Thanks for the extension! Yes, I like dependency much better than layer or level.
On 1/24/22 19:32, Prof David West wrote:
with regard glen's criticisms: The synonymy of layer and level. Neither word is really appropriate, even as metaphor; the real relationship being much more akin to dependency. Mind consciousness is "dependent" on Manas Consciousness. Theoretically you could test this empirically by excising that portion of the brain that neuro-theologists claim gives rise to the perception of I-Thee / I-Not-I / I-Other. Meditation demonstrably reduces activity in that brain locus, so it is possible. Mind Consciousness is "dependent" on Store Consciousness because the former (impelled by executing Manas Consciousness) is an "extract," a "subset" of the latter. Store Consciousness is "dependent" on Sense Consciousness in a manner analogous to a battery's stored energy being dependent on the energy input from a trickle charger. Both Manas and Sense Consciousness arise from physics-biology-neurology. Store Consciousness arises from Sense Consciousness. When AND'ed together, Manas and Store Consciousness give rise to Mind Consciousness There is but one Store Consciousness and it is that of the Universe-As-A-Whole. What you perceive to be multiple Stores are merely multiple Minds. In a sense, 'awareness' is more primitive than consciousness. Store Consciousness is the Universe directly perceiving Itself. The best "explanation" or Speculative Philosophy about how this is-as-it-is can be found in Whitehead's discussion of God (/Process and Reality/) as both primordial and consequent. At least for me. The primordial God is NOT conscious, but the consequent God IS conscious. For Whitehead, awareness (perception) is primitive (primordial) while consciousness is derivative. I hope this adds some clarity. davew On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, at 1:49 PM, glen wrote: > I can't add to the content like Dave has. But I can render my > perspective on the words in this article. Because I am nothing but a > critic, my perspective is critical. The first criticism is the synonymy > between "layer" and "level", of which I've complained before. Even if, > when he says "level", he means to imply something higher order like > "layer", we (us dorks) need some sense of whether there's a hierarchy > implied by it ... and if so, is it a strict hierarchy. I thought he > might address this when he started talking about how the layers > interact. But I don't think he did. Any sense of testable composition > requires that. > > My second criticism is the implicit difference between awareness and > consciousness. Although it might seem like I'm arguing about words, I'm > wondering if this construct assumes awareness is more primitive than > consciousness? And this criticism, for me, is a placeholder for many > such worries I have about whether or not this conception has a > corresponding *mechanism* ... or if it's simply a heuristic, meant not > to be take literally, but to be a useful fiction. > > If it's meant to be at least a little bit literal, then the first > constructive comment I might make is to install a little plurality. > E.g. there's not merely a single, unitary "store", but many stores. I > see this in myself. When I'm surrounded by too many scientists yapping > in detail in their domain, my store depletes and I want to go hang out > with some metalheads, quaff some beer, and drown out the Mind. While > quaffing beer with the metalheads, my capacity for detailed thought is > replenished and I'm ready to hang out with those dorks again. And vice > versa in multifarious dimensions. > > And that wandering constellation of stores evokes a worry about "the > self" or ego or whatever it is. It's more difficult to imagine a > plurality of selves. But I think of it in terms of the parallelism > theorem, that even if I literally can't multitask, be more than one > self at a given time, I can swap between them at will, nearly instantly > ... caveat that there does seem to be a cost of swapping or an inertia > of some kind. > > Otherwise, though, it was a good read. Thanks for linking it and the > notification of his death. > > > > On 1/24/22 12:30, Prof David West wrote: >> Thich Nhat Hanh was Vietnamese and his teachings reflect the context of Theravada rather than Mahayana Buddhism and a pedant would notice differences and nuances that are important to scholarship, but not germane here. >> >> The four levels of consciousness is quite useful and accurate as it is. Some minor points of variance. >> >> -- The sense consciousness is not restricted to the five (six or seven) normally recognized senses, but the totality of our 'input nodes' which are very numerous and offer a near 1-to-1 mapping to all the output sources and human really can directly sense and send signals to the brain from a single photon or a single quantum collapse. >> >> -- The sense consciousness directly "feeds" the store consciousness and the store consciousness is a "reflection" of the Universe and an "expression" of the Universe. It is also singular, there is but one Store Consciousness - The Atman, to use Vedic terminology, or The Self. >> >> -- Mind Consciousness is an "extract" of Store Consciousness arising from the influence and action of Manas Consciousness. The compulsion to differentiate between Me and Thee (Me and That) "forces" an attempt to carve out a portion of the Store Consciousness and plant a flag of possession. Thence comes the atman, the self, or the ego-self. >> >> -- Manas Consciousness is traceable to a specific brain region that becomes 'active' some months after birth and allows an infant to recognize its body as separate and, eventually, the illusion that its Mind Consciousness is separate from Store Consciousness. Meditation lessens activation and may deactivate, temporarily, that area of the brain. >> >> What I think I learned on the topic. >> >> davewest >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, at 11:08 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>> /There is a Thich Nhat Hanh sized hole in the Universe/ >>> >>> begins my as-yet unwritten */Ode to Thich Nhat Hanh/ *who passed away at 95 <https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/thich-nhat-hanhs-health/thich-nhat-hanh-11-11-1926-01-22-2022/ <https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/thich-nhat-hanhs-health/thich-nhat-hanh-11-11-1926-01-22-2022/>> yesterday. >>> >>> I would like to invite everyone's perspectives on his particular interpretation of Buddhism's particular take on the nature of consciousness: >>> >>> The Four Layers of Consciousness <https://uplift.love/thich-nhat-hanh-the-four-layers-of-consciousness/ <https://uplift.love/thich-nhat-hanh-the-four-layers-of-consciousness/>> >>> >>> given our never-ending discussions from a mostly different perspective: >>> >>> DaveW's studies of Eastern Philosophies. Glen's talk of diachronic vs episodic self. The general talk about Consciousness from a Western (esp. Pearcean) perspective here. Monism/Dualism. The HARD problem. etc. >
-- glen Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
