14 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2023
    1. The case of experience is more tricky because there is no way to get a third person view of experience. 00:06:39 And therefore, you only have experience seen from the first person standpoint. Yet, there are features that are typical of this experience. For instance, the analog of a vanishing point is called by philosophers such as Heidegger, situatedness.
      • for: experience replaces objects, nondual replaces dual, Heidegger, situatedness

      • comment

        • there is a parallel between objective reality and the private experience
          • visual field
            • vanishing point indicates presence of the seer
          • interior, first person experience
            • situatedness indicates presence of experience being had from somewhere (specific) - situatedness
      • definition start

        • this is called by Heidegger and Husserl the transcendental deduction
      • definition end
    2. what about the visual field itself? Can it reveal anything about its being seen by an eye? Yes. Why, because there is a structure of a vanishing point and vanishing lights, 00:06:14 converging towards the vanishing point. The vanishing point is the expression in the visual field of it being seen from somewhere. Namely, from an eye.
      • for: visual field, visual field - clues of a seer, nondual, non-dual, nonduality, non-duality, science - blind spot, science - subject
      • question
        • does the visual field reveal anything about the eye?
      • answer: yes
        • vanishing points indicate that the world is being seen from one perspective.
    3. The creator, he said, 00:01:17 wanted to look away from himself. That's why he created the world. You could just revert to the proposition and say, okay, since we are so absolved into the world, we tend to look away from ourselves. And it's exactly what we want to revert now. How can we become of this blind spot? 00:01:40 How can we become aware of the blind spot of science? That's my question
      • for: quote, quote - Nietzsche, duality, nonduality, nondual, non-duality, non-dual

      • quote

        • The creator wanted to look away from himself. That's why he created the world
      • author: Nietzsche, Zarathustra

      • comment

        • Bitbol's work is to invert this and explore how we can become aware of the blind spot of science that creates the objective world to study, whilst ignoring the subject..
    4. From the very beginning, his work has been guided by what Edmund Husserl called the mothers of knowledge. Namely, the dynamics of lived embodied experience,
      • for: Edmund Husserl, the Mother of Knowledge, nondual, nonduality, non-dual, non-duality, the ground of existence
      • definition: the mother of knowledge
        • the dynamics of lived embodied experience
      • author: Edmond Husserl
    5. what can you say about the transcendental? Can you speak of it? Can you use words to describe it? Can you characterize the condition of possibility of it? 00:09:24 And Kant says no. This, namely, the transcendental, cannot be further analyzed or answered because it is of such condition that we are in need for all our answers and for all our thinking about objects. So, the transcendental itself cannot be an objective thought. It is a condition for any objective thought.
      • for: nondual, nonduality, ground of existence, transcendental, Kant - transcendental, non-duality, non-dual, quote, quote - Michel Bitbol, quote - nonduality, quote - transcendental

      • quote

        • What can you say about the transcendental?
        • Can you speak of it?
        • Can you use words to describe it?
        • Can you characterize the condition of possibility of it?
        • And Kant says no.
        • This, namely, the transcendental, cannot be further analyzed or answered because it is of such condition that we are in need for all our answers and for all our thinking about objects.
        • So, the transcendental itself cannot be an object of thought.
      • author: Michel Bitbol
      • comment
        • Michel Bitbol explains Kant's definition of transcendental that makes sense to me for the first time!
        • It is really quite similiar to the defintion of the nondual.
    1. the Bodhisattva vow can be seen as a method for control that is in alignment with, and informed by, the understanding that singular and enduring control agents do not actually exist. To see that, it is useful to consider what it might be like to have the freedom to control what thought one had next.
      • for: quote, quote - Michael Levin, quote - self as control agent, self - control agent, example, example - control agent - imperfection, spontaneous thought, spontaneous action, creativity - spontaneity
      • quote: Michael Levin

        • the Bodhisattva vow can be seen as a method for control that is in alignment with, and informed by, the understanding that singular and enduring control agents do not actually exist.
      • comment

