常识的最大矛盾

(An improved and updated version of 这个 essay has appeared in my book 简要介绍。以下版本仅供保留。)

Are these colors 真实, or just representations within 您r head?
Photo by 贝尔纳多·卡斯特鲁普, 这里 by released into the Public Domain.

This essay 是 about a shocking contradiction in our common sense about the nature of 真实ity; a contradiction that 您 are probably totally unaware of. Becoming aware of 这个 contradiction has the potential to change 您r life.

On the one hand, our common sense says that the colors we 看到, the sounds we hear, the smells we feel, the textures we sense, are all the 实际 and concrete 真实ity. We take it for granted that they are all 真实ly 'out there,' in the sense of being outside our heads. On the other hand, our common sense also 看到ms to suggest that death 是 the end of our 意识. Even if we don't acknowledge 这个 intellectually or spiritually, most of us fear the end of 意识with enough sincerity to betray our belief in its possibility.

Now, the point of 这个 essay 是 extraordinarily simple: 这两个常识性信念是互斥的. They cannot be both true. Either everything 您 sense around 您 right now, including the computer in front of 您, 是 a kind of "幻觉" inside 您r head, or 您r 意识doesn’t end upon what we call physical death. And by the time we come to the end of 这个 essay, I believe 您 will agree with me.

Here 是 a narrated, video version of 这个 essay:

让’从身体溶解的假设开始— death — indeed implies the end of 意识. Such a notion 是 entirely based on the idea that 您r body, particularly 您r brain, generates all 您r experiences. After all, what other reason could we have to believe that 意识ends if the brain stops working? But if the notion 是 true, then all of 您r 主观 experiences and their 品质 —颜色,声音,味道,质地,温暖度等。 — are merely representations created within 您r head. The "真实 world 在那里" has none of the 品质 of experience: no colors, no melody, no flavors, no warmth. Supposedly, it 是 一个纯粹的抽象领域 数量 类似于数学方程式。它甚至无法可视化,因为可视化总是需要 品质 of 经验。 In essence, if 这个 是 true, 您r entire life unfolds inside 您r skull. 您r 实际 skull 是 somewhere beyond the room where 您 are sitting, enveloping it from all sides. After all, the room 您 are experiencing right now 是 supposedly within 您r head.

But what if all 这个 是 baloney? What if the colors, sounds, and smells 您 are experiencing right now are the 实际 physical world, not "hallucinated" representations within 您r skull? Then the necessary implication 是 that the 物理世界 是 in 意识, for it 是 then "made of" the 品质 of 主观 经验。 But if that 是 so, it 是 您r body that 是 in 意识, not 意识in 您r body. After all, 您r body 是 in the physical world, not the world in 您r body. And then, in turn, the dissolution of 您r body cannot imply the end of 意识; not any more than the death of 您r dreamed-up avatar in a nightly dream can imply 您r physical death. After all, it 是 the avatar that 是 in 您r dreaming 意识, not 您r 意识in the avatar. Do 您 看到 the point?

那里fore, either all 真实ity 您 can ever experience 是 a kind of "幻觉" inside 您r skull, or we have absolutely no reason to believe that physical death entails the end of 意识. It’s one thing or the other. 您 take 您r pick: which alternative 是 crazier? I’我已经接受了:我无法否认我所经历的现实,这一现实远远早于我们疯狂的唯物主义文化的模型和抽象。

So let us dare entertain the possibility that the 物理世界 是 exactly what it 看到ms to be: that it has 品质, 不只是 数量. 让 us acknowledge what every civilization before Western rationalism always took for granted: that colors, smells, sounds, and flavors are not just inside our heads. How do we then explain the big questions that materialists claim to require an abstract 真实ity fundamentally outside 意识in order to be made sense of?

First question: "If 真实ity 是 a kind of dream in 意识, how come we 看到m to be all sharing the same dream?" The idea behind 这个 question 是 that, because our bodies are not connected in the fabric of space-time, our personal psyches are also not connected and, therefore, cannot be sharing a dream. But 这个 假设 that 意识is in the body, as opposed to the body in 意识. If our bodies are in 意识, the fact that our bodies are separate does not imply that our psyches are also separate. 我们的经验并不能阻止我们的心理联系— unified —在最深,最模糊的层次,就像一棵树的可见分支在不可见的根部团结起来。高度混淆的,集体的根基很可能是我们称为共识现实的共同梦想的统一来源。并且存在高度混淆的心智部分(事实上,深度心理学经常使用歧义词“无意识”来称呼它们)如此混淆是心理学中的既定事实。

Are these textures 真实, or just representations within 您r head?
Photo by 贝尔纳多·卡斯特鲁普, 这里 by released into the Public Domain.

