The mind is like the surface of a lake and phenomena are like stones that drop into it. The water then breaks and warps around it.

We wanna get down in a sense to the foundational state of mind, a most fundamental form of mind, and that occurs at death.

if we're gonna really understand the ultimate nature of reality, it means to understand the ultimate nature of the mind

The only way you can become a buddha is to see the nature of ultimate reality with the motivation of relieving the suffering of sentient beings. And in order to do that, you have to cultivate this wisdom.

very famous scientific experiment that was published about 10 years ago now that is um really a critical experiment in this area

what we have found quite remarkably is that when a person trains their mind their well-being improves and their brain changes uh and not just the brain but many other things in their mind and body also change

I think the Paleolithic ethical framework is simply—I mean, the hunter-gatherers—having no separation between themselves, no radical distinction between human and nonhuman—thought everything else was kindred. Literally, they thought if you went out to hunt and you’re hunting a deer, the deer is your sister or your brother, or maybe your ancestor, or maybe, more precisely, past/future forms of yourself. Because I think the ethic was you hunted with sort of prayers and sacrifice and humility. You’re asking a deer—a brother or a sister or an ancestor—to give its life for you.

in Vermont, Native Americans lived here—well, like everywhere in North America—they lived here in Vermont for over ten thousand years. The ecosystem was basically intact, and that’s because they had that ethical system built into their fundamental cultural assumptions—the assumptions that guided their lives. They didn’t think about them. They didn’t question them. They were simply the assumptions, the unthought assumptions.

We think of ourselves as this little bubble of obsessions and memories going on in our head that’s detached from everything else. That’s the wound.

I sort of trace out these parallel developments

The Greeks took that material change and they mythologized it into the soul. And then, of course, Genesis—the creation of the world in Christianity—says, the world is here for humans. It was created for humans to use, to dominate, to exploit, you know, in their trial here to see if they’re righteous or not.

But once you can write things down, then that mental realm suddenly starts looking timeless and radically different from the world around us. And I think that’s what really created this sense of an interior, what became, with the Greeks and the Christians, a kind of soul; this thing that’s actually made of different stuff. It’s made of spirit stuff instead of matter

next, I think, was writing

the sense we have now began when Paleolithic hunter-gatherers started settling into Neolithic agricultural villages. And then at that point, there was a separate human space—it’s the village and the cultivated fields around it. Hunter-gatherers didn’t have that, they’re just wandering through “the wild,” “wilderness.” Of course, that idea would make no sense to them, because there’s no separation.

You describe how foundational stories of our Western, Christian paradigm are based on this idea of “a self-enclosed human realm separate from everything else,” and that this paradigm is a wound—one “so complete we can’t see it anymore, for it defines the very nature of what we assume ourselves to be.”

when I've worked with pre and perinal psychology people think oh well this is psychology this is mental health but really it's not it's more than that it's a holistic Body Mind practice where implicit somatic memory is alive and active and actually informing how we behave and choices that we make in the present

around the AI is um the problem right now as I understand it

third phrase

As Peter Brown states, the active physical body became not merely an instrument to be tolerated and efficiently used as in the ancient ascetic separation of spirit, but rather a “field to cultivate” holistically for a unified material and spiritual transformation.

These are the kinds of litanies I use, to compose myself

It's as if he'ssomewhere else, waiting for himself to come, drumming his fingers on thetable while he waits. There's an impatience in his rhythm now.

wait. I compose myself. My self is a thing I must now compose, as onecomposes a speech. What I must present is a made thing, not something born.

I want to start with that idea of kind of a bidirectional Conformity that it's not only the mind is conforming to the world but the world is conforming to the mind of course you might get tired of me doing this this is a neoplatonic claim right and this is the idea this is this is this is sort of the central idea behind what I call participatory knowing

But if it's a story, even in my head.I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself.There's always someone else.Even when there is no one

It isn't a story I'm telling.It's also a story I'm telling, in my head; as I go along.

in the ultimate analysis i think it is the impulse in us to revert to our natural state it is the impulse of a finite mind to divest itself of its limitations and revert to its natural condition of infinite consciousness

