of his own ego. And so he has to rely on his emotions to help motivate him to love wisdom and drive his spiritual progress, all of which is perfectly natural and fine.

But then, as he advances, and the belief in the existence of his own self diminishes, the driving force inside him begins to change. It becomes less powered by emotional needs and gradually gives way to the force of momentum and habit. The neural pathways which revolve around the valuing of wisdom have become more deeply-etched, which makes going down them easier and more effortless.

It is a bit like walking tracks in a forest. Those that are well-used become wider and easier to follow, while those that are neglected become overgrown and gradually fade away.

In this way, the perfectly-enlightened person who is wholly beyond emotion and desire is the beneficiary of the great ball of momentum generated by his earlier emotional efforts to become wise. The emotions are no longer there, but equally there is no longer anything inside him to halt the momentum. His valuing of wisdom has reached a stage where it is effortless and natural and continues to form the basis of his decision-making.

To use an analogy, we can compare the emotions to the rocket fuel needed to lift a spaceship into orbit, and the effortless motivation of a sage to the momentum and inertia enjoyed by the ship in outer space. The ship can now keep traveling indefinitely, without requiring any further effort of its own.

I appreciate the feedback David and I think I see where you are coming from. Allow me to introduce into the conversation what I said the conversation wasn't about, and its still not strictly about Christianity, its more of the idea of the anthropomorphized universe.

As regards logic another poster made the point that cause-effect is dichotomous and that the reality is something much vaguer like an emotion. Emotions seem to be characterized by a strong presence but lacking definitive substance, they all have a quality to them that makes them differentiable from each other. That is love feels different than hate and although this might be a relative quality arising through dualistic perception, the main point here is that within the sensation of emotions there can be no carving up of them beyond their differentiable qualities. I hope I'm making this as clear as possible. An emotion seems to go from point A to point B with no apparent break-down of its inner workings. That is, experientially speaking, emotions are unbreakable, impenetrable phenomena. It would seem that conceptually this has more semblance of a non-duality. Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that one's sensation of lust has anything to do with the nature of reality besides its impenetrability. Whereas logic has a tendency to spiral out into infinity in all directions with no sense of the whole. In my experience when I meditate on the infinite I'm brought back to a vaguer mental image more resembling the impenetrability of emotional states than a logical dissection.

I think the term used around here for describing traditions which embrace the anthropomorphisms is theosophy. But for me I think that term is too broad and may be an unnecessary distinction. I've done a fair study of Christianity and it seems like buried beneath the prima facie appearance of crazed religiosity there is a more noble elite. This elite seems to embrace this paradoxical truth about the ego being drawn to certain ideals while the truth lies in an opposite direction, and it seems that this knowledge is used deliberately to attract followers. That is certain anthropomorphic characters are idolized to attract people and to give them a basic behavioral model more conducive to seeking truth. My studies of Christian theology has opened my eyes to the vast disagreement amongst Christian scholars and a variety of opinions dating back to the first century that are more conducive to modern day atheism.

It seems like some Christian scholars are completely in tune with logical determinism and God as the totality, as well as Jesus Christ as a unique human being but a mortal none-the-less. I've found that this mechanism of drawing egos to the doctrine has been the primary source of its transformation into the common absurdity it is today. Given what we've discussed here there should be nothing inherently wrong with any particular doctrine. But understanding any one of them is itself a big undertaking. I've begun viewing Christianity and the like as mere tools for the truth-seeker, with varying strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing particularly evil about them other than the people who follow them. I'd be curious to know what the state of the world would be like in their absence. I find it difficult sometimes from my point-of-view to understand why others don't see or value what I do, and I find they are helpless within themselves, driven by some desire they themselves can't escape and admit no reason to. I don't see pure logic or death of the ego speak bridging any gaps for them, they are more likely to gain a dislike for such things than change their desire. Then I realize that although I may not have always been captivated by life's shiny treasures and pleasures I haven't always been the way I am, I've changed.

I suppose, the moral of all this is that people by and large need a bit of incentive and going at them full-force doesn't help. To turn this on myself, I wonder if I might be better served on a sub-conscious level to try to anthropomorphize logical concepts in order to identify more appropriate motivations in the interim to becoming fully enlightened. This is where I speak of love, and by this I mean agape, I genuinely feel concern for the lives of people. I mean even for criminals, for me they are human beings, but then there is so much more to explaining criminality to go into here. I find every day social interactions to be egregious and incapable of explaining to others why their current actions are egregious and the actions of a federal prison inmate are not, primarily that the prison inmate is likely to be an honest man, held to the truth by his peers, whereas regular folk gossip and lie like its going out of style. Its so much different at the bottom and try as I might I come back to the fact that people have to see it for themselves. To turn this inward again, I'm left wondering what as of yet evades my understanding. So I have been forced to be somewhat humble, although a lot of the time I just don't think anyone has anything to teach me, with some exceptions, it really depends on the individual and the subject, and if they aren't open to what I have to say there is no point. Then love other people, this isn't something I can control, its just what happens and it comes from knowing the human condition and understanding the mind. I see nothing wrong with these emotional states, what can be illogical about having the same attitude towards everyone, a basic attitude of acceptance? It doesn't seem like you disagree with the emotions still playing a role. So, I'm curious if you dislike Christianity and similar traditions and if-so is it because of the way it is manifest publically as fundamentalism and religiosity? Is this any different than the atheists who attach the same mental phenomena to scientific truth? Isn't it really that both groups aren't even in the right ballpark, they are unpacking all their equipment out in the parking lot or something. Not even tackling the right questions to begin with but mucking around with symbolism of various sorts. I can see why an inclination toward atheism is closer to the truth, but I think there is something that its missing. Its like its missing the hole idea of being a human, its primarily about the fact God does not exist, so its not really a way to live a life. I mean, sure God does not exist, whether or not God exists does not directly inform how to live, that seems to be the problem. But Christianity and other religions contain philosophical and spiritual substance that is attractive to that part of the human psyche. I can't really explain my own sense of being a part of reality, but its a quality all in its own, its not like being a part of a team of people, its much closer than that. And its not nothing. Its closer to freedom wrought by determinism. I guess this is where all of this is driving at, my mind lately has been pretty focused on this kind of thinking, but its very difficult to sort out. What I'm saying is that it doesn't feel like nothing, but its not the norm and there is nothing within it that is inherently good or bad, its more like a raw sense of being.