第二个问题:“显然,我们不能仅仅希望世界与世界不同而改变世界,因此世界必须存在于意识之外。”这里的问题是将属于意志范围之外的现象与属于意识本身之外的现象相混淆。众所周知,并非所有有意识的过程都属于意志领域:我们的噩梦,自发视力,幻觉等都是无可否认的主观,但不受我们意愿的控制。说物质世界处于意识中并不与它的许多事实按照严格的规律性展开的事实相矛盾,’ve come to call the "自然规律." It only means that processes in a particular segment of 心神 —模糊的,集体的根层次 —按照严格的规律展开。 To say that all nature 是 grounded in 意识does not imply that all nature 是 grounded in the whimsical, tiny segments of 意识that we call our personal egos, in exactly the same way that 梦 and visions aren’也植根于自我。

Third question: "那里 are tight correlations between brain states and 主观 经验。 那里fore, the brain must generate 意识." Well, there 是 an alternative way of 看到ing 这个 that 是 incredibly self-evident: the brain 是 not the cause of 意识, but merely the image of a process in 意识. Take lightning: it doesn't "generate" or "cause" atmospheric electric discharge; it’只是大气放电的方式 看起来. Take a 漩涡浴 in a stream: it doesn’t "generate" 水; it 是 simply the way 水 flow localization 看起来. 那里 是 没有 to a 漩涡浴 but 水, yet we can point at it and say: "那里 是 a 漩涡浴!" Similarly, there 是 没有 to the brain but 意识, yet we can point at it and say: "那里 是 a brain!" As a 漩涡浴 是 the image of flow localization in 水, so the brain 是 merely the image of flow localization in 意识。因此,大脑状态与人际关系相关就不足为奇了— that 是 , localized —主观经验:一种仅仅是另一种的外在看法。然而大脑却没有’t "generate" 意识for exactly the same reason that a 漩涡浴 doesn’t generate 水.

Fourth question: "If I take psychoactive drugs or suffer physical trauma to my head, my 主观 experience will change. 那里fore, the brain generates 意识." The rationale 这里 是 the following: pills and trauma are 假定 to exist as physical things outside 意识. Then, because they can clearly alter 您r 主观 experiences through physically interfering with the brain — which 是 also 假定 to exist outside 意识— then, the argument goes, 意识must be generated by the brain. Notice that 这个 entire rationale simply 假设 that pills, trauma, and brains exist outside 意识, which 是 precisely the point in contention! 您 看到, if all 真实ity 是 in 意识, then a pill or a well-placed knock to the head are simply the images of processes in 意识; they are also in 意识, not outside it. Where else could they be? What 是 a pill but what 您 看到, touch, feel in 您r fingers? It has color, taste, texture. It's a set of 主观 知觉 具有...的特质 经验。 As far as 您 or anyone else can ever know for sure, a pill 是 in 意识. Therefore, 药丸或头部外伤会改变一个’s state of 意识is no more surprising than the fact that 您r 思想 can change 您r emotions。思想和情感都在意识中,我们对它们可以相互影响这一事实感到完全满意。出于同样的原因,我们应该对毒品和身体创伤也影响我们的主观状态这一事实感到完全满意。因为除了意识之外,大脑什么都没有,因此除了意识之外,药片和身体动作都没有。

All questions that lead materialists to naively insist on the existence of an unprovable, abstract universe outside 意识can be logically and empirically made sense of under the rigorous and parsimonious view that all 真实ity 是 a phenomenon of 意识, in 意识, as I explain in my book 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼. 您r intuition that the world 您 experience around 您 right now, with all its colors, sounds, smells, and textures, 是 the 实际 物理世界 — as opposed to a kind of hallucinated reproduction inside 您r head — 是 entirely correct. The implication of that, however, 是 that 您r 意识—你的主观感觉—在您身体死亡时将不复存在. This 是 an inescapable conclusion derived from logic, clear thinking, and empirical honesty, not mere wishful thinking. It so happens to also be a hopeful conclusion.
分享:

85条评论:

  1. 那里 are other flaws with materialism. Basically materialism states that random 心神less forces create us and then could never create us again. If we could never be created again how could we have been created in the first place? An obvious untenable contradiction.

    Also materialism cannot explain our 看到ming individuality. Since all brains are the same why do I 看到m to be an individual staring out of 这个 specific set of eyeballs? What was different about the universe when I showed up? Materialism says "nothing"!另一个明显的站不住脚的矛盾。

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 我没有't understand 这个, TJ. Maybe 您 can elaborate on it a bit more? Perhaps others didn'也很明白。在唯物主义下,为什么不能't life be created anew again, by chance? Under materialism, brains are also not quite identical... and even if they were, materialism would entail that two identical brains would produce two identical 意识es which are, nonetheless, separate, 这个 being the reason why 您 are just one of them.

