Up early. Read articles in USAT and opinions in NYT. Breakfast, and it is now mid-morning. This scene is going to be different as it should be with a Worlds of the Dead meeting on the waters. First, however, we need to create a reality of quantum physics which allows for this shared illusion among the dead. Let’s go back to the ‘mind’ as described by the young seven year old marsupial alien, Diplomat Burroughs in the third book.
I whittled away at the Hypothetical Mind Model for specific use in this scene. The context in which it was written within the book has been translated, for consistency, to the Shaman’s Dance on the River. This is the dimensional compromise that draws them into their Mother’s Thought which means there are actually thirteen presences at the Dance not twelve.
Let’s make that fourteen, orndorff, because I, as the Supervisor, will also be present.
The North Room of the Model Mind
Looking north from innermost corner of the room’s location one sees a black outer wall on the left that follows to the outermost northern corner, and the continuing right outer wall connected with the northernmost corner is a white.
The larger size makes it possible to imagine being able to three dimensionally walk through a human mind and point to presences of mind, for example, hanging from the wall, or floating, or resting in one of the corners of the room.
The brain, as I have stated, also has thoughts that filter to the mind, so the aroma filtering is continually working both directions, from the mind to the brain and from the brain to the mind. The mind is where an equality lies in all human beings and marsupials. The mind is not measurable as is the brain.
The brain has a bottom line, the vertical spine, that’s the way it is in these books, but the mind almost always bottoms out above the brain, and its ceiling, being non-material in nature, reaches out further. Anyone in the ‘right frame of mind’ can accomplish more in a given time, than one whose brain is the only thing good to go. This appears as common sense reasoning.
The South Room of the Model Mind
Opposite of the north room, directly behind the back of the reader in the innermost corner of the north room is the south room. Its outer corner is pointing due south as a compass would have it. The outer oven walls of this corner of the whole mind concept are blue to represent the out of the blue ideas or concept that hit the human or marsupial like a bolt of lightning from time to time. This is the metaphysical room of the mind. It is, remember, a room cube of a fourteen square feet.
The ceiling is imaginary, of course, and remember there is no roof over the four fourteen foot rooms so the mind’s eye can better focus on what is at hand. It may be difficult to believe heaven and hell both reside here in the south room, but to paraphrase Milton, ‘it is the mind that makes it so.’ Angels and demons are in this room. Fairies are in this room Enchantments are here also.
A presence [Mother] may even bounce off the walls. Strangely, the inner walls seem pressed outward and bulge a bit against the east and west rooms.
The concepts of heaven and hell are similar to what others know or have told you of both places. Oral traditions and books. No one knows what heaven and hell are like. It is conjecture at best. Imagination gone wild because people have a need to know. Imagination is a loose cannon on deck and must be bolted down.
Stars in the heavens may dance, but only in the metaphysics room please. Extremely remote possibilities only, probabilities few. Those are the mathematics of the metaphysics room. These are also the mathematics of hope drifting into the north room. There is always a chance, always a possibility I will survive to live another day.
The East Room of the Model Mind
[Mind Set for River Dance]
The east room with the outer wall ovens in orange is the communications room where people have a meeting of minds from time to time. The person may meet her or his own mind or have a discussion of higher merit or principle with someone else. It is a place in the mind reserved for dignified and honorable subjects such as friendship talks and/or peace talks of any kind. Any kind of communications to make the environment better for the individual, community, nation and/or world is in my model east room.
It is the room in the mind where compromise is made once the differences are aired. It is the room of such concepts as the golden rule and I trust you with all my heart, as well as a declaration of independence or a new constitution whether it be for an individual or a nation.
The West Room of the Model Mind
The west cubed room of the brain, the outer red walled room is where the old ideas find a way of breaking down so that new ones may raise their aromas into the room. This is the room of thesis and antithesis.
This is the room of creating an existential choice by which to abide to higher principles, the place in the mind where decisions of commitment are laid out and built upon. The thinking through of a relationship of friendship into the commitment of marriage, or the thinking through of a world system of cultural groups compromising to exist and live equally well on the planet or planets in the sense of the marsupials’ existence. These are principles found and worked through in the west room of my model mind.
The building of stepping stones for a better life for one and all. The human will, the higher sense of it, in attempting to accomplish a higher principled task. A task that has to be stimulated by the desire, which may be emotionally arousing, to be raised to something beyond possession, for the necessity of the greater world community but without self promotion.
The west room of the mind seems endless until something new comes up. Our world could and would not exist today without using the now simple concepts of the wheel. This is the most dangerous room in the mind. It is the room of the beginning and the ending of things. It is circular in argument and has been for millenniums.
***
This leaves the quantum physics angle as well as trance-physics, I need to have a plausible explanation here.
