I am Bernardo Kastrup's evil twin and I have solved the hard problem of consciousness.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Hello and welcome to my philosophy. You may find there are some similarities with that of my brother's philosophy of idealism; this is to be expected given our common heritage.

All philosophies such as ours need to start with an ontological primitive, a basic irreducible assumption, without which infinite regress would be the only result. We then need to explain how the phenomena of our experience can follow from this assumption.

So what is the phenomena of our experience that we need to account for? I will refer to them as excitations as they are secondary phenomena that arise from our primary cause. There are two excitations, two direct experiences, that we all have, that need to be explained.

In no particular order, firstly, we experience the excitation of consciousness: I am conscious and I interact with others who seem to be conscious in the same way. Secondly, we experience the excitation of non-conscious forms: the objects we all interact with everyday.

So there are two distinct excitations that have different qualities when it comes to consciousness, one has the quality of being conscious, one has the quality of not being conscious.

Now my ontological primitive has the same quality of consciousness as one of these two excitations but not of the other, so let me explain how they can both arise from the one assumption.

I will use the analogy of water for my ontological primitive. Everything is water and everything that we experience happens within water; there is nothing outside of water. Water is my primary assumption and our direct experiences of the two excitations, described above, happen in water.

The excitation that does not share the same quality of consciousness as water, arises just as a ripple arises in water, it is just something water does, it ripples. A couple more analogies may help: a guitar string vibrates, the vibration is not the string, it emerges from the string, it is an excitation of the string; a spinning top spins, the spin is not the top, it is an excitation of the top. The same quality of consciousness of the guitar string or of the spinning top, or of the water does not need to be present in the vibration or spin or ripple; and yet the excitation, the ripple, occurs within the water, within the ontological primitive.

The excitation that does share the same quality of consciousness as water, arises just as a whirlpool arises in water, that is it can be experienced as a localised event within water.

So there you have it, the hard problem of consciousness solved. Quite easy and straightforward after all. Oh hang on, I forgot one thing, my ontological primitive of choice differs to that of my brother's; I chose Non-consciousness as mine, rather than the one consciousness of Mind.

You may think I got the bum deal there with Bernardo getting to choose consciousness first, leaving me with only Non-consciousness. But that's not so bad, there's reasons for choosing both, and it's really where you get to from your chosen starting point that's more important in determining the value of it. My starting point may not seem like a good place to start for some, it may not seem like an obvious place to begin, but let's judge it on where it has taken us.

So what exactly is my ontological of primitive of Non-consciousness? Firstly, it is not matter; Non-consciousness is simply the water from which all the localised whirlpools of unconscious forms and images of objects and of matter arise, and it is the water that produces ripples of consciousness - in exactly the same way that my brother's water produces ripples of unconscious forms and produces whirlpools of localised consciousness.

So that's it, with my very particular form of materialism, (I don't really like that word as matter is not really my ontological primitive, in the same way as ideas are not really the ontological primitive of Idealism,) I have solved the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness is a ripple in the water of Non-consciousness. The forms of matter are images of the process of localisation of Non-consciousness. The forms of life and consciousness are images of the process of ripples in Non-consciousness.

I realise some of you will want more detail as to how ripples really work but I am unable to comment further; I am my brother's twin and therefore cannot provide further explanation unless my brother does so first (you see, despite us being twins, he did actually emerge first).

Although I feel I have a very good relationship with my brother and I have a great respect for his work, I'm sorry to say the feeling is not mutual. Let me try and explain why.

You see, my brother prefers his choice of ontological primitive as he says it is obviously the primary datum of our experience. But to say this is simply repeating his preference. There are two data of our primary experience, the two excitations: one of which is conscious, the other is not conscious. Which is primary? Well, to the person who chooses consciousness to be his ontological primitive, then of course the choice has already been made.

It comes down to where you want to start your exploration into the nature of reality: with the experience of self, with who we are; or with our shared environment, with where we are. Once you make this decision you then either conclude who we are is where we are or vice versa.

The point being, some people see consciousness as primary, some see it as being matter that is primary. Some therefore will choose conscious Mind as their starting point, others will choose Non-consciousness. Justifications can be given for both. There are two excitations, there are two choices.

(There is a dark secret rumoured to be in the family that we were in fact triplets and the third son was purported to be of the opinion that both Mind and Matter were ontological primitives that interacted together.)

My brother also says his ontological primitive is better than mine because matter is inherently unknowable. Not so! How can we know Non-consciousness? In exactly the same way as my brother can know Mind, through understanding by analogy. In my philosophy, objects are images and forms of the process of localisation of Non-consciousness.

Just imagine one big ocean of Non-consciousness from which all the individual things of matter that you experience come from. It is the same as knowing Mind; Non-consciousness, like Mind, has simply been obfuscated from our current awareness by the localisation process, so that only the seemingly separate forms of matter are apparent.

Remember, I am no ordinary materialist, I am Bernardo's evil twin, so I actually need to give far less detail about the nature of Non-consciousness than any other materialist. In fact I don't provide any real description at all, it is just what it is; Non-consciousness is not conscious, just like our objects are not conscious; the difference is, it is the source of all the unconscious things and connects them all. You see objects are not really separate at all, they are all in Non-consciousness, it is just that the oneness of Non-consciousness has been obfuscated. How? Whirlpools, that's how.

My point then is this, the choice of a different ontological primitive, followed by the same logical arguments and analogies, solves the hard problem of consciousness just as rigorously and convincingly as Idealism solves the problem of how non-conscious images arise.

But you may argue there is no evidence that non-consciousness can generate consciousness, but there is for consciousness generating non-consciousness in our dreams.

Using dreams as an actual example, as evidence, that idealism already happens in our current knowable experience is a tautology as dreams are assumed to be experiences happening entirely in consciousness and are then presented as evidence of such. If however we have assumed Non-consciousness to be our ontological primitive then dreams need not be events in consciousness.

There is no reason why Non-consciousness cannot generate the non-conscious forms of a dream and the actors in a dream in the exact same way that it does in our waking life. Remember I am not a mainstream materialist, I am perfectly happy for there to be many worlds of many varieties and many rules emerging from Non-consciousness.

So just as idealism sees a certain parity to the form of dreams and that of our waking life, Non-conscious materialism may equally do the same, and as such dreams are no more evidence for one theory than for the other.

If you wish to debate my particular formulation of materialism as described here, please do, but I am not here to defend mainstream materialism as I do not prescribe to that at all. Nor am I a pan-inanimate-ist that believes everything is not conscious. I am totally fine with consciousness existing, they are the ripples of my water and I wouldn't be without them.

In fact, I have no problem with any phenomena of consciousness, as nothing that consciousness does contradicts my philosophy as it all simply happens within Non-consciousness, just as for idealism where all the rules of science happen within consciousness, (except, it seems, the science of how the brain interprets the perceptions of the senses, as he appears to dispute this.)

Yours most sincerely

Bernadette K.

[Zaria Zakiya]

Very funny.

[Bernardo]

This is all so wrong it's hard to comment... so I'll just repeat a few points I already made to you in the comments section of my blog and elsewhere.

Primary and secondary excitations are not different in nature. The differentiation was only a linguistic device to make it easier to explain a certain point; mere labeling, if you will. In my analogy, excitations are experience, always, all excitations. And that's all they are. It just so happens that some excitations are imprinted by process of localization (whirlpools) and others not. There are no fundamental distinctions between primary and secondary excitations.