Google deep mind they're coming up their new Google AI sound boox that and it is making Loops from prompts and they have wav Jean

Coping is generally categorized into four major categories which are[1]: Problem-focused, which addresses the problem causing the distress: Examples of this style include active coping, planning, restraint coping, and suppression of competing activities.Emotion-focused, which aims to reduce the negative emotions associated with the problem: Examples of this style include positive reframing, acceptance, turning to religion, and humor.Meaning-focused, in which an individual uses cognitive strategies to derive and manage the meaning of the situationSocial coping (support-seeking) in which an individual reduces stress by seeking emotional or instrumental support from their community.

all control in human minds is via emotion

Another pandemic is coming, this time attacking the fragile control systems in our brains—namely, our capacity to reason with one another—that we have used so effectively to keep ourselves relatively safe in recent centuries.

He eschewed computers, often writing by fountain pen in his beloved notebooks.“Keyboards have always intimidated me,” he told The Paris Review in 2003.“A pen is a much more primitive instrument,” he said. “You feel that the words are coming out of your body, and then you dig the words into the page. Writing has always had that tactile quality for me. It’s a physical experience.”He would then turn to his vintage Olympia typewriter to type his handwritten manuscripts. He immortalized the trusty machine in his 2002 book “The Story of My Typewriter,” with illustrations by the painter Sam Messer.

I have two mindmaps for my areas of focus - one for work and one for home. Within the mindmaps I have 7 areas for work and 12 areas for home. This may sound like too many, but I find that my focus shifts around naturally and having all the areas on the map helps me to keep them aligned. I'm ok with some of them having no projects and others having quite a few. I review them once a month and this works well for me.

The systems involvedare complex, involving interaction among and feedback between manyparts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are diffi-cult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.

Mind1, which refers to the neurocognitive activity that allows you to behave in the world.

Macaulay claimed that his memory was good enough to enable him to write out the whole of Paradise Lost. But when preparing his History of England, he made extensive notes in a multitude of pocketbooks of every shape and colour.

Arendt’s two-volume work The Life of the Mind, published posthumously in 1978.

beginning student quickly learns which questions to ask and which not to ask. And after years of not asking, even remote memories of those questions fade into the background. Reviving those questions, in more mature ways, is one step towards an attempt to regain innocence, to retain a beginner's mind, and from that viewpoint to look at science as a whole.

Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be muchless interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless

so I will explain in more details all these three premises the first one is that consciousness according to the theory is a specific process 00:05:34 while mind is a specific structure and if there is no such structure there is no such process

how do you ever migrate from a tricycle to a bicycle because a bicycle is very unnatural and very hard to learn compared to a tricycle, and yet in society it has superseded all the tricycles for people over five years old.

you mentioned the idea of like beginner mind and you have a quote from Suzuki about 01:03:40 the in The Beginner's mind there's many possibilities and experts mine there are a few

the next version of this which is the tame paper the Tammy the technological approach to mind 00:15:30 everywhere

how Minds can exist in the universe how they interact with their 00:04:08 bodies how Minds scale from the Primitive kinds of um metabolic and other competencies of single cells to the emergent mind of the of the body and then of the of the whole 00:04:21 organism in a behavioral sense and uh this the scaling embodiment and uh communication is is at the root of everything

Recent work has revealed several new and significant aspects of the dynamics of theory change. First, statistical information, information about the probabilistic contingencies between events, plays a particularly important role in theory-formation both in science and in childhood. In the last fifteen years we’ve discovered the power of early statistical learning.

Just as gut bacteria affect the brain, the brain can also exert profound influences on the gut microbiome—with feedback effects on behavior. Numerous studies, for example, have shown that psychological stress suppresses beneficial bacteria.

In one striking demonstration of the potency of the so-called "microbiome-gut-brain axis," published in Gastroenterology in 2011, Bercik and colleagues gave BALB/c mice, a strain of mice that are typically timid and shy, a cocktail of antibiotics, dramatically changing the composition of their gut bacteria. "Their behavior completely changed," Bercik says. "They became bold and adventurous."

the brain evolved to be uncertainty-averse. When things become less predictable — and therefore less controllable — we experience a strong state of threat. You may already know that threat leads to “fight, freeze, or flight” responses in the brain. You may not know that it also leads to decreases in motivation, focus, agility, cooperative behavior, self-control, sense of purpose and meaning, and overall well-being. In addition, threat creates significant impairments in your working memory: You can’t hold as many ideas in your mind to solve problems, nor can you pull as much information from your long-term memory when you need it.

