Metaphysics of Color

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. I think I said earlier, that mind arises as the result of the process of the brain functioning (both hardware and software). The mind is not even all those processes. I would not include in 'mind' many of the processes that go on in the brain, although the boundary is not well defined.

In a computer, a sophisticated piece of software has dramatical ...[text shortened]... it is doing now, is far more than the computer hardware and the Chrome browser software code.

So what exactly is Mind then in your view ? Only a set of processes? Who drives these processes?What do you mean when you say Mind arises? What are the processes that go by the term 'Mind'? If Brain is both hardware and software,Mind is rendered redundant,only a notion.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
So what exactly is Mind then in your view ?

It is difficult to give it a more exact definition than I already have. It is a complex pattern that arises as a result of the processes going on in the brain. It includes what we call consciousnesses and possibly memory.

Only a set of processes?
More or less, yes.

Who drives these processes?
Nobody. Why should there be someone driving them?

What do you mean when you say Mind arises?
Its a complex process or phenomena that results from the processes going on in the brain. It has certain characteristics that we include in what we call 'mind'.
Its like a river has various processes, but within that we can get certain patterns that 'arise' eg whirl pools, undercurrents etc. Or to take a similar example, winds can result in hurricanes that are even given names.

If Brain is both hardware and software,Mind is rendered redundant,only a notion.
I don't know why you come to that conclusion. Is what I do on my computer redundant and only a notion just because my computer has hardware and software? My computer operates quite differently from yours despite having much hardware and software in common with yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is difficult to give it a more exact definition than I already have. It is a complex pattern that arises as a result of the processes going on in the brain. It includes what we call consciousnesses and possibly memory.

[b]Only a set of processes?
More or less, yes.

Who drives these processes?
Nobody. Why should there be someone drivi uite differently from yours despite having much hardware and software in common with yours.[/b]

I bet you believe that the science fiction in "Star Trek" will one day
come true and there will be a robot that is almost human, like "Data".

Originally posted by RJHinds
I bet you believe that the science fiction in "Star Trek" will one day
come true and there will be a robot that is almost human, like "Data".

No.
I think it would be possible in the future to make a humanoid robot, but I don't think there would be an economic incentive to do so.
I do think computer intelligence will eventually surpass that of humans, but will remain quite different.

Originally posted by vistesd
Must one reify a process or an activity—just because we use nouns to describe processes? Let’s say, for example, that “mind” is not a substance—and so does not need to be accounted for as such—but process. The confusion caused by nouns is not limited to one language or culture. Nor are otherwise venerable and ancient thought-systems immune from such a con ...[text shortened]... really activities for which we would do better to use verbs. “Mind” might well be one of those.

Well stated and appreciated. Recommended.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is difficult to give it a more exact definition than I already have. It is a complex pattern that arises as a result of the processes going on in the brain. It includes what we call consciousnesses and possibly memory.

[b]Only a set of processes?
More or less, yes.

Who drives these processes?
Nobody. Why should there be someone drivi uite differently from yours despite having much hardware and software in common with yours.[/b]

Appreciating this discussion. Thank you.

As to who's driving these processes, I agree. The processes are self emerging, ie. of itself, flowing and patterning.

Having agreed with that there doesn't need to be 'someone' driving the processes, there is however a view (one that I hold) of the need for an observing awareness and one that is not an infinitely regressive process, which leaves us in limbo. As in, who or what is aware of the awareness process of the other processes etc..

This returns to the idea that at base there is a primordial quality that is similar to awareness from the start, that is, a quality inherent in existence itself and not the awareness necessarily of a "Being" as such, but a quality that could be analogized by the quality of space.

(I think the word awareness, like consciousness, has its limitations in discusssing this foundational quality, but its the best we have in the English language. Similar Sanskrit terms can be very helpful and expansive, but require the study of another whole mindset.

This "quality" or substratum of existence becomes more and more apparent in increasing manifested sentience and perception, slowly and constructively in the evolving processes, including the perceptions of colors.

It is difficult to concieve of an awareness quality without a subject that is aware. But to me it appears absolutely necessary. I was going to say 'from the beginning", but this quality would appear to be prior to the experieince of time and space , or at least co-existent with the manifestation of such.

There is the processes say of the manifestation of color, but to experience color, thoughts, anything, a responding pre-existent awareness appears to be fundamentally required for experiencing such.

I have shared such thoughts with you before, tw.

[Edits typographical]

Originally posted by Taoman
Having agreed with that there doesn't need to be 'someone' driving the processes, there is however a view (one that I hold) of the need for an observing awareness and one that is not an infinitely regressive process, which leaves us in limbo. As in, who or what is aware of the awareness process of the other processes etc.

I am afraid that without more specific description of what this 'awareness quality' is, and why you think it is required, I really cannot comment.

Also, do you have any objections to the possibility that a computer may some day become aware?