This whole business of non-consciousness is gratuitous. What does that even mean? Consciousness is the most -- if not the only -- empirically undeniable aspect of reality. Everything else is -- whatever else it might also be -- excitations of consciousness. It is nonsense to claim that choosing consciousness or matter to be primary are symmetrical choices. Serious materialists will also acknowledge they are not. They choose matter because they feel unable to make sense of reality without that choice, not because they think it is as parsimonious or empirically-grounded a choice as consciousness itself. All serious philosophers of science will acknowledge that consciousness is the more parsimonious and logical choice of ontological primitive, provided that it has sufficient explanatory power (which is the point of criticism against idealism, and the very thing I argue against in the body of my work).

I don't solve the "hard problem." I claim that it doesn't exist in the first place; I claim that it was artificially invented by materialists. The "hard problem" is how consciousness emerges from matter. If consciousness is fundamental, there is no hard problem. We created it by: first, inferring the existence of matter; second, postulating that only matter is primary; and third, having to explain how consciousness then arises from matter. The whole thing is a charade, which is my point. Now, making a choice of ontological primitive -- that fundamental, irreducible aspect of nature -- is a necessity in any ontology, whatever it may entail, because we cannot forever explain one thing in terms of another. The question is, which choice postulates the least unprovable entities, is closest to empirical experience, while still having sufficient explanatory power to make sense of all empirical observations? That's the point.

What do I do then? I infer less; I postulate less; then I argue that all reality can be explained with less. You're deluded in thinking that my choice of ontological primitive is somehow symmetrical to postulating a whole abstract world outside consciousness and then trying to magically derive consciousness from it. Does this even need further explanation?

As I said to you in the comment section, I already answered ad nauseum the points you raise, in my articles, videos, books, etc. Maybe you could read them again, more slowly? If not, I don't see what else I can do other than to keep on repeating points I already made, since you are not bringing up anything new in the latest comments and this post. I do want to get across clearly to you, but there is a point where I have to acknowledge to myself that maybe this is not yet our time to make sense to one another.

Good luck, Bernardo.

[Don Salmon]

I have a suggestion Bernardo - a tactical one.  

This is courtesy of Owen Barfield and Paul Brunton.

It probably won't work, but let's see. 

I've occasionally found this helpful - but mostly in person, and almost never online.  But maybe in this forum, it might be a little more efficacious.

Stephen, start with a tree.  A tree with brown bark.

Ok, so here's the first question:

You're looking at the tree.

Is the tree - the one you're aware of - in your awareness?

In fact, let's just focus on the brown color.

In other words, is the brown color in your awareness?

Is it located in material space?  

Can you identify precisely, with a clear measurement, where exactly in mathematically identifiable space, where the color is that you're aware of?

Note that I'm not asking you anything about light waves or other hypothesized entities, I'm only asking you to report on your direct experience?

Is the color brown in your awareness, and if so, can you identify a precise mathematical point in space where it is located? 

(Bernardo, as I said, i don't think this will work, but it may be informative as to where it gets derailed)

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

This read very poorly to me.

I'm not 100% convinced by Idealism, and lean toward certain Aristotlean conceptions of nature at times, but this was very poorly argued.

The problem being the equivalence between nonconscious matter and consciousness. I don't believe you ever recovered after that, and instead merely forced an attempt at analogy.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Where in mathematical space is the colour brown?
I will answer this as best I can by actually looking at a plant that is in front of me now. It has green leaves so I would say that the green appears to be exactly where the leaf is. I'm intrigued as to what comes next :-)

[Stephen Lostinspace]

"Primary and secondary excitations are not different in nature."

In that case I admit I have completely missed the point. I thought materialism assumed matter was primary and somehow generated consciousness, and that idealism assumed consciousness was primary and somehow created non consciousness. I thought I got the point that non conscious things are just images in consciousness but I didn't appreciate that that meant it didn't need explaining as to how that happens. If anyone feels they can empathise with where I am coming from and enlighten me further that would be appreciated. :-)

[Bernardo]

There is no "non-consciousness". There is only consciousness (water). But that consciousness has "degrees" of localization, amplification, and self-reflection, which are different names for the same process. At the broadest level, there is only the consciousness of the one stream; the dream of the one dreamer. All ripples and whirlpools are images in the dream of that one consciousness. But there are also "split-off personalities" of that one consciousness (whirlpools) which are like little local copies of the one consciousness (little streams within the stream, since a whirlpool is a kind of self-contained circular stream). Because of the obfuscation that arises with localization, each "split-off personality" isn't self-reflectively aware of all ripples and whirlpools, but only of the water movements within the boundaries its own vortex. Only the ripples that penetrate the whirlpool enter its amplified awareness (i.e. you are only aware of the photons that enter your retina; if you close your eyes you see nothing). The ripples outside any whirlpool are also experienced, but only at the level of the one stream/one dreamer. They are images in the one instinctual dream. Ripples that penetrate multiple whirlpools are still part of the one (instinctual) dream, but also of the segment of the dream that is experienced by each respective whirlpool (i.e. "split-off personality") in an amplified (i.e. self-aware, lucid) manner. Now, notice that whirlpools, by their very presence, disturb the water flow in their surroundings. That is, whirlpools also cause ripples on the broader stream that propagate far beyond the whirlpool. That's why living beings can see each other: photons bouncing off of me propagate far beyond me and eventually penetrate your eyes (i.e. the rim of your whirlpool) and enter the field of amplification/self-reflection within your brain.

The "splitting off of personalities" (that is, partition of the one consciousness into multiple, apparently disconnected segments) is a dissociative process dependent on the process of amplification and obfuscation. Without this process, consciousness remains unified and the dream remains whole; i.e. one. Therefore, ripples, because they cannot lead to amplification/obfuscation, are not images of split-off "little dreams within the one dream." Instead, they are just images in the one unified dream which, if they propagate and penetrate whirlpools, can also be experienced by the "split-off little dreams" in amplified, self-reflective form.

This is better explained in Why Materialism Is Baloney.

Cheers, B.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Thanks Bernardo, that is useful, I feel I get where you are coming from a bit more clearly now. Simultaneously though I am not optimistic that a materialist will ever follow you there without some experience of Mind! :-)

[Don Salmon]

Is the green outside your awareness?

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Well that very much depends on your definition of 'in'! :-)

I'm not wanting this to turn into a linguistic game of cat and mouse and I want to keep returning to my honest experience so I would have to say that I am aware of the colour green. The colour green appears to be in the same place as the surface of the leaf. My awareness seems to be behind my eyes. There appears to be a distance between where my awareness is and where the green of the leaf is. The green leaf appears to be separate from myself. I can choose to move closer to it and to touch the leaf thereby heightening my awareness of it. My thoughts about the leaf seem to be coming from where my awareness is, the leaf does not.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Well that very much depends on your definition of 'in' and of 'outside'!

[Don Salmon]

Ok, if you see a green plant "in" your dream is the green in your awareness?

Same question for waking. 

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

Well that very much depends on your definition of 'in' and of 'outside'!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

The plant would appear to be separate from me and I would be aware of it.

[Don Salmon]

but the experienced plant would not be separate from awareness, right? otherwise you wouldn't be aware of it.  similarly, in your dream, in which everything is encompassed by awareness, the plant is encompassed by that awareness too, yes?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

The plant would appear to be separate from me and I would be aware of it.

[Don Salmon]

if you can avoid the urge to bring in solipsism for a moment, and just look at your experience, close your eyes, no green.  So at least, for you (again, don't bring in solipsism yet, keep it simple and as unintellectual as possible; in fact, if you don't think about this at all, it will be even better - just look).