The big tech companies, left to their own devices (so to speak), have already had a net negative effect on societies worldwide. At the moment, the three big threats these companies pose – aggressive surveillance, arbitrary suppression of content (the censorship problem), and the subtle manipulation of thoughts, behaviors, votes, purchases, attitudes and beliefs – are unchecked worldwide

Early in 2013, Ronald Robertson, now a doctoral candidate at the Network Science Institute at Northeastern University in Boston, and I discovered that Google isn’t just spying on us; it also has the power to exert an enormous impact on our opinions, purchases and votes.

he Search Suggestion Effect (SSE), the Answer Bot Effect (ABE), the Targeted Messaging Effect (TME), and the Opinion Matching Effect (OME), among others. Effects like these might now be impacting the opinions, beliefs, attitudes, decisions, purchases and voting preferences of more than two billion people every day.

“We must understand that we have got to act upon certain principles by which we can bind ourselves together as a people, to bind our feelings together that we may become one, and this never can be accomplished unless certain things are done, and things that require an exertion on our part. “How would you go to work to bind yourselves together? How would a man go to work to unite himself with his neighbor? If two men were associated together who had never been acquainted, how would they go to work to secure each other’s friendship, attachment and affection one towards another? Why something would have to be done, and that not by one party only, but would have to be done by one as well as by the other. It would not answer for one to do the business alone; it would not do for one to answer those feelings and do the work himself, but in order to become as one in their sentiments and affection—the action of both would be requisite” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow [2012] 198–99).

a Structure Note can make use of a TOC form, a normal table, a mind map, a flow diagram, a straight list, or even a picture.

Bateson defines schismogenesis as a “creation of division.”

If you want to share your wiki with someone, you can just email them the file and be virtually assured they can open it.

If, on the other hand, I were to show you a brain scan taken before I believed it was going to rain, and after, there is no one in the world who could have the faintest clue what ideas these pictures were illustrating.

Zettelkasten can be described as a collection of conceptual maps in a written format.

A mind that is full of conclusions is a dead mind, it is not a living mind. A living mind is a free mind, learning, never concluding. —Krishnamurti⠀Longer passage: Are you all waiting for me to tell you what to do about it, how to go beyond it? And if you hear what is being said and draw a conclusion from it, that very conclusion is bringing about a death of a different kind – a mind that is full of conclusions is already a dead not a living mind. A living mind is a free mind, learning, never concluding. In the same way we are investigating, therefore learning, never coming to any conclusion, and that is the beauty of this whole movement of life.⠀From Ojai 1973, Talk 3⠀

