Mind and Consciousness

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0

I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.

It is philosophy and not religion.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0

I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.

It is philosophy and not religion.

Cheers.

Sriram

Fascinating. I mostly agree with him though I think he packs a couple of leaps in terns of there being one consciousness, and all objects being that consciousness in without the same flow of thought as elsewhere. In addition, I think there's a false dichotomy that is in the main expressed by his David Chalmers story on panpsychism that if you don't think that consciousness can be explained that then you end up at some form of pansychism  which I think  as a concept is a bit of a mess anyway.


That then relates to calling consciousness a fundamental property of reality if it cannot be investigated. I think that you just call it something that cannot be investigated.




The split between mind and consciousness feels like a bit of linguistic legerdemain to me rather than anything that makes sense when you look at it.

I've said before that my god is Dunno. I don't think being unable to investigate or explain something fully gives it any power beyond that. I tjink to do so needs a conception of reality and humanity that is based on an assumption of mysteries to be discovered rather than just limitations.



I do like the Galen Strawson article that he refers tp, and had at one time meant to put it up here - so this gives me the reminder/chance.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0

I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.

It is philosophy and not religion.

Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.   

Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).

On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.   

Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).

On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").

I used the term promissory materialism(as though it was a bad thing)on a thread called "WUMs for Jesus" back in 2015.

Not wanting to revisit your "greatest hits" Hillside, but I can't recall your response.

[Nearly Sane]

I used the term promissory materialism(as though it was a bad thing)on a thread called "WUMs for Jesus" back in 2015.

Not wanting to revisit your "greatest hits" Hillside, but I can't recall your response.

Link to thread

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10161.0

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.   

Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).

On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").

I don't get it as an argument from incredulity at all. Can you lay out where you see that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't get it as an argument from incredulity at all. Can you lay out where you see that?

As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.     

I didn't get the impression either in the whole or in the first 20 minutes that that is the basis of the argument. Rather that the experience itself is central to what we are talking about in terms of consciousness, and that anything that essentially looks on that as just a feature but not explained will miss the point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I didn't get the impression either in the whole or in the first 20 minutes that that is the basis of the argument. Rather that the experience itself is central to what we are talking about in terms of consciousness, and that anything that essentially looks on that as just a feature but not explained will miss the point.

You say tomayto, I say tomarto...

I'll have another look from the beginning when I get the chance though. 

[Sriram]

The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s


I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s


I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.

He opens with a basic Paley's watch error ("everything looks created, therefore.. a creator!") and proceeds from that false premise. Why is it worth repeating do you think?

[Sriram]

You have missed the essence of what he is saying...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You have missed the essence of what he is saying...

No, I have noticed that he begins with a false premise. Why then should I care about whatever he builds on that false premise?

Rainbows exist. Therefore leprechauns are real. Now let me tell you all about leprechauns...

Can you see what's wrong with that?   

[Sriram]

The whole point, as in the OP, is about Consciousness being fundamental and the source of creation. The Consciousness that is within us.

Gods and deities are cultural creations.

[Nearly Sane]

The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s


I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.

His delivery is reminiscent of Dave Allen.

As with the first link, I don't think that the difficulty in examining 'something' implies that the 'something' is fundamental.

[jeremyp]

NS,

As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.     

I'll preface my remarks by admitting I haven't watched the video.

The argument is not an argument from incredulity, it's a straw man. I don't know any materialist who argues that an electric signal can experience beauty, love or desire. These are all properties that emerge from the "system".

Ironically, of course, if, like Sriram, you argue that consciousness flows through everything, and you argue, as this chap appears to, that the ability to experience beauty, love and desire are necessary properties of things that are conscious, then it follows that electric signals must experience beauty, love and desire.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll preface my remarks by admitting I haven't watched the video.

The argument is not an argument from incredulity, it's a straw man. I don't know any materialist who argues that an electric signal can experience beauty, love or desire. These are all properties that emerge from the "system".

Ironically, of course, if, like Sriram, you argue that consciousness flows through everything, and you argue, as this chap appears to, that the ability to experience beauty, love and desire are necessary properties of things that are conscious, then it follows that electric signals must experience beauty, love and desire.

He doesn't argue that.

[Nearly Sane]

There isn't an argument for a creator god in the video.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There isn't an argument for a creator god in the video.

Play the video from about 38 seconds on ("... so you thought, "obviously there must be a creator"" etc.)

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Play the video from about 38 seconds on ("... so you thought, "obviously there must be a creator"" etc.)

  Yes, I listened to it and watched it all the way through. It's not at any point an argument for a creator god. It's a point about consciousness being fundamental. The bit where he talks about the joke and using 'him'? You are making the same mistake and getting hung up on a specific word rather than what he's saying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

   Yes, I listened to it and watched it all the way through. It's not at any point an argument for a creator god. It's a point about consciousness being fundamental. The bit where he talks about the joke and using 'him'? You are makung the same mistake and getying hung up on a specific word rather than what he's saying.

Except he makes the critique that we create god(s) in our own image and then says that we can therefore only experience the “creator god” by dissolving into it rather than by seeking to describe it. If you want to argue for how to experience a “creator god” though it seems to me that you have to establish the creation part first, not just assume it as axiomatic.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Except he makes the critique that we create god(s) in our own image and then says that we can therefore only experience the “creator god” by dissolving into it rather than by seeking to describe it. If you want to argue for how to experience a “creator god” though it seems to me that you have to establish the creation part first, not just assume it as axiomatic.   

You're putting stuff in that he doesn't say. At no point does he say there is a creator god, or that you are 'dissolving into' god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You're putting stuff in that he doesn't say. At no point does he say there is a creator god, or that you are 'dissolving into' god.

4.40 – 4.60. Are we looking at the same video - the second one? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

4.40 – 4.60. Are we looking at the same video - the second one?

Yes. So he talks at 4.30 about not being able to define the self, and he then talks about that being a 'small piece of creation'. He doesn't say that there is a creator god, or that the thing you are dissolving into is a 'god'.

[Sriram]

The word God is borrowed from the west. In the West the word God means Jehovah or a similar person or being. In India it does not mean that. 'God' is a very loose term that is used to mean anything from a personal deity to a celestial being to the Universal Spirit or Universal consciousness. There are many different words in Hinduism such as Brahman, Paramatman, prabhu, Ishwar, Bhagvan, deva etc. to refer to God, which refer to its different attributes.

In the second video he talks of the different deities that we worship or imagine. These are human creations based on cultural compulsions. This is well accepted in Hinduism. Devotion is a natural emotional impulse that we have and we need deities that we can identify with. People worship different deities in the form of a father, mother, protector, friend, child and even lover as per their needs. This is the devotional path (bhakti marga). This is one of the means to spiritual development.

The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).

Once a person follows this path the person realizes that not only the body but the mind with all its instincts, emotions, intellect and ego are just objects and different from the subject (first video). This is when the person merges or dissolves into the supreme consciousness (second video)....like a river flowing into the ocean. 

This Universal Consciousness obviously cannot be understood intellectually. It is he ultimate subject and is beyond our human capabilities.

This is what both the above videos are talking about.