Open your eyes - green. Close your eyes, no green, right?  Don't jump to any conclusions, don't think about it, just look. 

[Stephen Lostinspace]

"but the experienced plant would not be separate from awareness, right? otherwise you wouldn't be aware of it."

I don't follow what you mean by 'would not be separate from awareness'. When I am aware of things they appear to be separate from me.

"similarly, in your dream, in which everything is encompassed by awareness, the plant is encompassed by that awareness too, yes?"

We seem to have moved away now from my immediate experience, you have made a statement 'everything in your dream is encompassed by awareness'. What do you mean by that?

[Stephen Lostinspace]

"Open your eyes - green. Close your eyes, no green, right? Don't jump to any conclusions, don't think about it, just look."

Ok, and then ...?

[Don Salmon]

It's the "me" that's the problem here.

Look again at the green plant.

Now watch very very carefully.  What do you actually "see" - do you "see" "me"?  What is "within" (I don't know what other word to use) the space of awareness at this moment?  Leave out the "your" awareness or "my" awareness.  What is actually occurring?

Notice how everything is changing, at least, very subtly.  the light changes, the quality of the green changes, thoughts rise and pass away, emotions subtly shift. Let go of the concept "body" and notice a matrix of shifting sensations, pressure, heat, softness, hardness, let go of conceptual boundaries and notice - 

is there a clear and distinct boundary between the sensation of contact with the "chair" - in fact, let go of the concept "chair" and see if there is not an uninterrupted flow of tactile sensation. 

Is there a clear boundary between tactile and auditory sensations or are both within the same space of awareness?

Similarly, notice simultaneously all tactile, auditory and visual sensations?  Are all within the same space of awareness?  Notice there is no distinct "me" that can be directly, experientially found though it can be conceptualized.  Just ever changing forms all within the space of awareness.

Does this make any sense?  Don't think about it, just look

(Bernardo, if you happen to drop by, what I'm inviting Stephen to do - Stephen, don't think about this!! - is switch from left mode to right mode attention)

[Don Salmon]

this might help

 

It should be clear from introspective meditation that all forms are sustained in consciousness, and that, apart from consciousness, we know nothing and can know nothing of forms.  It is in fact meaningless to talk of forms as existing apart from consciousness [he adds this footnote: “This position must by no means be confused with that of subjective idealism.  The consciousness spoken of is not 'your' or 'my' consciousenss, in fact 'you' and 'I' exist only as constellated form-sequences brought to foci in that consciousness which, in itself, is neither human nor individualized, but a pervading Light.”]  The ojbecfts supposed by some to exist behind the forms are mere mental constructs devised fror dealing with experience in practice.  No one knows them, no one can ever know them; to believe in their existence is a pure and quite uncalled-for act of faith.

 

It should not be supposed that by the forms are meant sensations, camera pictures of reality located somewhere in the brain.  The brain itself (as an 'object') is one of the constructs of which mention has just been made.  The usefulness of such constructs in certain realms of thought and study is not at all denied, but they are irrelevant here.

 

The primary bedrock of experience is not sensations in the eye, ear, or brain, but visual and other forms in space.  All the rest is inference and construction.  Materialistic science begins by abstracting consciousness from the forms in order to deal with them more objectively and impersonally and then, when analysis fails to reveal any life or conscious principle in those forms, triumphantly exclaims that all is mechanism, nowhere is there anything of a spiritual nature.  Behaviorist psychology is an example of the same procedure applied to mental life.  If you start by abstracting consciousness from phenomena it is obviously absurd to expect to find it as a term in your concluded analysis.  For this reason no one should feel disappointed that science (as nowadays practiced) does not know anything of the existence of the 'soul.'  It is the old story of looking for one's spectacles when they are on one's nose. 

BUT DON'T THINK ABOUT IT - JUST LOOK:>)))  SEE IF WHAT THIS PASSAGE SAYS IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR ACTUAL (NON CONCEPTUALIZED) EXPERIENCE

a good start is to notice that thoughts come and go on their now; just be quiet and notice; they'll come and go and the quieter you are and the less attention you pay to them (the less you energize them, in other words) the more they'll slow down; they eventually will stop, if you persist in just noticing without clinging to any of them 

[Stephen Lostinspace]

I have quite a few years of experience of meditation and a few experiences of other altered states and so I recognise the description of that mode of awareness and perception. The problem is, as soon as you attempt to describe that experience in words you have to start choosing concepts and this can lead to the adoption of philosophical frameworks that attempt to contextualise and give meaning to those experiences. As an example, I spent around 15 years meditating with a group that described their experiences within a completely dualist framework. Idealism isn't the only explanation of reality that is compatible with direct experiences of awareness. When confronted with philosophical frameworks it is necessary to evaluate them with logic in addition to assessing whether they match experience.

[Don Salmon]

well, I understand, but leaving all that aside for now, again, are the sensations of sight, sound and touch all in the space of awareness?

Try this - look around the room, then look back at the plant.   what was within your gaze and now is outside your awareness?  Say, the wall behind you.

Ok, so is it ok, with the minimal conceptualization possible, to say, the wall behind you is not within the present space of awareness, and the green color is?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

I have quite a few years of experience of meditation and a few experiences of other altered states and so I recognise the description of that mode of awareness and perception. The problem is, as soon as you attempt to describe that experience in words you have to start choosing concepts and this can lead to the adoption of philosophical frameworks that attempt to contextualise and give meaning to those experiences. As an example, I spent around 15 years meditating with a group that described their experiences within a completely dualist framework. Idealism isn't the only explanation of reality that is compatible with direct experiences of awareness. When confronted with philosophical frameworks it is necessary to evaluate them with logic in addition to assessing whether they match experience.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

I am aware of a plant that appears to be separate from me. I turn and am aware of a wall that appears to be separate from me. I turn back and I am aware of the plant again and am no longer aware of the wall being in front of me.

You keep using the phrase 'in your awareness'. I will keep using the phrase 'I am aware of'.

[Don Salmon]

is the plant in the dream something that exists outside the dream?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

I am aware of a plant that appears to be separate from me. I turn and am aware of a wall that appears to be separate from me. I turn back and I am aware of the plant again and am no longer aware of the wall being in front of me.

You keep using the phrase 'in your awareness'. I will keep using the phrase 'I am aware of'.

[Don Salmon]

you're also bringing in an unnecessary layer of conceptualization. I'm not doing "philosophy" here - at least, not as it's understood in the modern west. Neither was Krishna Prem (he was the author of the passage I quoted). he's pointing to immediate non conceptual experience.

Does the plant perceived in the dream exist outside the dream?

If not, what IN YOUR EXPERIENCE - without any extra layer of conceptualization - is different about the experience of the plant in what your mind conceptualizes as "the waking state".

This is much simpler than the words imply - look at the plant.  In the dream, does the plant that is perceived exist outside the dream?

If not, is there any difference in the actual experience of the plant in so called waking?  If so, what is the experiential difference (not the conceptual difference - describe the waking plant in a way that makes crystal clear how the experience is different.)?

Is it ok to say, about the dream plant, that the green color exists in the awareness of dreaming (I'm trying to avoid the conceptual reification of "dreamer", so I'm saying "awareness of dreaming" or better yet, "dreaming awareness" rather than "awareness of THE dreamer" which introduces a reified "thing" which is unnecessary when describing experience); does the dreamed green exist within the dreaming awareness? or does it exist wholly independent of the dreaming awareness? 

If the dreamed green exists wholly independent of the dreaming awareness, do you know this directly?  Are you aware of it?