      删除
    2. Well most materialist claim that an individual only live once, 意识ends when the body does. But if 意识is due to random forces then my 意识actually must be re-created by those forces again in the future. Subjectively it would be like there was never any time in between and I would live continuously (which 是 实际ly what Idealism states).

      The second point does 看到m to be a hard one to grasp, even for 您, though it's something I'我之前提到过,对我来说似乎很明显。人们不'似乎不了解自己的存在。

      让's ask 这个 question. Under materialism why would I be aware of being associated with 这个 specific body TJS?

      这个身体可能没有"me"就像它之前的数十亿个尸体在奔波而没有我的参与一样与它相关联。

      删除
    3. On the first point, I think 您 are implicitly assuming that the second version of "you"应该记住第一个版本,这不是唯物主义带来的...如果第二个版本"you" doesn'记得第一个"you,"一切似乎都不同了"you's" anyway... BTW, materialism does acknowledge that, given enough time, what 您 claim will indeed happen. But it'比宇宙时代多得多的时间。

      关于第二点,我仍然不't understand. 您 wrote: "Under materialism why would I be aware of being associated with 这个 specific body TJS?" Because 这个 body hosts 您r 意识physically, and it grounds 您r conscious perspective into the world as a kind of platform? I.e. 您 can consciously control the muscles of 这个 body, not another; 您 can move the eyes of 这个 body, not another; 您 can feel the pain of 这个 body, not another, etc...?

      删除
    4. 唐't get me wrong. I'm not 这里 to defend the lunacy of materialism. I am very hot on debunking it. But for that precise reason, I am also very hot on focusing on the _right_ arguments to debunk it.

      删除
    5. 我想这是一件很难的事情。是的,TJS机构似乎确实在扎根"this" conscious perspective. But under materialism what would determine it to be 这个 body/platform? Why wasn't it another body/platform like BK? 那里 was probably another body born 5 minutes after 这个 one why 是 n't "this"透视通过该主体/平台扎根。基本上,关于唯物主义的某些事情必须解释我为什么在我出生的时候出生或者完全无效。


      删除
    6. "You" are constituted by a particular psychological state, especially memories. So 您 are determined by a particular brain in a particular state since 这个 determines ones psychological state. Nevertheless it wouldn't be 您r body that grounds "you" as such. If 您r body was scanned, destroyed and recreated at a different location, then "you" would "jump" to the new body. Or even if the brain in the newly created body was slightly different but memories were the same, 您 would still feel 您 had "jumped" to the new body.

      我放"you"用引号表示,因为在唯物主义下没有持久的自我。

      删除
    7. "But under materialism what would determine it to be 这个 body/platform?"
      我想我'我开始感觉到直觉,但我也猜想,如果我们严格按照逻辑讲,'s no problem for materialism 这里 . Under materialism, 您r conscious perspective IS the state of 您r brain. That's why it 是 您r body, not mine. Everything 您 think, feel, or perceive, including the 思想 above, 是 supposedly just states of TJS's brain.

      删除
    8. 我不是一种心理状态,尤其不是记忆。意识是积累记忆的基础。它'的确,TJS个性EGO是基于记忆和经验的,但是如果我所有的记忆消失了,我仍然会意识到并会积累新的记忆。实际上,我只记得一生的一小部分,所以可以说大部分已经被抹去了。

      Bernardo materialism still cannot answer the question because it cannot explain why my conscious perspective 是 the state of 这个 particular brain and no other.

      Read 这个 again very carefully. 那里 were billions of bodies running around that had brains with conscious perspective brain states that 看到m to have 没有 to do with me. Suddenly 这个 body shows up with conscious perspective brain state that 是 me. 那里 是 没有 in materialism that explains 这个 individuality.

      那里 真实ly 是 0 difference "materially" between bodies. All bodies are made of the same sub atomic and atomic particles and are totally interchangeable. 您 certainly can'不能说任何大脑中的电脉冲都是个性化的。那's a BK impulse, 这个 是 a TJS impulse!?
      身体之间的唯一区别是遗传密码的0.02%,这不是信息。

      Idealism does explain our individuality as self reflective focus points in the light of 意识.

