The self, split from ACBSP as he was Options

[Dhyana]

Many people attend classes and youth groups and mangal-aratis and the like, in fairness to them, in all sincerity. And then after a while they go away if their desires are fulfilled or remain unfulfilled. I have personally seen many promising bhaktas, some of whom were close friends, disappear after they got married to a fellow Vaishnavi.
//snip//
Sometimes when I see some old friends (who were promising bhaktas, who then married and went away) and ask them if they are still keeping up with sadhana etc., obviously they aren't. Or they will understandably be embarrassed or squeamish about admitting their falling from the standards and try to regain some esteem by saying they chant 'some' rounds. I remember how joyful and enthusiastic they used to be and wonder which one is the true picture; were they really into it at all, or were they only there to find a marriage partner? Of course this isn't the case with everyone, there are plenty of genuine people too.

We have a tendency to judge genuineness of things by how lasting they are. It's not without merit. But when it gets further augmented by religious dogma, it may begin to get in the way of personal growth. (If you ever change your mind or the way you feel about something, that is the "proof" that you never really thought or felt as you seemed to in the first place.) As if the depth of your feelings and strivings was solely and wholly determined by what you do twenty years later!

Sometimes, methinks, if a feeling or belief stays the same for twenty years, that might rather point to it not being that genuine anymore.

Everything flows.

[Brainiac]

We have a tendency to judge genuineness of things by how lasting they are. It's not without merit. But when it gets further augmented by religious dogma, it may begin to get in the way of personal growth. (If you ever change your mind or the way you feel about something, that is the "proof" that you never really thought or felt as you seemed to in the first place.) As if the depth of your feelings and strivings was solely and wholly determined by what you do twenty years later!

Yes I agree. And also, it just occurred to me that it isn't easy to "dismiss" a period in your or anyone's life because whatever we are, we are the end result of all our experiences. If we dismiss those things, the passion or commitment we had for something, or otherwise didn't experience it, we might be slightly different people today. So ultimate all these things have contributed to our present and at least we can assure ourselves that, whatever we did, we did it with all the joie de vivre we had!

[Kalisurfer]

We have a tendency to judge genuineness of things by how lasting they are. It's not without merit. But when it gets further augmented by religious dogma, it may begin to get in the way of personal growth. (If you ever change your mind or the way you feel about something, that is the "proof" that you never really thought or felt as you seemed to in the first place.) As if the depth of your feelings and strivings was solely and wholly determined by what you do twenty years later!

Yes I agree. And also, it just occurred to me that it isn't easy to "dismiss" a period in your or anyone's life because whatever we are, we are the end result of all our experiences. If we dismiss those things, the passion or commitment we had for something, or otherwise didn't experience it, we might be slightly different people today. So ultimate all these things have contributed to our present and at least we can assure ourselves that, whatever we did, we did it with all the joie de vivre we had!

I couldn't agree more.

Brainiac and Dhyana, these were some great insights into what past experiences can mean in our lives, especially in trying to come to grips with our KC experience. You both touched on something very important, the ability to integrate all of our experiences, be they positive or negative, and realize that they were all grist for the mill of who we are today. As much as I regret many mistakes from my past, I do embrace them as part of my legacy as an individual human being playing out this life.

There is a certain dignity and grace that comes with acceptance and forgiveness, be it directed to others or to ourselves, plus it helps us grow and create integral tomorrows.

[Dhyana]

Brainiac and Dhyana, these were some great insights into what past experiences can mean in our lives, especially in trying to come to grips with our KC experience. You both touched on something very important, the ability to integrate all of our experiences, be they positive or negative, and realize that they were all grist for the mill of who we are today. As much as I regret many mistakes from my past, I do embrace them as part of my legacy as an individual human being playing out this life.

There is a certain dignity and grace that comes with acceptance and forgiveness, be it directed to others or to ourselves, plus it helps us grow and create integral tomorrows.