Does the waking green exist wholly independent of any kind of awareness?   

[Stephen Lostinspace]

The plant in the dream is in the dream.
The plant in my waking experience is in my waking experience.
Does the plant exist outside of my dream?

I really have no way of knowing this, my assumption would be that it doesn't but I don't know that for sure and it is not a necessary conclusion from my experience.

It is perfectly possible that in my dreams I travel to a shared reality and when I'm not dreaming other people are experiencing the same plant.
Not very likely but possible.

After all that seems to be the evidence for plants in my waking life that you are suggesting is no different from my dreams. Other people see the same plant as me when I am not there in my waking life so maybe that's true of my dreams.

The point is I can't deduce that from my experience. You are assuming that dreams are private constructions of a single consciousness. I think that most of them are too, but I don't know that for sure, and even if they are that doesn't mean that that is true of my waking life.

In fact there is abundant evidence that my waking life is not a construction of my awareness because it is a shared experience with others.

[Stewart Lynch]

I'm hesitant to interrupt because I'm interested in where this will go, but I can't help myself. I see what you're trying to do Don, but I think it's confusing because you're not making the distinction between the colour and the experience of the colour. The colour can be measured by a physical device, it is a specific band in the EM spectrum. This colour exists as a phenomenon 'out there'. 

The experience of the colour exists in consciousness. It is a personal reaction to something 'out there'. In dreams the experience of a colour is a reaction to something in your own 'unconscious'. This shows that the experience of the colour is independent of physical reality. 

I can trigger the experience of a colour just by imagining it, this is what proves the experience is not dependent on physical reality. This should be obvious to anyone.

Stewart.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

no, you're doing philosophy before doing the science.

I'm not analyzing the nature of the dream or waking experience.

This is why this is difficult or at least challenging.

We're gathering data before doing philosophy.  

Typically, in a scientific experiment, one does a literature review. Let's say that reading WMIB is the lit review. 

Now, we're going to put Bernardo's ideas to a test.  No philosophizing, no analysis of the results, we're not even going to perform any statistical analysis, do any cognitive testing, no measurements, 

First, we're going to look. We're doing science, not philosophy.  No assumption about private constructions.  I'm not assuming anything about the dream. I'm not assuming anything about waking.  I didn't say anything about "your" or "My" awareness.

We're just looking.  No assumptions, no philosophy.

Come back to the green. No assumptions. Just look.

Again, if you just look and don't analyze, just look at your experience (Bernardo - do you how difficult it is to wean people from left mode thought?  It's extraordinary - once you get it, it's so simple, but it keep looking to Stephen like I'm doing left mode thought)

Look clearly and see if - in experience, without bringing in any assumptions, any idea about "my private" or "my public" or my construction, just staying with your direct experience - do you see, touch, feel, are you aware of a concrete, specific difference in the experience of green in the dream and in waking?

If you can quiet your mind enough, you can go directly into the dream state right now and examine it.  Just let go of the sensation of being in a bounded body, it will start to dissolve, images will start to form, and the awareness of the green dream plant will form. Then let that dissolve, and allow the physical eyes to gaze at the green plant.

Notice if you can determine any direct experiential knowledge of the difference between the dream green and waking green.

Dont' add even one iota of conceptualization or reification to this. Just look at the experience. Watch the mind carefully and notice how many layers of assumptions there are.

I do this work with people in severe physical pain. it works the same way.  And it can be much more effective than drugs or surgery for those who can do it.  Most of what we call "pain" is actually many many layers of conceptualization. it's hard to imagine for most people that what seems so "physical" is actually composed of layers of mentation. But once they get it it is quite earthshaking.  

It's the same with the green plant.  Let go of the conceptualization and just look. 

[Stewart]

please ignore my post. I've just read your latest reply and want to see where this will go next :-)

[Don Salmon]

just one quick point, "EM spectrum" is a concept which refers to something which cannot in principle be experienced. Since we're not doing philosophy, I'm not denying (or affirming) such a thing.  We're only looking at experience. I'm "bracketing" it (phenomenological term, but you don't need to know anything about it to do the experiment)

just look, don't think.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Stewart <stewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

please ignore my post. I've just read your latest reply and I want to see where this will go next :-)

On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:56:31 UTC+1, Stewart wrote:

I'm hesitant to interrupt because I'm interested in where this will go, but I can't help myself. I see what you're trying to do Don, but I think it's confusing because you're not making the distinction between the colour and the experience of the colour. The colour can be measured by a physical device, it is a specific band in the EM spectrum. This colour exists as a phenomenon 'out there'. 

The experience of the colour exists in consciousness. It is a personal reaction to something 'out there'. In dreams the experience of a colour is a reaction to something in your own 'unconscious'. This shows that the experience of the colour is independent of physical reality. 

I can trigger the experience of a colour just by imagining it, this is what proves the experience is not dependent on physical reality. This should be obvious to anyone.

Stewart.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Don Salmon <donsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

you're also bringing in an unnecessary layer of conceptualization. I'm not doing "philosophy" here - at least, not as it's understood in the modern west. Neither was Krishna Prem (he was the author of the passage I quoted). he's pointing to immediate non conceptual experience.

Does the plant perceived in the dream exist outside the dream?

If not, what IN YOUR EXPERIENCE - without any extra layer of conceptualization - is different about the experience of the plant in what your mind conceptualizes as "the waking state".

This is much simpler than the words imply - look at the plant.  In the dream, does the plant that is perceived exist outside the dream?

If not, is there any difference in the actual experience of the plant in so called waking?  If so, what is the experiential difference (not the conceptual difference - describe the waking plant in a way that makes crystal clear how the experience is different.)?

Is it ok to say, about the dream plant, that the green color exists in the awareness of dreaming (I'm trying to avoid the conceptual reification of "dreamer", so I'm saying "awareness of dreaming" or better yet, "dreaming awareness" rather than "awareness of THE dreamer" which introduces a reified "thing" which is unnecessary when describing experience); does the dreamed green exist within the dreaming awareness? or does it exist wholly independent of the dreaming awareness? 

If the dreamed green exists wholly independent of the dreaming awareness, do you know this directly?  Are you aware of it?

Does the waking green exist wholly independent of any kind of awareness?   

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Don Salmon <donsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

is the plant in the dream something that exists outside the dream?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

I am aware of a plant that appears to be separate from me. I turn and am aware of a wall that appears to be separate from me. I turn back and I am aware of the plant again and am no longer aware of the wall being in front of me.

You keep using the phrase 'in your awareness'. I will keep using the phrase 'I am aware of'.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stewart Lynch]

agreed, that's kind of my point. You're talking about experiences, Stephen seems to be talking about concepts. I doubt few people would argue that experience doesn't exist, otherwise we wouldn't have the hard problem.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

Yes, that's exactly it.  The concepts are what I'm referring to as left brain thinking; I'm attempting to direct him, in a purely scientific manner, to direct observation, which is more characteristic of right brain attending.  To be more precise, it's left prefrontal cortex vs right prefrontal cortex. The left attends in a detached manner, with the aim of measuring, predicting, controlling. The right attends in an experientially immersed manner, connecting thought, intuition, emotion, sensation, all in one whole, and is open to metaphor, the unknown, the unmeasurable, etc.

Neither is sufficient in itself. But as Iain McGilchrist points out, in our modern world the left has become dominant, and usurped the role of the right (in fact, almost entirely suppressed the role of the right prefrontal cortex, at least, in terms of how we attend to our experience).  