what i want you to do is to now imagine somebody whose body you would like to have 00:28:23 as your own either for a few minutes or maybe long term i'm not going to ask you why you want that body i don't want to get that deep into your psyche and that might be very personal um 00:28:35 but i'll tell you whose body i'd like to have and for how long just to give you a warm-up feel for this i really would like to have usain bolt's body of a few years ago for 9.6 seconds 00:28:47 because i would love to know what it feels like to run 100 meters that fast now when i form that does i think it's a coherent desire how do i why do i think that because i really do desire it i would love it i'd pay a lot of money to 00:28:59 do that um but what i don't want is to be usain bolt because usain bolt is already the same bolt and that doesn't do me any good um what i want is to be me 00:29:12 j with usain bolt's body so i can know what it feels like to run really really fast now i'm not claiming that this is a coherent desire i'm not claiming that it's 00:29:24 possible for me to remain jay and have usain bolt's body but i am claiming that i can desire it and if you are anything like me for some body or other you can desire to 00:29:36 have it for some time or other if you can form that desire then you in deep in your gut don't believe that you are your body you believe that you have a body and that 00:29:48 you might have a different body just like you might have a different hat or a different cat and if you believe that then you really do believe that whatever you are you are not your body 00:30:01 now you might think well that's obviously true i've never thought i was my body um but maybe on my mind i don't think you really believe that either and i want to do the same thought 00:30:13 experiment to convince you of that now i want you to think about somebody's mind that you'd really like to have maybe not for a long time maybe only for a few minutes um i'll tell you mine again i'm really 00:30:25 big and divulging you know hyper sharing over sharing personal secrets um i would really love to have stephen hawking's mind when he was still alive of course not now um and i'd like to have it only for about five or ten 00:30:36 minutes because what i would really like is to be able to really understand quantum gravity and i can't really understand it but if i had stephen hawking's mind for a few minutes then i could understand it now i obviously 00:30:48 don't want to be stephen hawking for one thing he's dead for another thing he was already stephen hawking and it didn't do me a damn bit of good what i want is to be me jay with his mind so that i can 00:31:00 use it to understand quantum gravity um i think that'd be really cool again i'm not claiming this is coherent i'm not claiming that it's possible but i am claiming that it's a 00:31:11 psychologically possible state to be in to crave somebody else's mind and if you like me can form that desire then you like me deep in your gut do not believe that you are your mind 00:31:25 you believe that you're something that has a mind just like you have a body um and that you possessed that mind and you could still be you with another mind and another body i mean just imagine having 00:31:37 the same bolts body in stephen hawking's mind that would be totally cool then i could understand quantum gravity while setting a new record for the 100 meter sprint um but that's not going to happen alas 00:31:50 um the moral of these experiments um takes us right back to chandragiri serpent i think the moral of these experiments is that deep down at an atavistic gut 00:32:02 level we believe that we are something that stands behind our minds and our bodies that thing is the self the thing that is not the mind in the body but possesses the mind in the body that's the thing 00:32:14 that sean decurity identifies as the serpent in the wall our arguments are going to be aimed at that not at our bodies not as our minds not as our personal identities they're 00:32:27 going to be aimed at that self that we really atavistically believe stands behind all of those that's the illusion that's the thing that causes us to be incompetent morally that causes us to be 00:32:41 confused about our own identities and to be confused about our role and our place in the world

For the record, I've changed my position. I now follow that rule (of single quoting unless needed) and love it. I like it visually and it's slightly more explicit, since there's no need to parse the string to see if it contains any expression.

I think one of the the things that 00:00:27 really separates us from the high primates is that we're tool builders and I read a a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet the Condor used 00:00:41 the least energy to move a kilometer and humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing about a third of the way down the list it was not not too proud of a showing for the crown of 00:00:53 creation so that didn't look so good but then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle and a man on a bicycle or human on a bicycle 00:01:07 blew the Condor away completely off the top of the charts and that's what a computer is to me what a computer is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with and it's the 00:01:19 equivalent of a bicycle for our minds

Mark: Cathy Marshall at Xerox PARC originally started speaking about information gardening. She developed an early tool that’s the inspiration for the Tinderbox map view, in which you would have boxes but no lines. It was a spatial hypertext system, a system for connecting things by placing them near each other rather than drawing a line between them. Very interesting abstract representational problem, but also it turned out to be tremendously useful.

3. Is THE BOOK TRUE, IN WHOLE OR PART?

“People always say of great athletes that they have a sixth sense,” Malcolm Gladwell says in Miracle and Wonder: Conversations with Paul Simon. “But it’s not a sixth sense. It’s memory.” Gladwell then analogizes James’ exacting memory to Simon’s. In the way James has precise recall of basketball game situations, Simon has it of sounds and songs. “Simon’s memory is prodigious,” Gladwell says. “There were thousands of songs in his head. And thousands more bits of songs—components—which appeared to have been broken down and stacked like cordwood in his imagination.”

Last week, while taking the week off, I read one of those books: Matthew B. Crawford’s 2009 best seller, Shop Class as Soulcraft. Crawford—a Ph.D think-tank dropout turned motorcycle mechanic—offers a passionate case for the value and dignity of manual work and elaborates at great length on what I like to call the art of slow progress.

