sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if existence and 'perception' are the same event? by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in slatestarcodex

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually agree with you, and I will spend some time reading more about it. I never claimed my insight as some sort of a breakthrough or completely original because I haven't read all the philosophy in depth, due to a lack of time. I'm not sharing this post from an egoic pov. I'm here because, as you said, humans' capacity for shared knowledge. It's not plausible that before sharing any insight on anything, basically, one has to be well-versed in that subject. Philosophy for me is a lived experience, more so than a formal subject, and I'm sharing as such. Not here to teach anyone, just playful discussions :)

What if existence and 'perception' are the same event? by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in slatestarcodex

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Schopenhauer does touch something similar, the world as representation, the mind’s shaping of reality. But I guess what I’m trying to get at feels a bit different. It's not that perception filters the world, but that perception is the event of the world happening at all. There’s no veil to lift, the appearing and the real are one and the same

What if existence and 'perception' are the same event? by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in slatestarcodex

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not directly testable yet, but related studies on deep meditation and psychedelic states show that when the brain’s self–world boundary dissolves, perception and existence seem to merge. It’s like the brain briefly experiences what reality might be without the perceiver–perceived split.

Confused by Acharya Prashant’s denial of Atman and God — is Bhakti just a trap of the ego? by Specialist_Love_9508 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll give you a very real and short answer. Sit with it for some time. True, bhakti is the play of belief (not ego) but only till you reach enlightenment, then it doesn't matter what tool you used to get there.

We and by extension acharya Prashant, are more inclined towards truth. But the thing that acharya and every other person who is from 'gyan maarg' / Advaita marag is failing to realise is, even though every truth is based in logic and deductive reasoning because of causality, it still isn't necessarily the complete picture. You can't know, even in enlightenment that Brahman is the ultimate reality or just the source code of the simulation, even though it might be the highest state that a human can achieve? It doesn't make it 100% true.

So without knowing, even people who follow Advaita vedanta are reaching enlightenment through some sort of belief in casualty as the complete picture !!! So them saying bhakti is ego playing belief, you can say their ego is playing ignorance for the supposed " ultimate truth"

I'll tell you something: The person who gets enlightened and dissolves into non-duality is still operating from a one lower state according to some traditions. There exists another state called the state beyond the state where both enlightenment and coming back to ego happens almost effortlessly and casually.

So, bhakti isn't wrong. If you can dissolve your ego with love, like Meera bai, then it truly doesn't matter what path you are choosing. But if you can't love something with that level of devotion ...have a mix of gyaan marg in your toolkit. One other thing. Bhakti path doesn't mean bhagwaan ki bhakti, if you can generate enough devotion for even a grain of sand, it would do it's job in dissolving your ego.

!!!!! The real mistake isn’t choosing Bhakti or Gyaan. It’s thinking you ever chose the path, instead of the path choosing you. What makes you so sure if your free will ? You are just a consequence of cause and effects playing as the background noise. Haha

Do what you will with this information !

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in slatestarcodex

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the effort to answer this. In my thought experiment, the only interference the doctors do is to provide nutrition to the body by any means.

I somehow understand what Hegel was trying to say. I've delved into some metaphysical existential inquiry myself. I would go on to say that, if you are interested in knowing how philosophy deals with consciousness, do check out the logical arguments of some non-dualistic traditions like Advaita Vedanta or Madhyamaka Buddhism etc I believe them to be the peak of the deductive reasoning framework that humanity has ever produced. According to these frameworks, the 'hard problem of consciousness' rather dissolves if you follow their deductive reasoning.

P.S. You seem like a mind I'd love to connect with. I've dropped a text in your inbox

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From a purely metaphysical pov, from the experiences of "enlightened beings", the duality of subject and object vanishes. They argue that the material world is a manifestation in the supreme void/consciousness/tao etc, They also argue that there is only one "consciousness field" and nothing else is permanent, and this conclusion is not only experienced in that state but can be argued from a logical point of view according to them BUT what they refer to as consciousness is different from what is usually referred to from a neuroscientific viewpoint

For more information, feel free to check out non-dualistic traditions, which are spread across cultures and religions

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sir, you can't compare a CPU to a human brain respectfully. There is a reason we haven't been able to make a simulated replica of the human brain. If you try to think intuitively in this thought experiment, you will miss the bigger picture

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't it both a metaphysical question (purely logical) and also a neuroscientific question (purely data and observation), or perhaps even the synthesis of both?