Rather than being a purely theoretical orientation, physicalism is actually the necessary outcome of this dominant left mode attending.  McGilchrist traces this back from Greek to the present, and sees the left and right modes as balanced in early Greek times, then tending toward the left, and see sawing back and forth until modern times.  he even ties (I think this is born out by the research) the increase in autism and schizophrenia (at least, certain types of schizophrenia where people actually directly experience the world as dead, mechanical - the ultimate left mode "experience) to this increasing dominance of left mode attention. ADHD is also related to this.

I'm taking these little breaks as I'm composing some music for a video. I am acutely aware of the tendency to fall into mechanical patterns of composing, and the need to "open" to the unexpected, which inevitably makes the music better.

This distinction between modes of attention is quite powerful and almost revolutionary. It extends to politics - conservatives tend to score high on a quality known as "conscientiousness" (think of it as "law and order") which is related to left mode attending; liberals score very high (I'm off the charts - which is why you would never want me to be a policeman, unlike the applicants I interview) on "Openness to experience."  I'd be there with the bad guy going, "Well, sir, now what were you thinking when you pulled the gun on the bank clerk? Why did you do it that way?  Is there another way you could have thought about getting some money? Tell me what you're experiencing right now?"  Everyone would be dead by that point!

Well, ok, back to the music. 

[Stewart Lynch]

Yes, I totally agree with the left/right brain balance being totally out of wack in our society. Wright & Gynn postulate it started to happen as soon as we left the rain forests and came out onto the plains (see the book Left in the Dark). 

Good luck with the composing.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Ok, so I have had some experiences of lucid dreaming and a common experience I can bring to mind is looking intently at my hand in a dream. So that experience was very similar in some ways to whatnot is like to look at my hand in my waking life. So where does that take us? I can sit here and imagine the green plant but I don't visualise clearly generally so I don't get any vivid sensation of green doing that.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

whatnot = what it

[Stewart Lynch]

I think visualisation just takes practice. Although it sounds like you are practiced at many forms of altered consciousness, so I'm surprised you can't generate the sensation of a colour. Imagine something that is vividly green, then imagine something that is vividly red, there is a difference in your experience right?

Regards,

Stewart.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

Ok, so I have had some experiences of lucid dreaming and a common experience I can bring to mind is looking intently at my hand in a dream. So that experience was very similar in some ways to whatnot is like to look at my hand in my waking life. So where does that take us? I can sit here and imagine the green plant but I don't visualise clearly generally so I don't get any vivid sensation of green doing that.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Yes I can but I'm just saying that my visualisation is a very different experience to my seeing so I'm not sure how useful that is going to be; my experience of visualised green is so different to my experience of seeing green, so anything you say about my visualised experience of green isn't really going to resonate with my seeing experience of green, experientially for me they are incomparable. Just trying to help out.

[Stewart Lynch]

although when you are lucid the experience is indistinguishable from reality right? So you must appreciate that consciousness can generate an experience as realistic as reality. In my experience there is a continuum between being lucid in a dream and imagination in normal consciousness.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

Yes I can but I'm just saying that my visualisation is a very different experience to my seeing so I'm not sure how useful that is going to be; my experience of visualised green is so different to my experience of seeing green, so anything you say about my visualised experience of green isn't really going to resonate with my seeing experience of green, experientially for me they are incomparable. Just trying to help out.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

This gets us to the point I mentioned before that was deemed being conceptual or philosophical. Yes I believe that in my lucid dreams I am probably creating that life like experience but I don't know that for sure. My waking life is distinguishable from a dream, and when I am in a dream I can, if that is my focus, realise it differs from my waking life experiences.

[Stewart Lynch]

What do you know for sure? The left brain does the knowing, the right brain does the experiencing. Any experience we have in normal experience is a mixture of the two, and I think it is possible to discern between the two with careful reflection. Maybe this is what Don is getting at.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

This gets us to the point I mentioned before that was deemed being conceptual or philosophical. Yes I believe that in my lucid dreams I am probably creating that life like experience but I don't know that for sure. My waking life is distinguishable from a dream, and when I am in a dream I can, if that is my focus, realise it differs from my waking life experiences.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Apologies in advance for this but couldn't resist :-)

" The left brain does the knowing, the right brain does the experiencing."

Oh dear it looks like you've just stepped right into some gross materialism!

[Don Salmon]

Hey Stephen and Stewart - ok, i need to beg off for awhile, so please forgive me for not writing back for a bit.  I've got to get this piece composed today. We don't have any external deadlines, only our own, which for me makes it more important for me to bear down and let go of stuff. Boy I'd love to spend all day on this!!:>))

It's very hard in person but even harder online to convey this, about contemplative awareness.  Let me think about it for a bit (hopefully i won't make a fool of myself and jump back in an hour from now).

Oh, and apologies if it seems like I'm being "teacherly" (or god forbid, guru like).  This is a piece of the contemplative science project that I hope to engage in full time in a few years.  I guess that's as much as I can say about it now or I'll never get back to decomposing (I mean, composing!)

by for now, and thanks for putting up with this.  I enjoyed it; hope you did. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

wow what a fool i am; i'm back already  i just saw this as I posted the last note.  Stewart is only caught in materialism if you think the brain is material:>)))

what do you see?  Have you ever looked at a brain?  When I saw a brain for the first time on a table in a neuropsychology lab, what did I SEE!

I can tell you one thing for absolutely sure, I did NOT "SEE" a mind independent object!!!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Stewart Lynch]

haha, oh no! I take that back - "the left/right brain shows more activity when our consciousness behaves in a certain way etc... ". Left/right brain is really just a shorthand way of talking about states of consciousness, which I know you know, but just in case anyone else is confused :-)

[Stewart Lynch]

phew, I'm saved! thanks Don :-)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

Stephen do you know what a false awakening is?  It's when you can't tell a dream from waking.  At that moment, you have no idea whether the green plant you perceive is perceived "in" awareness" or - as you say, I'm not saying it - a 'separate object.'

If at any moment, it may be that it is impossible to distinguish whether or not a green plant exists IN awareness or OUT of it (I have no idea what that last phrase means but it seems to be what you're saying) then why make the distinction to begin with?

Notice I'm not asking a logical question - I'm pointing to the experience.  What is it in your experience, if you can imagine a false awakening, can you point to about the green plant, your body, or anything else, that would give you even the slightest hint of whether you're dreaming or awake.  I've never found in any scientific literature on false awakenings - and there is a great deal - even a clue as to what one would do.  I've asked many people - including scientists who work in this area - and so far everyone agrees there are at least moments when dream and waking are indistinguishable.

To continue this conversation, it would be good to focus entirely on those moments, as they will help the most in making Bernardo's points clear.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Hello again :-)

Yes I have had plenty of false awakenings. In my experience these are temporary confusions that become clear, sometimes within the dream, sometimes upon wakening. You will also be familiar with reality tests that are very effective at these times as they utilise distinct phenomena that occur in dreams but not in waking life.

However for the purposes of this discussion let us assume that I am having an experience of a green leaf and at this moment I don't know for sure whether I am dreaming or not. So what's next?

(I do not use the phrase 'out of awareness'. I use the phrases 'aware of' and 'not aware of'.)

[Don Salmon]

Ok, this is good.

Bertrand Russell once claimed to have 100 false awakenings in a row.  And some people have prolonged ones, more than just a temporary confusion.  Rebecca Turner, over at "world of lucid dreaming", has reported some that last a considerable time.  So we're all in good company!