If we assume that the self is that part of the person that's unique, continuous and cannot be taken away, then my self is my history. The story woven of everything I have experienced.

Also psychologically (and neurologically), one could argue that our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves. It is what gives us the sense of a continuous self. Take away the thread linking experience to experience, and our identity falls apart.

[zanardi]

Brainiac and Dhyana, these were some great insights into what past experiences can mean in our lives, especially in trying to come to grips with our KC experience. You both touched on something very important, the ability to integrate all of our experiences, be they positive or negative, and realize that they were all grist for the mill of who we are today. As much as I regret many mistakes from my past, I do embrace them as part of my legacy as an individual human being playing out this life.

There is a certain dignity and grace that comes with acceptance and forgiveness, be it directed to others or to ourselves, plus it helps us grow and create integral tomorrows.

If we assume that the self is that part of the person that's unique, continuous and cannot be taken away, then my self is my history. The story woven of everything I have experienced.

Also psychologically (and neurologically), one could argue that our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves. It is what gives us the sense of a continuous self. Take away the thread linking experience to experience, and our identity falls apart.

That is all true, but what about our tendency and desire to continuously rewrite in our minds and memory our personal history? Usually for the better, me thinks. I am not saying it is bad, but if our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves, does not this rewriting also create a somewhat distorted image of that "self"?

[Dhyana]

Also psychologically (and neurologically), one could argue that our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves. It is what gives us the sense of a continuous self. Take away the thread linking experience to experience, and our identity falls apart.

That is all true, but what about our tendency and desire to continuously rewrite in our minds and memory our personal history? Usually for the better, me thinks. I am not saying it is bad, but if our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves, does not this rewriting also create a somewhat distorted image of that "self"?

Yep, yep. Who said the self is true? But then again, who is there to judge what the self should be? Whatever gets you through the night... [through life]

I believe the self is a very tentative thing. But useful. Our minds cannot make decisions without a coherent image of ourselves, a sense of who sits behind the wheel. The less tolerance of ambiguity, absurdity and chance, the simpler and more consistent one's story needs to be. Case in point: true believers. I was lost, now I am found. Off into the sunset.

If one could view anyone's personal history objectively, one would find much more ambiguity, absurdity and chance than any human can take. Blessed be the "distortions" in the self that reduce chaos and allow us to go on living.

[0Aran0]

If one could view anyone's personal history objectively, one would find much more ambiguity, absurdity and chance than any human can take....

Of course this is all a question of 'if' (or even as if) is it not? You seem to acknowledge that this separation is (in reality?) an impossibility. Perhaps I misunderstand you; being a peculiarly distorted type myself, I see that all (such) 'objectifications' are themselves symptomatic of the needs of a certain kind of 'self' to navigate 'through the night'...

[evakurvan]

good new signature Aran!

[Kalisurfer]

Brainiac and Dhyana, these were some great insights into what past experiences can mean in our lives, especially in trying to come to grips with our KC experience. You both touched on something very important, the ability to integrate all of our experiences, be they positive or negative, and realize that they were all grist for the mill of who we are today. As much as I regret many mistakes from my past, I do embrace them as part of my legacy as an individual human being playing out this life.

There is a certain dignity and grace that comes with acceptance and forgiveness, be it directed to others or to ourselves, plus it helps us grow and create integral tomorrows.

If we assume that the self is that part of the person that's unique, continuous and cannot be taken away, then my self is my history. The story woven of everything I have experienced.

Also psychologically (and neurologically), one could argue that our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves. It is what gives us the sense of a continuous self. Take away the thread linking experience to experience, and our identity falls apart.

That is all true, but what about our tendency and desire to continuously rewrite in our minds and memory our personal history? Usually for the better, me thinks. I am not saying it is bad, but if our self is the narrative we have created about ourselves, does not this rewriting also create a somewhat distorted image of that "self"?