(2) A second technique which should be part of theintellectual workman's way of life consists of a kind ofrelaxed browsing in libraries, letting the mind play overbooks and new periodicals and encyclopedias. Of course,I have in mind the several problems on which I am activelyworking, and try to be passively receptive to unforeseenand unplanned linkages.

Can You Warm Yourself with Your Mind?The human body generates its own heat. Some people can adjust the thermostat.

Onecannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility withwhich the mind follows an associative trail, but it should bepossible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the perma-nence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage

The unconscious is a biological system before it is anything else. To put it as pithily as possibly—and as accurately—the unconscious is a machine for operating an animal.All animals have an unconscious. If they didnt they would be plants.

deny the current view, and hold the cortex to be something more than the surface of "projection" for every sensitive spot and every muscle in the body

I don’t like that when I read the Basecamp news and had a visceral reaction, my first thought was, “Will my commit access be revoked if I share what’s on my mind?” It’s incredibly unclear what mechanisms exist to remove commit access from someone against their will, and also unclear what recourse those people can take to get it re-instated.

The greatestdefect of classical philosophy of mind, both rationalist and empiricist, seems tome to be its unquestioned assumption that the properties and content of the mindare accessible to introspection;

Epics, issues, requirements, and others all have similar but just subtle enough differences in common interactions that the user needs to hold a complicated mental model of how they each behave.

Human beings are different from what they seem to be thinking, perceiving, or saying asmediated by social symbolic systems [29 ]. They are different from how they are represented intheir own narratives, they are different from language itself. Interestingly, learning to consciouslybecome aware to that difference—the bare human spirit, the preindividual, or being as becoming asSimondon [30 ] puts it—appears to be the state of mind towards which many spiritual traditionsare guiding. David R. Weinbaum (Weaver) refers to this state as thought sans image [ 13], offering itscontemporary conceptualisation via the metaphysical theories of Henri Bergson, Gilbert Simondon andGilles Deleuze, in combination with the enactive theory of cognition [14 ] and inputs from complexityscience