Go back to your friend, Doug Goss’s idea. > You have eight pages on “Light” from this blog from November through March. This is a bit more than I asked for. – Amorella.
I thought it would be good to have a record as to what was said in the notes and the book that might relate. I want to be consistent as I mentioned earlier.
From your eight gathered pages his is what I basically asked for:
“Light is as thought without a thinker therefore thought is first. Thought includes the processes of cognition, sentience, consciousness, ideas and imagination and also according to Wikipedia, light is a type of energy, a non-matter, which exhibits the properties of both waves and particles.”
You spent more time researching “intentionality” and “hard problem of consciousness” on Wikipedia because you think both are going to be of value in this upcoming scene. Post what you have and I will show you how this is so.
Intentionality – Wikipedia:
The concept of intentionality was reintroduced in 19th-century contemporary philosophy by the philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano in his work Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). Brentano described intentionality as a characteristic of all acts of consciousness, "psychical" or "mental" phenomena, by which it could be set apart from "physical" or "natural" phenomena.
“Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.”
-- Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, edited by Linda L. McAlister (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 88-89.
Brentano coined the expression "intentional inexistence" to indicate the peculiar ontological status of the contents of mental phenomena. According to some interpreters the 'in-' of 'in-existence' is to be read as locative, i.e. as indicating that "an intended object [. . .] exists in or has ‘‘in-existence,’’ existing not externally but in the psychological state" (Jacquette 2004, p. 102), while others are more cautious, affirming that: "It is not clear whether in 1874 this [...] was intended to carry any ontological commitment" (Chrudzimski and Smith 2004, p. 205).
A major problem within intentionality discourse is that participants often fail to make explicit whether or not they use the term to imply concepts such as agency or desire, i.e. whether it involves teleology. Dennett (see below) explicitly invokes teleological concepts in the 'intentional stance'. However, most philosophers use intentionality to mean something with no teleological import. Thus, a thought of a chair can be about a chair without any implication of an intention or even a belief relating to the chair. For philosophers of language, intentionality is largely an issue of how symbols can have meaning. This lack of clarity may underpin some of the differences of view indicated below.
To bear out further the diversity of sentiment evoked from the notion of intentionality, Husserl followed on Brentano, and gave intentionality more widespread attention, both in continental and analytic philosophy. In contrast to Brentano's view, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (Being and Nothingness) identified intentionality with consciousness, stating that the two were indistinguishable. German philosopher Martin Heidegger (Being and Time), defined intentionality as "care" (Sorge), a sentient condition where an individual's existentiality, facticity, and forfeiture to the world identifies their ontological significance, in contrast to that which is the mere ontic (thinghood).
Other twentieth century philosophers such as Gilbert Ryle and AJ Ayer were critical of Husserl's concept of intentionality and his many layers of consciousness, Ryle insisting that perceiving is not a process and Ayer that describing one's knowledge is not to describe mental processes. The effect of these positions is that consciousness is so fully intentional that the mental act has been emptied of all content and the idea of pure consciousness is that it is nothing (Sartre also referred to "consciousness" as “nothing”).
Platonist Roderick Chisholm has revived the Brentano thesis through linguistic analysis, distinguishing two parts to Brentano's concept, the ontological aspect and the psychological aspect. Chisholm's writings have attempted to summarize the suitable and unsuitable criteria of the concept since the Scholastics, arriving at a criterion of intentionality identified by the two aspects of Brentano's thesis and defined by the logical properties that distinguish language describing psychological phenomena from language describing non-psychological phenomena. Chisholm's criteria for the intentional use of sentences are: existence independence, truth-value indifference, and referential opacity.
In current artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind intentionality is a controversial subject and sometimes claimed to be something that a machine will never achieve. John Searle argued for this position with the Chinese room thought experiment, according to which no syntactic operations that occurred in a computer would provide it with semantic content. As he noted in the article, Searle's view was a minority position in artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind. - From Wikipedia
***
Hard Problem of Consciousness
The term hard problem of consciousness refers to the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. In considerations by David Chalmers, this is contrasted with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he assumes that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".
Various formulations of the "hard problem":
▪ "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"
▪ "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
▪ "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
▪ "Why do qualia exist?"
▪ "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
▪ "Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
James S. Trefil notes that "it is the only major question in the sciences that we don't even know how to ask."
From Wikipedia
***I would like to think "the questions immediately above" were resolved by the shamans from/by a different approach. Perhaps not 'answered' as would we attempt to respond to them in modern times, but 'acceptably answered' from their point in time, somewhere around 800 BCE.
You'll have to wait and see, orndorff, just like every other reader. - Amorella.
No comments:
Post a Comment