Originally posted by Taoman
Appreciating this discussion. Thank you.

As to who's driving these processes, I agree. The processes are self emerging, ie. of itself, flowing and patterning.

Having agreed with that there doesn't need to be 'someone' driving the processes, there is however a view (one that I hold) of the need for an observing awareness and one that is not an infinite ...[text shortened]... ing such.

I have shared such thoughts with you before, tw.

[Edits typographical]

Taoman,today morning itself by coincidence,I was reading a hard copy of an article by John Ringland. He states that beneath everyday consciousness,there is a level of pure awareness. This is often called the watcher or the se-er. The Sanskrit name is Sakshi or Sarvasakshi(Se-er or All se-er). The pure awareness may be thought of as thread of consciousness and the mind as a complex dynamic knot of pure awareness. But I have to admit that there is a big abyss between my views and twhithead's views. So what can I say to him in reply?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid that without more specific description of what this 'awareness quality' is, and why you think it is required, I really cannot comment.

Also, do you have any objections to the possibility that a computer may some day become aware?

"Also, do you have any objections to the possibility that a computer may some day become aware?"

I see computers as having arisen from this field of awareness, via the awareness and ensuent knowledge and invention of human beings. I can see a computer having been built and started by human beings with its endless algotrhythms sort of self operating without much input from humans. But to me it would be a dependent simulation of awareness.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Taoman,today morning itself by coincidence,I was reading a hard copy of an article by John Ringland. He states that beneath everyday consciousness,there is a level of pure awareness. This is often called the watcher or the se-er. The Sanskrit name is Sakshi or Sarvasakshi(Se-er or All se-er). The pure awareness may be thought of as thread of consciousnes ...[text shortened]... there is a big abyss between my views and twhithead's views. So what can I say to him in reply?

🙂 Well, as you can read I have sought to convey the same thinking to tw both now and previously. The separation of mentation from the "observing" nature of awareness is not accomplished by discursive reasoning thought, really. It can be argued with good logic, but imo not finally proven by that avenue. If one comes to such an in-sight I think it is as a result of deep reflection and meditative experiences.
We must sometimes accept abysses too.

Originally posted by twhitehead


Also, do you have any objections to the possibility that a computer may some day become aware?

it's possible that the internet is already self-aware.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it's possible that the internet is already self-aware.

Ridiculous. Only living things can be aware of anything.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ridiculous. Only living things can be aware of anything.

No.
Any physical system (any observer, ie a cloud, a piece of wood, a tree, a galaxy, an animal, a person etc.) is capable of memorizing and handling specific excheangeable and finite pieces of information. These specific exchangeable and finite pieces of information are the elements of reality of each observer. Therefore an observer, in order to exist, must be made solely of elements of reality; so whenever we are speaking about "awareness" (memory of an observer), we mean "the complete selection of the observers' elements of reality". This is the way an observer (of cource, even a piece of wood or a rock, hence a non-living thing) "is aware" of its elements of reality
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
I see computers as having arisen from this field of awareness, via the awareness and ensuent knowledge and invention of human beings. I can see a computer having been built and started by human beings with its endless algotrhythms sort of self operating without much input from humans. But to me it would be a dependent simulation of awareness.

I don't understand your reluctance. Where did humans 'arise' from? How are they different from a computer? Why does it make a difference where one 'arises' from?
Why do you call a computer a 'simulation'?

What is your opinion regarding a human baby from conception to adulthood? Is there a point where 'awareness' arises in each baby, or is life itself 'aware' and the property passed on from generation to generation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't understand your reluctance. Where did humans 'arise' from? How are they different from a computer? Why does it make a difference where one 'arises' from?
Why do you call a computer a 'simulation'?

What is your opinion regarding a human baby from conception to adulthood? Is there a point where 'awareness' arises in each baby, or is life itself 'aware' and the property passed on from generation to generation?

Not quite sure what you mean by reluctance? Just can't see a computer as self-aware. And indeed our own self-awareness is derivative, for without the response of external reality (feedback) awareness stops. Some say this means objects have a functioning of awareness. I rather say, there is a matrix in which we and objects function and relate and its essentiality is awareness-like.

We can't go right back scientifically but I think in a cell we see the result of awareness arising or appearing. My view is that awareness is there always. It becomes manifested in forms eventually and is involved and necessary for those forms from sub atomic to sentient creatures to appear.

In a cell the interacting processes portrayed on some videos show a sublime interaction of many complexes that require some form of awareness to function, even if it is awareness of biological substances of communication. But the time taken is virtually instant for a lot of these processes and how this highly complex process has evolved I see could not have happened without awareness of some sort.

If I see it at even the sub atomic level and in cells, I definitely see it as present from the beginning of birth. It is the very means by which the baby grows and how the body functions throughout life. Unravelling of awareness connection is death of the individual "conjunctive" gestalt of awareness.