If this notion of human existence as a unity of participation in both perishing and non-perishing reality sounds odd to modern ears, it is mainly because philosophical and scientific–and consequently popular–thought during the last few centuries has been busy constructing a very different image of the human person. The image of participation has been changed and simplified into an image of two entities: a body, and a mind inside the body that has intelligence and ideas. This is the image that eventually came out of Descartes and Hobbes and other early modem thinkers, and wound up as a portrayal of human beings as mental entities encased in physical entities: a mind-thing imprisoned in a body–thing. Now a mind-thing imprisoned in a body-thing cannot experience participation in the ground of reality. Why not? Because it is imprisoned, isolated in the head. It can only have ideas about it and “project” them out onto reality. What becomes, then of the non-perishing dimension of meaning? Accepting the modem image, we could have faith that we have a relation to non-perishing reality only through first conceiving of a non-perishing reality–let us call it “God”–in the isolation of our bodily-encased minds, and then projecting that conception onto a “beyond” of things, and finally engaging in the desperate procedure of believing that it is real and that we have a connection with it in spite of not knowing anything of the kind. In other words, as long as self-understanding is dominated by this modem image, human consciousness cannot make sense of its own experience of immediate participation in a non-perishing ground of reality. And therefore, it cannot really make sense of its moral striving–since what is the point of the struggle for goodness if goodness is nothing more than temporary private opinion? Thus the modem image of human nature short-circuits the Socratic and Kierkegaardian understanding of existence, and leaves us with the familiar contemporary mess of radical moral relativism. This modern image of human existence is tenacious, though–partly because it is so closely connected to the modem view of what real knowing is, a view that enjoys an almost unassailable status. It might be summarized with extreme brevity as follows. If the mind is a thing encased in the physical body that only knows reality through the mediation, through the channeling, of the physical senses, any valid knowing has to validate itself through the presence of the relevant sense data. And this means that all true knowing is the type of knowing involved in the natural sciences, where empirical verification must take place through quantifiable data. Data that cannot be mathematically measured, such as the data consciousness discovers in its own activity and awareness–for example moral insight–can never be a matter of knowing, merely of opinion. How could the Socratic experience of discovering that the moral autonomy of the soul involves a non-perishing dimension of meaning ever be verified, if the data of sense, quantifiable data, are the only relevant data for affirming truth? The life of Socrates–an exemplary model for over two millennia of the moral liberation of the soul through the catharsis of practicing death–is, in this view, a life based on nothing more substantial than a private irrational belief. So to sum up: what has happened is that the enthronement by modem philosophy and science of an image of human nature as a thingly mind entrapped in a thingly body, has made all symbolizations of a non-perishing dimension of reality non-credible to many people–particularly to the intelligentsia, who emphasize their modem credentials by presenting themselves as the cultured despisers of religion. And, of course, one of the reasons why this modem image is so popular and so resistant to critique is what it appears to promise. If we go back to the founding texts of modernity, to the writings of Descartes, of Bacon, of Hobbes, we find a great optimism. If there is no participation in a mysterious origin of non-perishing meaning, there is no mystery essential to human existence. If there is no such participation, then all knowledge originates only in human consciousness itself. And if there is no primal mystery, and if all meaning is of human creation, we can hope one day to bring nature, human society, and history fully under human control. In his last book, Escape from Evil, Becker wrote: “Hubris means forgetting where the real source of power lies and imagining that it is in oneself (37).” I would suggest that imagining that notions of a non-perishing dimension of meaning are the pure creations of an isolated human consciousness, entails a forgetting of where the real source of consciousness lies: in the experienced mysterious ground of consciousness, which grants us the quite rational opportunity of a free and loving commitment to an enduring dimension of meaning. Of course, in some sense, human awareness of the non-perishing mystery in which it participates remains alive and well, because people keep striving to be moral, and they keep asking questions about that experience. Human questioning will always keep uncovering the eternal dimension of meaning, keep introducing people to the Socratic catharsis, and keep leading people to what Becker called a life of courageous self-realization. But they can be helped to do so by promoting insights like those of Becker on the choice between denying death or facing up to mortality. Like Becker in his chapter on Kierkegaard in The Denial Of Death, what I’ve tried to show is that the problem does not lie in the notion of human participation in imperishable reality. Rather, where the problem lies is in the self-comforting delusion that one possesses eternal meaning, and especially in the measures people take to defend their feeling of righteous invulnerability, especially through aggression. Authentic faith, by contrast, affirms enduring meaning in the context of an open if anxious acceptance of mortality. And so one must conclude that there are two opposites to authentic faith. One is the dogmatic clinging to an immortality project; and the other is the equally dogmatic insistence that enduring meaning is an illusion. Both of these are denials of our real human situation, making up two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

Filing is certainlynot their goal.

another way to put this and we're going to go there in a moment um is that we could say that we're tempted just overwhelmingly 00:05:09 tempted to believe that to believe that when we have perceptual experience including introspective experience of our own minds we think that we know that content immediately the idea that to be in a 00:05:22 cognitive state is to know that state and the idea that our inner states present themselves to introspection even trained introspection just as they are

buddhism is first and foremost a solution to a problem the problem is the 00:02:47 ubiquity of suffering in samsara and buddhism is all about trying to solve that problem and famously there's a diagnosis of that problem where the immediate conditions 00:02:59 of suffering are attraction and aversion but where the root cause the thing that gives rise to that attraction and aversion to those pathologies is a profound confusion about the nature of reality and it's that confusion that 00:03:13 leads us to the attraction and aversion that takes us into samsara and since it's an illusion we should pay attention to the classical indian understanding of what illusion is and 00:03:25 that is something that appears in one way but exists in another that is an illusion isn't something that's completely non-existent it's something his mode of existence and his mode of appearance are discordant from one 00:03:37 another and we're going to be focusing on that a great deal in this talk but the idea is that because this primal confusion this illusion lies at the root of suffering the only way to end the 00:03:50 problem of suffering is to extinguish the illusion and what i want to talk about today is how that illusion manifests in the case of our own minds and what i'm going to argue is is this 00:04:03 that that confusion manifests as a conviction that we have an immediate knowledge of our own minds that we can be indubitably aware of the contents of our own minds and the second aspect of that delusion equally pernicious is that 00:04:16 it involves the sub the superimposition of a subject object duality on experience that is uh primordially non-dual um so that primal confusion can be 00:04:28 thought of this way um it's taking that which is impermanent to be permanent that which is a source of suffering to be a source of happiness that which is only conventionally real to be ultimately real that which is 00:04:42 interdependent to be independent and the important point for our purposes is that the thesis that our own experience is permeated with illusion applies to our experience of our own minds as well 00:04:55 that's what i want to emphasize here