To address quickly your last point, your wording is great - "aware of" vs "not aware of".   The two questions are - when there is "awareness of" the green plant - what is the nature of the "green plant" when you individually have no awareness of it - what does it mean to say the green plant has 'existence" apart from any awareness of it (by the way, the problem with "aware of" is it forces one into a dualistic thought mode, but since we're avoiding analysis for now, I'll leave that).

ok, that was probably all confusing so we can go back to experience.

One more experiential question before going into the false awakening.

You're in a lucid dream. You look at the green plant.  You're aware you're dreaming, which I assume would be the same as saying, you're aware that the "green plant" exists within the awareness of the dreamer (clearly, the body that you identify as "stephen" in the dream is not the dreamer.  

Now, you assume it's your subconscious mind that is the dreamer, I'm guessing (which of course is not your direct experience but a conceptual overlay).

So let's see if we can do away with that and get closer to experience.

I (waking Don) enter your dream.  The "Don" in  your dream is not a construction of your subconscious mind. 

In other words, we're having a shared dream. For the sake of this discussion, we do this regularly, night after night, and compare notes and are both quite convinced it is a shared dream.  

So, you and I are together in a shared dream.  We both look at the green plant.  If you just examine your experience at that moment, can you say that you have direct experiential knowledge that the green plant has an existence apart from any awareness of it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

"can you say that you have direct experiential knowledge that the green plant has an existence apart from any awareness of it?"

This question isn't clear to me; It reads like an invitation to philosophise or conceptualise and no longer seems to be referring to my experience?
Could you try rephrasing it for me maybe?

[Stephen Lostinspace]

(Prolonged is still temporary.)

[Stewart Lynch]

all states of consciousness are temporary

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

(Prolonged is still temporary.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

How's this: What is your direct experience of the green plant?    (we're still in the context of the shared dream - it won't necessarily be relevant for these questions but will be important later as a way of deflecting unnecessary conceptualization)

Is the greenness and the form of the plant "within" awareness or "outside of" awareness?

Now, I don't see the problem you have with the word "within".   

Perhaps an image will help.  Imagine the space extending from your body in all directions. "within" that space is all you're aware of - and much you're not aware of  - but all that you are aware of is WITHIN that space. Is the green plant "within" that space?

After you've answered that, look again at your experience and ask yourself these questions:

Tke the "space" that includes all things you are aware of, and ask yourself, what is within that space?

What tactile sensations are within that space?

What sounds are within that space?

What feelings are within that space?

What thoughts, imagines, memories, are within that space?

What visual sensations are within that space?

[Don Salmon]

don't take any of this literally.  We're not arguing philosophy, so prolonged or temporary is irrelevant. The false awakening and shared dream are just devices to help us set aside unnecessary conceptual overlays. Don't over think this. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

As change, and therefore any measurements of change such as time, happen within consciousness, then consciousness cannot be temporary, so the state or consciousness of consciousness is not temporary?

[Don Salmon]

and, perhaps the most important question - is there a clearly identifiable EXPERIENTIAL boundary between the "space" that includes feelings, thoughts, memories, etc and the"space" that includes so called "external" sounds, sights such as the green plant, etc, or is it EXPERIENCED as "one space"

[Stewart Lynch]

I should have said all relative states are temporary, obviously absolute consciousness is not temporary. But as Don says, this is irrelevant. I don't want to distract from the main discussion.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

As change, and therefore any measurements of change such as time, happen within consciousness, then consciousness cannot be temporary, so the state or consciousness of consciousness is not temporary?

[Don Salmon]

one reason why this is so much more effective in real time is that it is easier to avoid this kind of switch back to left brain speculation.  See if you can stay with the direct experience, otherwise none of this will make any sense. 

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

As change, and therefore any measurements of change such as time, happen within consciousness, then consciousness cannot be temporary, so the state or consciousness of consciousness is not temporary?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

I just realized, this fits your screen name perfectly. 

I'm inviting you to go from being lost in space to being found in space!

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Don Salmon <donsa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is the green outside your awareness?

On Monday, August 4, 2014 5:51:18 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lostinspace wrote:

Where in mathematical space is the colour brown?
I will answer this as best I can by actually looking at a plant that is in front of me now. It has green leaves so I would say that the green appears to be exactly where the leaf is. I'm intrigued as to what comes next :-)

[Stephen Lostinspace]

I thought my username might come up at some point :-)

I can follow your questions as a guided meditation and imagine my thoughts and feelings etc being in the space where my perceptions are, but if I am honest and true to my experience, it would be just that, an imagination, a contrived experience, a mental exercise. This is because, as described some time ago now, my direct and actual experience is that my thoughts etc are behind my eyes and not located where any of the objects or spaces that appear to be separate from me are located. My feelings are often associated with sensations in my body, but not with anything else outside my body. This is not me over thinking it, this is me describing my actual experience. In meditation I have often experienced by perceptions to be heightened but associated with that I experience my awareness to be in a very different space to that of those perceptions, totally different in fact. Again, this is not philosophy, this is simply an honest description of my actual experience.

[Don Salmon]

Ok, I don't understand.

Can you actually find, not in a contrived way, but in an experiential way, a precise location that separates the image of the green plant that appears in your awareness that is external to your body, and the image of the green plant that appears in your awareness that you conceptualize as "in your mind"?

Where is that boundary and what does it feel like?

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

I thought my username might come up at some point :-)

I can follow your questions as a guided meditation and imagine my thoughts and feelings etc being in the space where my perceptions are, but if I am honest and true to my experience, it would be just that, an imagination, a contrived experience, a mental exercise. This is because, as described some time ago now, my direct and actual experience is that my thoughts etc are behind my eyes and not located where any of the objects or spaces that appear to be separate from me are located. My feelings are often associated with sensations in my body, but not with anything else outside my body. This is not me over thinking it, this is me describing my actual experience. In meditation I have often experienced by perceptions to be heightened but associated with that I experience my awareness to be in a very different space to that of those perceptions, totally different in fact. Again, this is not philosophy, this is simply an honest description of my actual experience.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

You are asking about a boundary between two images but I only have one image in my experience of the green plant. I am not experiencing two images of the green plant, one separate from my body and one in my mind. I am experiencing one image of a green plant that appears to be separate from me. So from my actual experience your question doesn't make sense to me and I cannot formulate an answer. I am continuing to be honest and true to my experience and being careful not to conceptualise.

[Don Salmon]

No, i'm inviting you to create an image of the green plant. Now look at the green plant that is external to your body and look at the green plant that is "in your mind" (or the image you constructed, if you prefer that phrasing).  Where is the exact, precise location of the boundary between one image and the other?

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

You are asking about a boundary between two images but I only have one image in my experience of the green plant. I am not experiencing two images of the green plant, one separate from my body and one in my mind. I am experiencing one image of a green plant that appears to be separate from me. So from my actual experience your question doesn't make sense to me and I cannot formulate an answer. I am continuing to be honest and true to my experience and being careful not to conceptualise.

[Don Salmon]

a brief aside - I don't know if my tone is coming across as a bit impersonal, hard or whatever.  This is not a purely logical exercise, and for it to work, there needs to be not only trust (and I'm very impressed at how open you are in doing this and much appreciative of it - I love working through this stuff and you've been very patient) but there also needs to be - or it's very helpful if there is - a sense of caring and openness. It's hard to convey that sometimes in the cold writing of black and white print on line - so I just wanted to take this time out to express my appreciation.

having said that (:>)))

i thought of one more thing while you're contemplating the boundary of "internal" and "external" images - 

you said you've had the experience of false awakening and then realizing you were in a dream.