        • adjacency between
          • nondual awareness
          • self-construct
          • self is illusion
          • singular, solid, enduring control agent
        • adjacency statement
          • nondual awareness is the deep insight that there is no solid, singular, enduring control agent.
          • creativity is unpredictable and spontaneous and would not be possible if there were perfect control
      • example - control agent - imperfection: start - the unpredictability of the realtime emergence of our next exact thought or action is a good example of this
      • example - control agent - imperfection: end

      • triggered insight: not only are thoughts and actions random, but dreams as well

        • I dreamt the night after this about something related to this paper (cannot remember what it is now!)
        • Obviously, I had no clue the idea in this paper would end up exactly as it did in next night's dream!
      • for: nonduality, non-duality, duality, dualism, hard problem of consciousness, explanatory gap, relativistic theory of consciousness, human INTERbeing, human INTERbeCOMing, Deep Humanity, DH
      • title: A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness
      • author: Nir Lahav, Zahariah A. Neemeh
      • date: May 12, 2022

      • abstract

        • In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon.
        • Yet, despite critical development in our understanding of the functional side of consciousness, we still lack a fundamental theory regarding its phenomenal aspect.
        • There is an “explanatory gap” between
          • our scientific knowledge of functional consciousness and
          • its “subjective,” phenomenal aspects,
        • referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness.
        • The phenomenal aspect of consciousness is the first-person answer to “what it’s like” question, and
          • it has thus far proved recalcitrant to direct scientific investigation.
        • Naturalistic dualists argue that it is composed of a primitive, private, non-reductive element of reality that is independent from the functional and physical aspects of consciousness.
        • Illusionists, on the other hand, argue that it is merely a cognitive illusion, and that all that exists are ultimately physical, non-phenomenal properties.
        • We contend that both the dualist and illusionist positions are flawed because they tacitly assume consciousness to be an absolute property that doesn’t depend on the observer.
        • We develop a conceptual and a mathematical argument for a relativistic theory of consciousness in which
          • a system either has or doesn’t have phenomenal consciousness with respect to some observer.
        • Phenomenal consciousness is neither private nor delusional, just relativistic.
          • In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and
          • in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective).
        • These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct,
          • just as in the case of
            • an observer that claims to be at rest
            • while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity.
        • Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, neither observer position can be privileged,
          • as they both describe the same underlying reality.
        • Based on relativistic phenomena in physics
          • we developed a mathematical formalization for consciousness which bridges the explanatory gap and dissolves the hard problem.
        • Given that the first-person cognitive frame of reference also offers legitimate observations on consciousness,
          • we conclude by arguing that philosophers can usefully contribute to the science of consciousness by collaborating with neuroscientists to explore the neural basis of phenomenal structures.
      • comment

        • This is a promising approach to solving the hard problem of consciosness
  2. Aug 2023
    1. Our real challenge, perhaps, is in relearning what the “collective interest” actually means, and why it is so important, and how we got to this perverse situation where we have such monstrous distrust of each other, and of collectives in general, that we have assumed that, somehow, 7.8B people acting in their isolated individual, personal, and often trauma-influenced self-interest, will somehow be synonymous with an optimal collective interest.
      • for: further inquiry, unpack, self-other entanglement, dual, nondual
      • paraphrase
        • Our real challenge, perhaps, is in relearning what the “collective interest” actually means,
        • and why it is so important,
        • and how we got to this perverse situation
          • where we have such monstrous distrust of each other,
          • and of collectives in general,
          • that we have assumed that, somehow, 7.8B people acting in their
            • isolated
            • individual,
            • personal, and often
            • trauma-influenced
          • self-interest,
          • will somehow be synonymous with an optimal collective interest.
      • comment
        • it points once again to a deeper understanding of the relationship between
          • self and
          • other
          • and their entanglement
  3. Jul 2023
      • Title
        • consciousness is not in the brain
      • Author
        • Rupert Spira
      • Description
        • Rupert Spira takes the interviewer on a BEing journey to experience awareness directly and answer the question
          • how does consciousness emerge from brains?
    1. no we don't
      • Answer