Do you mean changing how we interpret past events that happen to us? Events and people that we once knew are constant it seems, but how we read and understand the events and people do change, much like the cells in our body and brain change every day to a point that we don't have the same one's that we did a few months or years ago. This does seem to beg the question if there is a constant self that remains the same and is somehow transcendent or beyond our thinking mind and body? This starts to get into systems of belief and can become very argumentative in nature.

[Kalisurfer]

]The less tolerance of ambiguity, absurdity and chance, the simpler and more consistent one's story needs to be. Case in point: true believers. I was lost, now I am found. Off into the sunset.

Kierkegaard the ultra super duper true believer who dedicated all his work to Christianity and spoke so much of passionate commitment to Christ was so big on absurdity and ambiguity. Also he was like, if I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Wow, Eva, did not know you had Kierkegaardian influences mixed into the ingredients that make up the diversity that is you, which means it is an interesting recipe, much like all of ours are.

Now that would make an interesting cookbook of the self, it would be each of us as a main dish, (well, some of us could make good appetizers or deserts!) with a list of all the things that make up who we are! Here is a fictitious recipe for one true self in a sea of many.

____________________________

One dash Book of Revelations

2 spoons of The Brothers Grimm

1 pound of Parental Guilt

1/2 cup of Public School

5 Bushels of Catholic Church

3 ounces of Star Trek

73 pounds of ISKCON Guru - (Strain Thoroughly)

15 ounces of Rebellion

8 Tablespoons of Gaudiya Repercussions

Mix thoroughly with an Open Minded blender and Bake at 108 degrees for many years

Serve on a nice lifespan with as many people that you like!

[Dhyana]

If one could view anyone's personal history objectively, one would find much more ambiguity, absurdity and chance than any human can take....

Of course this is all a question of 'if' (or even as if) is it not? You seem to acknowledge that this separation is (in reality?) an impossibility. Perhaps I misunderstand you;

Not at all. This is exactly what I meant.

being a peculiarly distorted type myself, I see that all (such) 'objectifications' are themselves symptomatic of the needs of a certain kind of 'self' to navigate 'through the night'...

That's probably true too My relationship with this "objectification" is of the hate-love kind. I wouldn't want to be without it (and I would probably go crazy). But it makes for a sense of absurdity and being stuck in my limited mind, it does.

Aran, I very much appreciate the way you apply your mind to others' ideas when reading. It's a nice challenge, and very rewarding, to apply my mind in turn to your interpretation.

[evakurvan]

Omg you must have captured my pathetically underdeveloped quote seconds before i last-second disguised it with a cheerio out of no where to Aran's signature.

[Homer]

The less tolerance of ambiguity, absurdity and chance, the simpler and more consistent one's story needs to be.

Toleration = control. When it comes to ambiguity, absurdity and chance I believe we are the one's being played upon - and that (for myself) has been the better part of the journey.

[Brainiac]

Events and people that we once knew are constant it seems, but how we read and understand the events and people do change, much like the cells in our body and brain change every day to a point that we don't have the same one's that we did a few months or years ago. This does seem to beg the question if there is a constant self that remains the same and is somehow transcendent or beyond our thinking mind and body? This starts to get into systems of belief and can become very argumentative in nature.

That may be because that conclusion requires a great leap of imagination. Brain and body cells may fall away but mostly they are replaced. Of course they fall away on the whole (over the years) in terms of functions like memory, which could explain why senior citizens are more likely to struggle with memories, or in extreme cases like the unfortunate Alzheimer's Disease in which the accumulation of ß-amyloid proteins and tau (a cytoskeletal protein) produce the neuritic plaque and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) that are characteristic of the condition. Generally speaking, everybody's brain cells start depleting from around age 15-16. How, then, do we not say that memories haven't left us when we essentially started losing them in our teenage years?

