You write "have fun" and it reminds me that me thinking about thinking and the nature of consciousness is part of my effort to not think about the approaching cessation of most life on Earth.In what, twenty, fifty years?Justintruth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:25 pmNo, and I dropped it - didn't pay it any mind until decades latter.
Then I was having a debate over Dennet's American flag illusion. You stare at a screen for a while and then the image is turned off and you still see the afterimage for a while but in the red, white, and blue colors. Dennet was basically saying it shows that what you call "quale", and the continent calls "phenomena", are not real. But I had a problem with that as I was *really* seeing them or as I learned to say, I was really them seeing. Calling them smply not there fails to distinguish between the case of "American flag seeing actually occurring" and an "American flag seeing not actually occurring'. Also, calling them illusions is false. That fails to distinguish the case when you thought it was a real flag but then realized that it was just "American flag seeing" so you say it was an illusion that I was seeing an American flag. I was actually just American flag seeing. If you say it was an illusion that I was seeing an American flag I was just seeing an American flag you do less well communicating. It was then I began to see how powerful the word "just" is- how you can say "It's just your brain" etc and become hopelessly confused.
I believe all of this occurs becasue of the incarnate facts of nature - that our peception is "in" a body that can be percieved - where here "in" must be carefully disambiguated with its usual use. That incarnation can lead to where a perception does not correspond to other perceptions and we say that the perception was "just an illusion" - there is that "just" again - and was not real.
But either it was or was not really an illusion and then you have the case where you are not "illuded" if that is a word, and you are just refering to the condition of seeing something - a state I now call "_____ seeing" (fill in the blank). I think it works nicely and I think it holds promise for experiences that are not sensory, like experiences of validity, maybe even experiences of Love, God, Beauty, pain etc.
When I said "I see an American flag" someone would inevitably strawman me and say something like "Oh you think there is an American flag there and somehow staring at the screen allowed you to finaly see it!" and I would moan "Noooo1 Of course I don't think that but I still think I am seeing an American flag" and they would persist and say something like "Oh, you think there are American flags in your head, right?!" "Noooooo!" I would moan, you know already I don't think that. And then they would fein modesty and ask "So, help me, where is this American flag you are seeing" and I would say it wasn't anywhere because as I move my head it moves. So, I realized that I did not think that in that afterimage case there really was an American flag somewhere that I was perceiving but nevertheless I either was or was not American flag seeing and that was a real fact and the character of that seeing was real and that defeats everything Dennet is trying to do I think - incuding his anti-religious pogrom.
So I learned a trick. Instead of saying "I see an American flag" I would say, "I am American flag seeing". I then remembered a long time ago saying "The green was greening". Really it is a kind of awareness that a human can have. Some people call it thinking but I think that calling metaphysics "thinking" can have its own problems. When a face in a line drawing of a cube moves forward it "happens". In the same way profound metaphysical awareness like Satori in Zen or whatever actually are something that happens in a mind not so much something it does. It is not connected with the will in the same way. In fact, defeating the will in metaphysics is the necessary insight. In a sense achieving that awareness occurs by ceasing an activity not performing that. But nowhere I can find are people discussing this. They can't seem to free themselves from repeating Copernicus over and over. They can look back very well but cannot see what is now comming upon us. Check out "I see lights breakinng upon us" you may be one of the few people able to dismiss its flaws and see the insight in it.
https://www.amazon.com/You-See-Lights-B ... 096254311X
Don't agree with all of it but love the idea of looking forward into the age that is coming.
You can use your will to try to see it that way and after a time it changes. For a short time I was able to switch and have mystical experience then remove it then have it just like a line drawing of a cube! I am not sure I would believe me if I was you but I assure you it was true.
The change is not instantaneous. You try and at first nothing happens then ...it changes.. experiencing is not experiencing experiencing in the same way. In the same way the phenomenal basis of phenomenology, the metaphyiscs of phenomenology, is not thinking but something that happens to thinking as a result perhaps of thinking, that is what happened to me, but others have it in other ways, by concentrating on not thinking for example. Either way, if it happens it happens to you and it is a fact whether it happens or not. Some perception it gets...again not of some thing but a change in percieving nevertheless. These changes are real. They are facts. They are first person, true, but whether they occur or not is a fact.
A lot of philosophy can be unpacked this way but in the end how you consider the result is still not in the culture. We have a few, Nietzche for example, or maybe WIttgenstein who claim the answer but they were just wrong. Heiddegger looked forward. There is some doubt whether we can reach the new era but I think once we get engineering control over our brains we have a very good chance. Yes it is purely speculative. We are not there yet.
Anyway, regarding after images I know two sorts. I've made a drawing with very black ink ,in negative tonal values, of a woman's face that included a set of spots on the nose which were to be stared at for three minutes without a break. Then close the eyes and for good measure loosely and gently cup the closed eyes in the hands. Shortly the woman's face appears in positive tonal values with the insides of the eyelids as if they were a sort of cinema screen.
I gather that this effect is purely optical with no conceptualisation or language involved.
The other sort of 'unreal' image I've known happened after some event which I have forgotten about. I think it was after I lost some of the sight of one eye. For some days after the event was able to cover my eyes and wait quietly then lacy patterns would fleetingly and involuntarily appear and even little people sometimes appeared. This was due to optical events which lacked information from my environment and to which I applied my mind-brain's ability to make patterns out of random stuff.
This "waiting quietly" I think is what we need to do to get a satori experience. One way to "wait quietly" is to concentrate on something that's not of any immediate interest to oneself and which is outwith one's control. Whether or not one is using language doesn't matter what matters is that the language is not about controlling or planning or making decisions.