        • No.
        • we end up with a non conceptual insight that:
          • we can then communicate
          • that we can discuss
          • that we can articulate
          • that requires that reason be present at:
            • the beginning like the seed
            • in the middle when we're performing the analysis
            • like the rain that nourishes the crops and
            • in the end in the harvest
          • because non conceptuality is really easy to achieve all you need is a very large rock,
            • just bang right on your head and non conceptuality is there
          • but that's a mute inert non-conceptual
          • Non-conceptuality needs to be enriched by the conceptual insight that allows you to actually make something of it
      • The Middle Way

        • using the conceptual to reach a deeper appreciation of the state of non-conceptuality,
        • in other words, using dualistic thought and language to reach insights about the nondual
  4. Jul 2022
    1. 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

      !- key insight : thought sans image !- definition : thought sans image * human beings are NOT defined by what they are thinking, perceiving or saying as mediated by social symbolic systems * They are also NOT defined by their own narratives or language itself - the symbolosphere is culturally imposed upon the bare human being * That primordial nature is described as the bare human spirit, the preindividual, being-as-becoming (Simondon) * Many spiritual traditions guide practitioners to experience this primordial state, the nondual state, stripped of all cultural embellishments * David R. Weinbaum (Weaver) calls this state thought sans image based on the metaphysical theories of Henri Bergson, Gilbert Simondon and Gilles Deleuze and 4E theory of cognition

    1. he distinguishes three dimensions of dependent origination and this is in his commentary on the guardian of malama jamaica carica called clear words he talks about causal dependence that is every phenomenon depends upon causes and 00:16:19 conditions and gives rise to further causes and conditions um myriological dependence that is every phenomenon every composite phenomenon depends upon the parts that uh that it 00:16:31 comprises and every phenomenon is also dependent upon the holes or the systems in which it figures parts depend on holes holes depend on parts and that reciprocal meteorological dependence 00:16:44 characterizes all of reality and third often overlooked but most important is dependence on conceptual imputation that is things depend in order to be represented as the kinds of 00:16:57 things they are on our conceptual resources our affective resources and as john dunn emphasized our purposes in life this third one really means this um 00:17:09 everything that shows up for us in the world the way we carve the world up the way we um the way we experience the world is dependent not just on how the world is but on the conceptual resources 00:17:22 as well as the perceptual resources through which we understand the world and it's worth recognizing that um when we think about this there are a bunch of um contemporary majamakers majamikas we 00:17:34 might point to as well and so paul fireauben who's up there on on the left well really an austrian but he spent much of his life in america um willard van norman kwine um up on the right wilford sellers and paul churchland

      This is a key statement: how we experience the world depends on the perceptual and cognitive lens used to filter the world through.

      Francis Heylighen proposes a nondual system based on causal dependency relationships to serve as the foundation for distributed cognition.(collective intelligence).

      https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbafybeicho2xrqouoq4cvqev3l2p44rapi6vtmngfdt42emek5lyygbp3sy.ipfs.dweb.link%2FNon-dualism%2520-%2520Mind%2520outside%2520Brain%2520%2520a%2520radically%2520non-dualist%2520foundation%2520for%2520distributed%2520cognition.pdf&group=world

  5. bafybeicho2xrqouoq4cvqev3l2p44rapi6vtmngfdt42emek5lyygbp3sy.ipfs.dweb.link bafybeicho2xrqouoq4cvqev3l2p44rapi6vtmngfdt42emek5lyygbp3sy.ipfs.dweb.link
    1. ind outside Brain:a radically non-dualist foundation for distributed cognition
      • Title: Mind outside Brain: a radically non-dualist foundation for distributed cognition
      • Author: Heylighen, Francis & Beigi, Shima
      • Date: 2016
    2. 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.

      The proposal is to interpret mind and matter as aspects of the same process network, and decouple both from the Cartesian/Newtonian mechanistic worldview. Catalysts of elementary reactions are agents exhibiting intention, which can exhibit increasingly complex behavior Distributed cognition that emerges from high level social interactions cannot be situated in any single individual brain.