Given that the very thoughtful and exciting questions posed in this thread relate to problems and issues of consciousness, which is arguably the last great barrier to a truly comprehensive understanding of mind, a number of views may contribute to offering an answer pending research and evidence. Despite experience, consciousness is not unitary. It seems unitary because of neural binding. Semir Zeki has written some very interesting papers on microconsciousness, and how there may be as many microconsciousnesses as there are processing nodes in a system. These microconsciousnesses may also contribute to the illusion of a unitary consciousness. Multisensory integration is another idea that may work, which describes neurons that repond to input from more than one sense. Because there even are neurons that deal with different types of information, and because neuroanatomical models need to encompass a distributed network of cortical and subcortical regions, it's entirely possible that different brain regions are recruited to serve for a particular capacity and able to function in a productive way that is typical of that capacity. This is a phenomenon quite often seen in people who have suffered brain injury.

Zanardi's question was excellent. He can ask that question because he is a sufficiently evolved human being. Could he (or anyone else) have asked that question as a Homo Heidelbergensis living around 500,000 years ago? Did "Heidelberg Man" have a consciousness, what to speak of a sufficiently sized brain? That people have specialised mental functions, a sense of "self", a "history", and also the capacity for self-reflection that leads to the analysis of these phenomena, is an astounding achievement of man - as a product of evolution - that never fails to take my breath away.

[Prisni]

I find that whatever way it is seen, my self is a Krishna bhakta. Maybe I am totally brainwashed to think like that, through years in a sect. But never the less, it has then become my self. I am ust not an ISKCONite, or anything like it. They have not made their selfs into Krishna bhaktas. They actually want something else. And after a while they leave for that something else.

When looking at some old Indian literature, I get the distinct feeling that what they speak about is just that. That it is written by persons who similarly have integrated bhakti into their selfs, and they write about how we can do the same. Maybe that takes out all mysteria of it all. No swan airplanes, no God that grants all our wishes, and destry our enemys, when we pray to him. It all instead becomes like psychology. How to psychologically form our sleves to become Krishna bhaktas. How to psychologically and neurologically transform our brain chemistry to get mystic visions of Radha and Krishna.

I don't find a need to contradict psychology and neurology. The interesting thing is instead that when we do this kind of twisting of our self, it actually appears to transgress the boundaries of psychology into another realm. A realm inside ourselves. A realm that does not follow the rules of psychology anymore.

Even if we don't believe in anything else than brain neurouns, this realm should be interesting.

Of course, me as a computer expert, just laugh at the brain neurons. In my years, I have never ever seen any computer even approach the functionality of consciousness even the slightest. Logically would be that with today's extremely advanced and fast computers, they would at least approach patial conciousness, and partial free will. But not. They are as stupid as in the 1950ies, only faster. From that the only logical conclusion is that consciousness does not come from the kind of functionality that we get from an advanced computer. So where does consciousness come from? It appears to be separate from the functionality of a computer. It is still an unknown entity, as far as science goes.

If we should go back to the self. If we perform the procedure of GV to ourselves, we will find that our self indeed get changed as described. So therefore it is only logical that if we proceed on that path, our self will be further changed as described. Why is it so illogical that our self becomes independent from the body, when we already know that the self is not a product of neuron activity? Even for those who believe the self is a very advanced computer program, there is nothing to say that the computer program of the self cannot be moved away from the brain, to another media. Or that a computer program can survive as energy flucturations on a more fundamental level than brain neurons. Maybe as a cloud of energy?

Those who know computers, know that the computer program does not have a physical reality in the phenomenal world. The program is represented in various ways. Maybe as electric currents in the computer CPU. Or as charges in the computer memory. Or as magnetic flucturations on the hard disk. Or as optical dots on the CD. It is all the same computer program, but with different representations.
It is not bound to any media, since it is not the physical media. It is something else. Its real representation is on some other level. A level we cannot touch with our scientific tools and ways.

Coming from that understanding, it is not hard to see the self, and conciousness, also as situated on that immaterial level. Only with its current manifestation in the brain neurons.