the question you were asking was what is mind or consciousness so here we're using the words synonymously um and from a buddhist perspective uh there are 01:11:50 six what we call primary minds and then there's a whole slew of secondary minds and some of the more common systems include 51 in the secondary minds now please understand that mind like 01:12:04 everything else that exists in the world doesn't exist permanently it exists there are a few exceptions okay but essentially everything that exists in the world um is not permanent therefore 01:12:18 it's changing moment to moment therefore everything exists as a continuum including mind so that means there'll be a moment of mind followed by a next moment of mind etc 01:12:31 and the next moment of mind is determined primarily but not solely by the previous moment of mind so from that we can extrapolate a continuum an infinite continuum and mind is an 01:12:43 infinite continuum from perspective of buddhism and that means that we've had that implies suggests rebirth and it suggests we've had ultimate we've had infinite rebirths there's been no beginning 01:12:56 and so this then comes up again with the notion of a beginning creator if you will a so-called you know god there are some some problems here to resolve this um 01:13:07 and so mind is a continuum it's infinite now each moment of mind is made up of a primary mind and a constellation of secondary minds these six primary or the five as you read from nagarjuna the five 01:13:22 sensory minds of seeing hearing smelling tasting touching tactile right these five plus what's sometimes called the mental consciousness and that has live different levels of subtlety on the 01:13:34 grossest level is thinking if we go a little bit deeper a little bit more so little subtler we have dream mind which seems like these senses are active but actually 01:13:46 when we're sleeping the senses are inactive so it's just something coming from our sixth or mental consciousness it seems like the senses are active in dream mind that dream mind is a little more subtle than a wake mind awake 01:13:59 thinking mind and then if we go more subtle we're talking now again about awake mind we we talk about intuition when we're in intuition we're not thinking right it's a non-conceptual 01:14:11 mind uh in that sense and deeper yet our minds we call non-conceptual and non-dual where there's no awareness of a subject or an object so subject object non-duality so 01:14:25 that's kind of the rough sort of you know lay of the land

he aim of the present paper is to propose a radical resolution to this controversy: weassume that mind is a ubiquitous property of all minimally active matter (Heylighen, 2011). Itis in no way restricted to the human brain—although that is the place where we know it in itsmost concentrated form. Therefore, the extended mind hypothesis is in fact misguided,because it assumes that the mind originates in the brain, and merely “extends” itself a little bitoutside in order to increase its reach, the way one’s arm extends itself by grasping a stick.While ancient mystical traditions and idealist philosophies have formulated similarpanpsychist ideas (Seager, 2006), the approach we propose is rooted in contemporaryscience—in particular cybernetics, cognitive science, and complex systems theory. As such, itstrives to formulate its assumptions as precisely and concretely as possible, if possible in amathematical or computational form (Heylighen, Busseniers, Veitas, Vidal, & Weinbaum,2012), so that they can be tested and applied in real-world situations—and not just in thethought experiments beloved by philosophers

We approach the problem of the extended mind from a radically non-dualistperspective. The separation between mind and matter is an artefact of the outdatedmechanistic worldview, which leaves no room for mental phenomena such as agency,intentionality, or feeling. We propose to replace it by an action ontology, which conceivesmind and matter as aspects of the same network of processes. By adopting the intentionalstance, we interpret the catalysts of elementary reactions as agents exhibiting desires,intentions, and sensations. Autopoietic networks of reactions constitute more complex super-agents, which moreover exhibit memory, deliberation and sense-making. In the specific caseof social networks, individual agents coordinate their actions via the propagation ofchallenges. The distributed cognition that emerges from this interaction cannot be situated inany individual brain. This non-dualist, holistic view extends and operationalizes processmetaphysics and Eastern philosophies. It is supported by both mindfulness experiences andmathematical models of action, self-organization, and cognition.