3 ms·

In my view, the two dynamics are incredibly intertwined. The sensation is largely made up of and intertwined with an understanding of what the sensation _means_

In my view, the two dynamics are incredibly intertwined. The sensation is largely made up of and intertwined with an understanding of what the sensation _means_. I'll try to give an example: Think of a complex modern art painting. It's much more difficult to perceive the colors used in the painting, as the boundaries between different parts and components of the painting are far less meaningful or distinguishable, compared to most objects we encounter. When you look around your kitchen, the sensations of color are nearly instantaneously associated with rich semantic information about the various objects. E.g. that red object is the "top" of the "peanut butter" "jar" that "I" "bought" "last week" (this is the tip of the semantic iceberg). This makes it easy to hold onto that perception -- it is able to quickly take root in a rich semantic soil that the brain has been developing over our entire lives. This doesn't happen with a messy, semantically-limited perception like looking at a modern art painting. Sure, we can focus very hard to isolate the different streaks and blurs and blobs of color, but it is noticeably more difficult. With an infant, as their semantic soil is very shallow compared to an adults (or even a young child), I imagine that their perception of the world is perhaps more like a modern art painting. Slowly, the colorful blurs and blob and smells and sounds take on meaning as the infant learns about the world and builds up an understanding of the complex patterns in life.

monktastic1 9y ago
> When you look around your kitchen, the sensations of color are nearly instantaneously associated with rich semantic information about the various objects. Nearly. This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes, both on- and off-cushion. When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers (for example), it becomes clear why we identified consciousness with association, and why it doesn't quite capture what we were originally curious about. Something interesting remains. As more and more functions (modeling, associating, remembering, attending, etc.) get distilled away, you'd think the mystery gets smaller and smaller. But experientially speaking, I think it only gets bigger.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Hi monktastic! > This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes. Indeed. It's an incredible method to find insight. > When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers... I would argue that the concept of bare perception, absent of any sort of understanding (the understanding could be quite minimal, as with an infant, dog, or even an ant), is a non-sequitur. It's like asking for mass without of gravity. The consciousness _is_ the understanding of each instantaneous moment. This is why meditation can only take us so far, as it is impossible to become an ant or an infant, to completely abandon all accumulated understanding. But by reducing our assumptions and constructed frameworks of meaning as much as possible, interesting things may happen. > it becomes clear why we identified consciousness with association, and why it doesn't quite capture what we were originally curious about. Something interesting remains. This is the crux. Without being able to totally abandon your associations and understanding, how do you know for certain some aspect of consciousness lies beyond them? That seems to me something no human could ever experience, and that if they could, they would no longer function nor possess any awareness at all.
  - monktastic1 9y ago
    Hi dwaltrip :) > It's like asking for mass without of gravity. The consciousness _is_ the understanding of each instantaneous moment. Of course, if someone were to somehow spend time conscious without association, they wouldn't be able to convince anyone they did so. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's possible, but it's not very amenable to debate. So I'm trying to stick to more empirically testable claims. In particular, here I'm hypothesizing that the reason we believe consciousness is equivalent to its various functions is that we don't have enough precision of awareness to distinguish them. The experiment is simple (though not easy): become increasingly aware of the subtle processes, and plot your belief over time. My own result (and that of many who have done the experiment) is that I've clarified two aspects of my experience ("the sheer fact of experience" and "the particular forms it takes") in such a way that I no longer identify them. YMMV, but I think it's a wonderful exercise! Relatedly, I'm curious what you think of the idea that you can only know that you are conscious, whereas it is impossible (even in principle) to know whether another being is. Thanks as always for the chat.

monktastic1 9y ago

> When you look around your kitchen, the sensations of color are nearly instantaneously associated with rich semantic information about the various objects. Nearly. This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes, both on- and off-cushion. When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers (for example), it becomes clear why we identified consciousness with association, and why it doesn't quite capture what we were originally curious about. Something interesting remains. As more and more functions (modeling, associating, remembering, attending, etc.) get distilled away, you'd think the mystery gets smaller and smaller. But experientially speaking, I think it only gets bigger.

dwaltrip 9y ago
Hi monktastic! > This is why the main thrust of meditation is about becoming aware of ever-subtler processes. Indeed. It's an incredible method to find insight. > When there's enough awareness to distinguish between the arising of bare perception and the associations it triggers... I would argue that the concept of bare perception, absent of any sort of understanding (the understanding could be quite minimal, as with an infant, dog, or even an ant), is a non-sequitur. It's like asking for mass without of gravity. The consciousness _is_ the understanding of each instantaneous moment. This is why meditation can only take us so far, as it is impossible to become an ant or an infant, to completely abandon all accumulated understanding. But by reducing our assumptions and constructed frameworks of meaning as much as possible, interesting things may happen. > it becomes clear why we identified consciousness with association, and why it doesn't quite capture what we were originally curious about. Something interesting remains. This is the crux. Without being able to totally abandon your associations and understanding, how do you know for certain some aspect of consciousness lies beyond them? That seems to me something no human could ever experience, and that if they could, they would no longer function nor possess any awareness at all.
- monktastic1 9y ago
  Hi dwaltrip :) > It's like asking for mass without of gravity. The consciousness _is_ the understanding of each instantaneous moment. Of course, if someone were to somehow spend time conscious without association, they wouldn't be able to convince anyone they did so. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's possible, but it's not very amenable to debate. So I'm trying to stick to more empirically testable claims. In particular, here I'm hypothesizing that the reason we believe consciousness is equivalent to its various functions is that we don't have enough precision of awareness to distinguish them. The experiment is simple (though not easy): become increasingly aware of the subtle processes, and plot your belief over time. My own result (and that of many who have done the experiment) is that I've clarified two aspects of my experience ("the sheer fact of experience" and "the particular forms it takes") in such a way that I no longer identify them. YMMV, but I think it's a wonderful exercise! Relatedly, I'm curious what you think of the idea that you can only know that you are conscious, whereas it is impossible (even in principle) to know whether another being is. Thanks as always for the chat.