After that excursion, the GV view of consciousness having its separate existence is not so strange anymore.
It is quite plausible. More so than the brain neuron idea, which does not hold up at all so good.

[Dhyana]

Omg you must have captured my pathetically underdeveloped quote seconds before i last-second disguised it with a cheerio out of no where to Aran's signature.

Ah sooo. I wondered where that text was, which Kalisurfer quoted. The Kierkegaard quote was striking and very relevant. Why do you feel your quote was "underdeveloped"?

[Gerard]

Those who know computers, know that the computer program does not have a physical reality in the phenomenal world. The program is represented in various ways. Maybe as electric currents in the computer CPU. Or as charges in the computer memory. Or as magnetic flucturations on the hard disk. Or as optical dots on the CD. It is all the same computer program, but with different representations.
It is not bound to any media, since it is not the physical media. It is something else. Its real representation is on some other level. A level we cannot touch with our scientific tools and ways.

Thanks Prisni, for this lucid explanation. It takes the metaphor of the mind-as-computer-programme to a higher level. The mind or consciousness not as a mere epiphenomenon of the brain but something different from it. Maybe the brain as a product of consciousness?

[0Aran0]

Aran, I very much appreciate the way you apply your mind to others' ideas when reading. It's a nice challenge, and very rewarding, to apply my mind in turn to your interpretation.

Thanks, Dhyana; and there I was thinking I hadn't made my points clear enough - due to the fact that my rather talented son had just entered the room, and was distracting me with his latest composition for dobro.

[Brainiac]

Of course, me as a computer expert, just laugh at the brain neurons. In my years, I have never ever seen any computer even approach the functionality of consciousness even the slightest. Logically would be that with today's extremely advanced and fast computers, they would at least approach patial conciousness, and partial free will. But not. They are as stupid as in the 1950ies, only faster.

Unfortunately this is untrue. Serious advances in Artificial Intelligence have been made, see for example this news story about a robot that displays and develops emotions and attachments. Also, a control system was developed for "following the leader". Earlier this year there was a big story about robots that displayed evolved interactions and had learnt to lie. However, not to worry as, unlike in movies, they have no plans to attack us, yet. These capacities certainly fulfil the expectations of "partial consciousness" or partial free will.

From that the only logical conclusion is that consciousness does not come from the kind of functionality that we get from an advanced computer.

But did you know that computer architecture is modelled on brain function? I wouldn't have believed it myself if I didn't hear it explained by a professor of neural networks. In fact, it wouldn't be out of place to say that computers work roughly the same way our brains do. That is what a new field of study even exists so that neural networks - which are modelled on brain function - are now capable of informing us of more subtleties of the same physical/neurological functions. Interesting turn of events, I think. But, to be honest with you, I didn't pay too much attention to the subject of neural networks. In fact I fell asleep during that lecture as I found it boring.

Why is it so illogical that our self becomes independent from the body, when we already know that the self is not a product of neuron activity?

Do we know that? I'm not so sure.

Those who know computers, know that the computer program does not have a physical reality in the phenomenal world. The program is represented in various ways. Maybe as electric currents in the computer CPU. Or as charges in the computer memory. Or as magnetic flucturations on the hard disk. Or as optical dots on the CD. It is all the same computer program, but with different representations. It is not bound to any media, since it is not the physical media. It is something else. Its real representation is on some other level. A level we cannot touch with our scientific tools and ways. Coming from that understanding, it is not hard to see the self, and conciousness, also as situated on that immaterial level. Only with its current manifestation in the brain neurons.