What is it - experientially - that gives you the certainty that you're dreaming; how do you know you're dreaming. I assume you don't "figure it out" logically - so looking around you, if you don't actually see any anomalies (a common way for people to realize they're dreaming) if everything looks and feels exactly the same as when you're awake, how do you know you're dreaming?  I've had the experience of recognizing a dream that had no phenomenological differences from the waking state yet knew it was a dream. Without my saying how I knew, I'm curious if you can look into your experience and recall, what was it that enabled you to "know" - experientially - that it was a dream? 

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Ok, now I get what you're asking.

My experience, as best I can describe it, is that my created image is in a totally different space to the perceived space. These two spaces are not adjacent or of the same nature, as I experience them, therefore I cannot make sense of there being a boundary between them. The best analogy I can come up with, in an attempt to describe the experience I am having, is that my created image is in a very flexible and pervasive dimensional space that is totally separate to the dimensional space of the perceived image. There can be, in a sense, and overlap of these dimensions, when I hold them both in my awareness, but equally there cannot be, and in either case there is no contact and no boundary between these two dimensions. They are independent events in my awareness.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Your tone is coming across very well, no worries there :-)

[Don Salmon]

What about if you visualize a green image next to the plant?

Let me challenge your credulity for a moment and give you some paranormal powers (these have been documented scientifically in psychokinesis experiments - at least in principle)

Let's say you have developed extraordinary powers of materialization.  So, you visualize a green plant next to what you are referring to as the "external" green plant.

Other people in the room can see the image that you materialized.

They couldn't see it at first, as you were first visualizing it.  So you visualized it as being right next to the green plant, then slowly materialized it.

If you can imagine yourself doing this (this is not at all contrived; imagination is a direct experience) do you discern a precise boundary between the space that contains the green image, the image of the green plant that is just a few inches away from what you call the "external" green plant, or are they in the same experiential space?

Does there suddenly appear to be a boundary between you and the materialized plant once other people can see it?

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Lostinspace <stephenlo...@icloud.com> wrote:

Your tone is coming across very well, no worries there :-)

[Stephen Lostinspace]

Recognising a false awakening. This is a little tricky as I am relying on memory of sometime ago. It seems to be a realisation that this is not a normal waking experience. My experience of false awakenings is not that the experience is so realistic I can't tell the difference between it and waking life, it is more a state of mind associated with dreaming that defaults to assuming all is normal despite the differences that are there in the dream experience. At the point of recognition I am recognising this dream consciousness and putting into action my waking consciousness. The environment is quite secondary and not critical in this experience. Although in This waking consciousness I can do a reality test of the dream environment that supports the realisation I am in a dream.

[Stephen Lostinspace]

I think this experiment, although interesting and fun, is drawing to an end, as I no longer get any sense of any progression; and it has got to the point where I am being asked to imagine that I am materialising an object, and I can see no usefulness in that. Thanks for your time and patience :-)

If I did this I imagine that I would somehow be creating a template in my mind space and then there would somehow be some process that created a materialised plant. I imagine that at that point there would be three plants, the original one, next to it a materialised one and thirdly my imagined one in my mind space. I imagine that as soon as the new plant materialised I would perceive it in exactly the same way as the original plant, that is it too would appear to be separate from me. I imagine that I would continue to experience the imagined plant in my mind space for as long as I cared to.

I can also quite vividly imagine this conversation appearing on a materialist forum as incontrovertible proof that 'all those idealists are crazy!'. ;-)

[Stewart Lynch]

I agree with you Stephen.

However, it did just occur to me that this experiment could possibly be carried out in a lucid dream. I wonder if it is actually possible to imagine something in a lucid dream without it manifesting. If it is we could do this experiment, and observe the transition from internal imagination to external 'reality' as Don is driving at. I'd be fascinated to experience this to see how it felt. I imagine that it would take a considerable lucid dreaming skill though, which I don't have yet.

The boundary between imagination and apparent external reality is very interesting to me. I still haven't worked it out. Why can't I step from waking consciousness directly into a scene that I imagine and be totally there, totally lucid. I don't see any reason why this should not be possible, but I also can't do it, and i wonder why. I obviously am still stuck in illusion of the material world on some level.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

that's fine. As i said, it's almost impossible - at least I find it so - to convey this in writing.  Perhaps we'll meet some time when we're not lost in cyber space:>))

[Don Salmon]

I've done this in lucid dreams.  The direct experience, as opposed to the conceptual one, is that one simply "knows" that all phenomena in the dream exist within the awareness of the dreamer (which is not the dreaming personality Don or whoever else appears in the dream).  If you've had a lucid dream that was so realistic you can't distinguish it from waking, then obviously, it is at least reasonable to say the same thing about the waking state, that all things that appear appear within the "mind" of the Dreamer.

All the problems with this are purely conceptual, not experiential - though as with people in pain who haven't explored this before, they think their pain is "real" and not just "conceptual".

Even the academy of pain medicine in America, as well as the international pain association (I think that's the name) defines pain as an experience, not as a physical "thing".  This is incredibly hard for materialist doctors (and the judges I work for) to understand, but eventually they start to get it.  It completely transforms your experience of pain, as you start to viscerally get it. It's exactly the same thing with the images in awareness that we overly with layers of conceptualization and mistakenly take to be a mind independent external world. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Stewart Lynch]

In my lucid dreams that are totally indistinguishable from reality, I do wonder if I have actually 'gone' somewhere. If I am in a consensus reality. This is an idea that I want to explore. But i do get your point. It certainly opens ones mind to the possibility of everything being in consciousness.

That's an interesting parallel to pain management. It's one thing to know something intellectually, but to know it on an experience level is totally different. This becomes obvious when dealing with pain.

[Don Salmon]

Stewart if you'd like to practice, I carried out an experiment back in 1991 with 12 people. It took 6 months. I composed some music (a long drone, if you know what that is - you can probably hear a bunch of samples on youtube - it's like the tambura in Indan music - it symbolizes the underlying Awareness which envelops, holds all the universe "within" it)

Anyway, I taught people first how to lucid dream, then how to go straight from waking into the dream state without losing consciousness.  Everyone learned to lucid dream, but only the people who had the music could transition to dreaming without losing consciousness.

The techniques were simple:

1. Keep a dream journal.

2. Remember to do reality checks throughout the day. 

One research subject put a label from an apple on his shoe and everytime he saw it, he remembered to ask, “Am I awake or dreaming?”  You have to really do it, really inquire and try to figure out, is this a dream or am I awake?  If you do it long enough, you’ll realize it’s not nearly as easy as you think.

 

Next, you practice observing imagery in your mind as you fall asleep. If you can do this, you’ll find the images become more and more hallucinogenic at first. Then, they start becoming more and more vivid. At some point, if you can stay with it, you’ll find instead of being aware OF the images, you’re within the scene that you’ve been observing. Now you’re in a dream.  This is a crucial point as you’re likely to fall right back asleep (that is, you’ll be in the dream and forget you’re dreaming; you probably wouldn’t go into deep delta wave sleep at that point).

 

I could do this quite well back then when I was focused on it, and sustain the lucidity. Now I find it’s quite easy to let the images flow and momentarily step consciously into the dream, but I find it hard to sustain the dream.  I’m looking forward to another concentrated time when I can focus on practicing this, as it is a profound support for meditative awareness in general.

 

Another way to have lucid dreams is, when you wake up from a dream, go over it in your mind until you can see and feel it vividly, then as you’re going back to sleep, affirm repeatedly that when you go to sleep, you will go back into the same dream but this time be aware you’re dreaming.