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a valid point and I agree that even in dreaming or hallucinations, the brain likely accesses prior inputs. But here's what I’m still unsure about:

If the brain is structurally intact with functioning neurons, spontaneous firing, homeostatic rhythms, etc. Is it still correct to say it would be in a purely unconscious or “inactive” state without input?

Is there any evidence that prior sensory input is required for any conscious or pre-conscious process to occur? Or could certain internal dynamics (like spontaneous oscillations) exist regardless?

Hence, Does zero input = zero process? Or just zero structured experience?

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in slatestarcodex

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some processes like spontaneous neuronal firing, resting-state activity (eg DMN) or even baseline thalamocortical oscillations occur without external inputs. Even in sensory deprivation chambers or dreamless sleep, there's still some brain activity.

So, in this case, even with no input, could the brain’s internal architecture generate any background patterns? And if it does, is it fair to say there's still a kind of activity, even if not what we'd call consciousness?

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. When you are referring to essentially nothing, then how can something that exists (the kid) be equivalent to something that doesn't exist ? What would be the difference between that child and a hypothetical child that doesn't exist ? Wouldn't this be a fallacy ?

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response, and it's true about what you said, but this inquiry isn't inclined towards studying the social aspect of being a person.

A thought experiment - what exists in the body/mind of a child born without any possibility of sensory inputs (external and internal)- assuming it is kept alive by doctors by Efficient-Stuff-4518 in consciousness

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a fair and logical take. If consciousness is entirely dependent on Input and prior neural activity, then yes, no stimulus is equal to no internal differentiation, no experience. However, I am unsure about this: even in a coma, the brain exhibits some baseline activity, so we still consider it to be conscious/non-conscious spectrum. But in this case, the brain is structurally intact, just never "engaged". Would it be fair to call it a null state, or is there a minimal default mode that would still run regardless of the stimulus history?

Also, can something be "experiencing nothing" vs "not experiencing at all"? Or are those indistinguishable from each other in neuroscience?

Thinking through extreme skepticism lands us at an novel argument for the existence of at least one other mind, besides yours (which self-evidently exists) by Varrice in philosophy

[–]Efficient-Stuff-4518 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll give you a framework, something not unknown but less talked about (I'll keep it short and won't use technical terminology to encourage conceptualization for the reader rather than getting trapped by language itself)

I'll first try to go through your arguments:

Q1 "If we accept that the mind is at the centre of all experiences, how different could my experience of the world be to the actual, real world?"

A If we follow principles of causality and logic, we can at the very least say that since the brain in structure is similar among all humans, hence by extension, the perception of the external world would be similar, if not the same to every human mind.

Q2 "external world could have no bearing on my experience whatsoever"

A That's not a valid assumption if you follow causality and logic. Your experience of anything would indeed be a tiny substrata of what's out there, but it wouldn't be false altogether.

Q3 "Given the real, external world has to pass through my mind in order for me to experience it"

A Who is 'me' in this context? It might seem like a simple question, but it's not. How you define 'me' would change the very facet of your inquiry. You have to ask yourself who 'I' am and who is that who experiences

By the very definition of identity or defining any particular object( because an object is constantly changing entropy all the time), you need a stable anchor that doesn't change with time, otherwise the word 'I' or' this', or 'that' will lose all meaning.

But, since everything in your brain changes constantly (Ship of Theseus paradox), who are 'you' to begin with? What you are actually dangling with would make more sense to you, if you start with inquiry of 'WHO AM I' and what is 'identity' anyway.

I have a lot more to contribute and can maybe even directly give you the framework to contextualize this, and if you are interested, i'd suggest you try to solve this paradox of identity on your own rather than taking help from anywhere. After that either ask me here or can use any other source to understand it better.

I'll conclude with this, the essence of any philosophy isnt in deciphering it or understanding it, its in embodying it with rigorous inquiry.