OK, I can just about comprehend this from my days as a computer programmer. A 'program' is simply a set of instructions (at a stretch, software) that tell the hardware what to do. Who or what designed the program is perhaps another issue, but while it may be true that the program has no "physical" location, it is undeniable that the program was designed using physical tools such as the keyboard used to input the instructions. Or if you want to get deep into it, the tap of every 'physical' key creates the binary code to form unit(s) of the program, depending on which programming language is being used. The program wasn't created by itself. Someone or something was responsible for creating it. Similarly, neuroscience. It is one of the paradoxes of neuroscience that much of what we know about brain function comes from those who have suffered brain injury of various types. It is similarly undeniable that aberrations in brain function (caused by accident or violence) results in drastic and serious personality changes, the severity of which depends on the severity of the injury. In the extreme cases, it could be said that the person is "no longer there", either it is as if a different person entirely or perhaps a vegetable. Consider the incredible case of Phineas Gage in a famousish article written by one of my friends. Gage is a very famous example of someone who was "no longer Gage" after his accident. What this means is that if something so superficial as brain injury results in such drastic changes in personality, the sense of "self", the eradication of self-historical memories intimately connected to our very identity, only illustrates the fragility of the brain, and therefore consciousness. Changes in the "physical" neurons have resulted in changes in the "whatchamacallit".

After that excursion, the GV view of consciousness having its separate existence is not so strange anymore. It is quite plausible. More so than the brain neuron idea, which does not hold up at all so good.

Well it may have been plausible at a time when not much was known about neurological function. Since the 1990s (the "Decade of the Brain") there has been an explosion of knowledge that has pretty much explained everything. Consciousness, as I mentioned before, is arguably the last great barrier that needs to fall before we can approach some form of an integrated theory of mind. Or perhaps there are no answers, that is also plausible. Evolutionary psychology has the capability to give great insight into the evolution of consciousness. Perhaps consciousness really is a by-product of evolution, an epiphenomenon. This may be hard to swallow for some people. I guess it all comes down to evidence, and how much there is of it for each point of view that is proposed.

For more information, you may like to read the Wikipedia article on biological neural networks. Also, this report is pretty good.

[Prisni]

Unfortunately this is untrue. Serious advances in Artificial Intelligence have been made, see for example this news story about a robot that displays and develops emotions and attachments. Also, a control system was developed for "following the leader". Earlier this year there was a big story about robots that displayed evolved interactions and had learnt to lie. However, not to worry as, unlike in movies, they have no plans to attack us, yet. These capacities certainly fulfil the expectations of "partial consciousness" or partial free will.

It is all just wishful thinking and propaganda. I can also program a computer that appears to lie. Meaning to simulate the function of lying.

They can't even make a computer that parses human language properly in a written or spoken form, although they have promised that for around 50 years by now. Complexity does not transform to intelligent action, as they thought before, and some still think.

Today's computers are utterly complex and fast. And yet it did not bring them one inch nearer towards intelligent thinking. They can't even make a computer program that is not full of bugs and crash all the time. All the fancy graphics makes the computer as slow as in the past. That is what they can do. The more complex, the more unnessesary graphic functions, just to look neat. They call it eye candy. Inside it is the same stupid logic as in the 1960ies. Most even program in the same computer languages, and in the same way, as in the 1970ies. Just more of it. All the effort of more abstract AI computer languages, for more A.I.-like functionality, have just about disappeared. Except for a few die-hards.

And awareness? Computers have no awareness. They can be programmed to simulate the response that aware beings give, but it does not mean that they are aware. This is all things they say to fool those who do not understand computers.

But of course, they like to say that "in the future" computers will be aware. No one could forsee the speed and complexity of computers of today in the 1950ies. And no one could forsee that computers would be just as stupid as then, even being so complex. It is just a big grand failure when it comes to AI.

And I don't write this because I don't understand computers. I understand computers from the smallest part up to the biggest. There is no mystery there at all for me. It is rather a little bit disappointing and boring.

Human beings don't crash all the time, with a blue screen. The brain of humans is utterly amazing in its reliability and complexity. So much so humans are just in awe, and know very little about how it works. Our neurology is as advanced as if we would randomly poke into a PC with electric wires, and apply voltage, in the hope to get the blue screen to disappear and the computer to work again.
It never happens.

All we can say is - I want to believe - like Fox Mulder.