I'm a bit in disarray at the moment, I've been shifting between to different topics. That of the draw of emotionally charged religious tradition and then this other kind of feeling. Maybe they are all tied together in some manner that I'm not seeing fully.

[IJesusChrist]

I have this book also. Read this: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/215/3/216

Yes I've read IIT, and frankly I think it falls short.

I believe consciousness has to do solely with short term memory storage.

your percieve, your brain decides to store.

I have little neurological background so what I've come up with is uneducated, but to me seems very plausible.

I think there is a Short-short term memory, a short term memory, and a long term memory.

I think consciousness is the experience of short-short-term memory.

You perceive, your brain blocks out a good percentage of what you are capable of experiencing - sounds, lights, shapes, ideas. And you experience this sort of picture in front of you. This is short-short term memory. What you can remember 5 minutes from now is short-term memory, and a year is long term.

The storage of this short-short term memory is what causes us to use information and quantify it as valuable for later.

I believe memory is alot more important to understanding consciousness then most people assume.

[Animus]

Yes I've read IIT, and frankly I think it falls short.

Please explain

I believe consciousness has to do solely with short term memory storage.

your percieve, your brain decides to store.

I have little neurological background so what I've come up with is uneducated, but to me seems very plausible.

I think you'll find that your ideas have nothing to do with these explanations.

I think there is a Short-short term memory, a short term memory, and a long term memory.

I think consciousness is the experience of short-short-term memory.

You perceive, your brain blocks out a good percentage of what you are capable of experiencing - sounds, lights, shapes, ideas. And you experience this sort of picture in front of you. This is short-short term memory. What you can remember 5 minutes from now is short-term memory, and a year is long term.

The storage of this short-short term memory is what causes us to use information and quantify it as valuable for later.

I believe memory is alot more important to understanding consciousness then most people assume.

There very well may be short-short term memory. Their does seem to be a census over their being short-term and long-term memories. Honestly, although I've read a lot on the neural correlates of this stuff, there is not a lot I can remember about the specifics of memory. Except that it is distributed depending on what it is, and short term memory in respect to number and words has certain limitations and functional boundaries. With respect to consciousness however, I have adequate reason to believe that neurologically it depends on the thalamocortical complex and is distributed throughout. Lesions to various parts of it will cause coma or other perceptual deficits. I think you will find that there is a mountain of clinical data that confirms the role of various parts of the brain with respect to consciousness and there is virtually no question about its general where-abouts in the brain. Of course you would agree that this doesn't answer the question of its functional role, which is the context within which you are speaking.

It sounds reasonable to me that consciousness does serve the role of a kind of short-term memory in the processes of planning and decision making. I think you will find there is ample evidence to support a theory along these lines, but in its finality maybe not what you expect. There is a distinction between the terminology being used in this kind of description. The terminology is all meta-functional, meaning that it deals in terms of higher-level functional interactions. In terms of memory, attention, awareness, planning, decision-making. Whereas the former outline of the neural correlates of consciousness explain something completely different. Ideally, we want our meta-functional explanations to align with our morphological and functional descriptions.

I think we can yet make another distinction between what IIT purports to explain and what the meta-functional or functional and morphological descriptions purport to explain. IIT and Dynamic Core theories attempt to explain the Nagelian problem of why it feels like anything at all. Why is there subjectivity at all? You have a memory chip in your computer, you have both short-term (RAM) and long-term (HDD) memory. Is it conscious too? If it is, why is it? If it is not, why is it not? What exactly makes a system conscious? Edelman and Tononi's explanation seek to bridge this gap, essentially between subjectivity and objectivity through an objective explanation. But there explanation is not purely morphological, but functional, that is by information integration.

I don't know if I've pointed out the distinction sufficiently. This is all a difficult subject.

[Pincho Paxton]

Because short term memory requires cause to create it, it is hardly a valid description of conciousness. You need consciousness to store the information in the first place. Consciousness is that which does not require cause, in fact it is created solely due to there being no cause, like a light bulb has to be off if there is no cause for it to be on, it has no other choice. It's natural state is off, off requires no cause, and consciousness natural state is to switch on, and the only way to turn it off is to destroy it. The second stage electrons however are the other way around, and they require energy to be turned on. It is yin, and yang.

[IJesusChrist]

Oh yeah I forgot you know what consciousness is, should have asked you first pincho.

Pincho, please, think, and consider what if I was correct before answering.

When are you conscious? When you are awake, driving, etc. Do you have any memories? Well yeah, duh, you were conscious.

Now when you are asleep, when do you remember something? When you're dreaming.

You can turn off your consciousness by going to bed, did you forget about that, or are do you not sleep?