 

Those are some good ways to start. It takes a LOT of work and dedication, so if you just try it for a lark you’ll probably be disappointed and may feel it’s all a waste. The single best site I know on the web for lucid dreaming is Rebecca Turner’s www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com

 

Have fun and maybe we can all meet somewhere in a lucid dream. Isn’t Bernardo in Denmark? Maybe we could arrange to meet in Copenhagen!  We’ll all have a baloney dream together:>))

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Stewart Lynch <stewar...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

I once had an extremely painful bout of back pain. I spent 7 days in a row, doing a 1 hour yoga nidra (www.swamij.com is a great place to learn this). The most important thing was to let go and not try to make anything happen to the pain. It was just "being with" the pain and cutting through layers and layers of conceptualization.  On the 7th day (how biblical:>)) the pain just entirely released.  

I've done the same thing with severe dental pain and many other kinds of pain. My dissertation research was in this area.  I found that only about 30% of people who tried it "got" what it meant to let go of conceptualization. I'm still fascinated with the question of how do you get through to people who conflate experience and conceptualization.  It's exactly the same thing as conflating science and materialism. 

[Stewart Lynch]

Thanks for this info Don. Unfortunately it isn't that easy for me. I've been studying lucid dreaming for many years. Probably read every book out there and visited all of the major LD sites. I've tried all of the techniques, and I mean really tried, but I've only had about 6 spontaneous lucid dreams, and they usually happen when I'm not trying. I know, i'm trying too hard, but I've tried not trying for a few years and that didn't help either :-)

There is something in my makeup which makes this very difficult for me. The strange thing is I've always had a very active dream life, never had any problems remembering my dreams. And my dreams are usually very vivid. I just struggle to become lucid. However, I'm not someone who gives up easily. I will crack this, and I will find out what is blocking me.

For the last month I've committed to practicing every single day, with the techniques that you mention. I've been rewarded with a 2 second lucid episode. But I will continue.

[Don Salmon]

one of the prerequisites in traditional dream yoga is being able to maintain awareness of arising thoughts, feelings, sensations for a prolonged period. I would add that if you can get past Stephen's conceptual difficulty, and learn to be aware of all phenomena - to use Alan Wallace's language - as "appearances to mind", you'll have a MUCH easier time with lucid dreaming.

So I would recommend, to save you a lot of grief, to get Alan's book, "Dreaming Yourself Awake" where he lays out the whole thing step by step.

But I can save you the trouble because the exercise is incredibly simple. (but not easy!)

1. Be aware of breathing and don't identify or cling to anything that appears in your awareness.  When you can let go of all passing thoughts and images without identifying with them for AT LEAST 30 minutes, regularly, go on to step 2

2. Let go of breathing as a focus, and just sit (eyes open may be easier) without any effort.  The longer you can do this, the more obvious it will be that all that appears in awareness is in the same space.  When you can do this for AT LEAST 30 minutes (preferably an hour or more, effortlessly) you'll find it rather easy to have lucid dreams and in fact, to enter consciously into the dream.

3. If you ever get to the point you can be aware effortlessly for several hours (I can't) the contemplative scientists report that this is the point where all kinds of psychic abilities may emerge, though if that's your goal, you'll be inviting incredibly danger (or to put it in the language of King Bush the first, you'll be in deep doo-doo:>))

Best if you have 10 hours a day to practice:>)))

So, quit your day job, start practicing, and we'll all meet together in Copenhagen.

[RHC]

>Next, you practice observing imagery in your mind as you fall asleep.

When I do this what inevitably happens is at some point as I cross over into sleep, I am suddenly switched over to whatever completely unrelated dream narrative my psyche has decided on for that portion of the night.  Frustrating. 

Bernardo is in the Netherlands.

>I've been rewarded with a 2 second lucid episode.

Proof of concept!  Stewart you must be doing something right.  My spontaneous lucid dream experiences usually last about that long.  I have never been able to induce one though I haven't tried systematically. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/aXu7SQP2hi8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Stewart Lynch]

thanks Don, i will order the book. I've come across Allan Wallace in the Dalai Lama science dialog books and been very impressed with him. I didn't know he had written about dreaming.

I forgot to mention that I'm already using meditation as part of my practice. I've been meditating on and off for years, although never consistently. I can only manage a few minutes of 'proper' meditation so far. I'm sure you're right, When I can meditate for hours I'll be able to do anything.

What I'm curious about though is why some people who don't meditate at all can lucid dream after just hearing that it is possible. Why do I find it so difficult?

[Stewart Lynch]

> Proof of concept!  Stewart you must be doing something right.  My spontaneous lucid dream experiences usually last about that long.  I have never been able to induce one though I haven't tried systematically. 

The weird thing is that I've had spontaneous lucid dreams that have lasted 10-15 minutes. The 2 second one is just since I've really started applying myself fully to the practice. But as you say, it is a start.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

(just finishing lunch - maybe will get myself to finish the music today!)

ok. tough question.

There's probably genetics involved (what? Mateiralistic causation?  No, only if you think genes are material:>))

And women in our culture have much much more dreaming in general and more lucid dreams.

Is that "physical" or is it because women generally (at least in European cultures) are not as predominantly left brained as men?  I think it's the latter.

Diet makes a huge difference. If you refrain from eating a few hours before sleep, I find it's MUCH easier to be lucid; the extra food makes one's mind duller (again, not necessarily physical causation).

But a deeper thing is one's attitude toward experience in the day.  Is my mind constantly caught up in worries, ambition, self-concern?  Am I mindful much or most of the day?  And by "mindful" I'm not referring to the McMindfulness that is usually taught under that name. The traditional Buddhist mindfulness is about noting that in every experience there is nothing solid (they say no "ego" but everyone seems to misunderstand that word nowadays).  A simpler way of saying it is this:

Am I aware from moment to moment that everything is an appearance to mind?  That there is no solid "me" in here and no solid "things" out there?  That everything that appears in awareness is impermanent, and that (this is very important) no ultimate satisfaction can be found in anything that appears in awareness?   Not in relationships, money, possessions, knowledge, etc

That's like beginning to intermediate stage mindfulness.  That leads to a very quiet, calm, still mind.  One lets go of self concern at least to some extent, then everything in one's life starts to make sense and get very simple.  Other people's needs are at least as important (if not more so) than mine.

Now when I go to sleep, if I'm that mindful during the day, my mind is clear, open, awake, lucid, and I'm not as likely to fall into dullness and unconsciousness as the waking consciousness fades.

It really requires such a completely different mind set (and more importantly, "heart set") than most of our modern civilization cultivates. it's like Prometheus (is that the right myth?) pushing the boulder of mindfulness and heartfulness up the hill of modern physicalist civilization.  

Does this make any sense?  Alan goes over all this in "Dreaming Yourself Awake", in fact, in all of his books.  And the book is quite brief, a little over a hundred pages.  There's enough repetition that if you skim it in an hour you'll get most of what he's saying. It just takes a lifetime to put it into practice.

[Stewart Lynch]

That's really helpful - thanks Don. I feel like I'm touching on all of this already, but I'm very aware that I can do this even more. 

Still, I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I'd consider myself to be at least as mindful in my everyday life as some of the proficient lucid dreamers that I've come across. It still seems something is blocking me.

I remember reading that Tom Campbell (My Big Toe) was told by his guides that he was going to be blocked from all astral projections for a number of years because he had other stuff to do. Maybe this is the case with me, I don't know, but I wish someone would tell me, then I'd stop trying :-)

[Don Salmon]

hey stewart can i write you off the forum? i'm at donsa...@gmail.com