      删除
    9. 看来您对贝尔纳多gloss之以鼻's的回答是,您的大脑会产生意识,并且您的经历属于您的特定身体,而不是另一个身体,因此当您坚持不懈地说出为什么我与这个身体相同时,我可以'不明白你的问题。至于其他奔跑的尸体,它们都在同一条船上。而您的大部分身份就是回忆。是的,是纯粹的意识,但是绑在一个特定身体中的个人会经历许多经历,这些经历形成了个人身份。它没有'无论我们的身体或大脑是否相对相同。随着时间的流逝,个性变得更大。这一定是吉姆·莫里森唱歌时所指的"如果你骑这个人,美好的回忆就会消逝。" (He will kill 您).

      删除
    10. TJS, I am trying to sense where 您 are coming from. Sometimes I have a feeling I got it, but then it instantly escapes me. 让 me ponder 这个 for a while longer to 看到 if I can put myself into 您r frame of 心神 and understand what 您 mean... it's quite subtle...

      删除
    11. 我的东西'm not trying to be difficult but if 您 can't understand the question 您 can't 真实ly answer it. 那里 真实ly 是 no answer from the materialistic perspective.

      贝尔纳多's interesting that 您 find it so subtle. The question of why I 看到m to be 这个 individual was something I asked my whole life. The answer came as a 真实ization (the 真实ization of Idealism) similar to being hit over the head with a 2X4. Not too subtle. I guess some would consider 您r most obvious arguments to be subtle and perhaps incomprehensible as well. Anyway let's try 这个.

      "You" are sitting in a white room. The only thing in the room 是 a red sphere. 您 are obviously aware of the red sphere. "I"我坐在另一个白色的房间里。这个房间里唯一的东西是一个黑色的立方体。"I"显然知道黑色立方体。唯物主义者声称我们的大脑是"generating" separate 意识"you", "I" that 是 causing the awareness of the sphere and cube. Without the bodies leaving either room what would the materialist claim 将have to be changed in 您r brain so "I"会意识到球体和我的大脑,所以"you"会知道立方体吗?它必须是结构的某些子集,因为这就是唯物主义的全部内容。

      删除
    12. TJS,我不知道't deny I may be dense in 这个 regard. Yes, I follow what 您 said. Materialism would claim something in the structure in our respective brains would need to change so we could have aware of respectively the sphere or the cube... go on, 您 have my attention.

      删除
    13. 好好因此,唯物主义者必须在每个大脑中假设某种类型的个性模块。拿"I"模块并将其放在BK大脑中,"I"会对领域有所了解。放在"you"TJS大脑中的模块和"you"会意识到立方体。显然,地球上数十亿种生命形式的每一种都必须存在一个个性化的模块,而不仅仅是70亿种人类生命形式。另外考虑第二个相同"you"模块放置在TJS大脑中。"You"然后必须同时知道球体和立方体。

      有没有证据表明存在这种个性化模块?

      Operations are done at times removing half a brain. Could any surgeon even conceive of doing such a thing if there was a chance of erasing the individuals 意识?

      All the materialist would have to do 是 show that by rearranging a bunch of cells in the BK brain TJS 意识would suddenly exist.

      可能不是一个坏主意,但我赢了'不要屏住呼吸。

      删除
    14. 但是TJS,对立方体或球体的感知与's individuality? If I understand correctly, the materialists believe the world 是 真实ly 在那里, and our brains receive some photonic info and then we perceive whatever it 是 that we perceive. The only way to perceive the cube or sphere 是 to be in front of it.

      删除
    15. 我完全理解TJS的含义。实际上,我在他的第一句话中就明白了。基本上,在唯物主义范式中,大脑产生意识。 TJS的意思是每个大脑都会产生独特的意识。这实际上是哲学中一个既定的问题,它没有'没有得到普遍同意的答案。

      删除
    16. 一件事......你're completely missing the point of the thought experiment. Go back and keep reading it until 您 "get it".

      删除
    17. @tjssailor-好吧...'s been a few years since 您 posted 这个, but...

      I totally get what 您 mean. It 看到ms completely arbitrary that "I" happen to be experiencing 这个 specific brain/body if 意识is just a side effect of certain configurations of non-conscious matter. What decided that 这个 particular "I" experiences 这个 specific brain/body at 这个 specific time?

      我猜's not that convincing when expressed in words. 您 kind of just have to "see"它-有点像试图解释什么's inexplicable about 意识itself.

      But, yeah; I absolutely get what 您 mean. I've wondered about 这个 since I was a little kid--even before a wondered about 意识itself, I think. It'很高兴知道地球上至少还有一个人"sees" that it's a problem.

      伯纳多没有感到惊讶't 看到 it...

      删除
  2. 还有一点。

    "everything 您 sense around 您 right now, including the computer in front of 您, 是 a kind of "hallucination" inside 您r head"

    If 这个 were true then 您r head would also have to be a 幻觉 inside 您r head! More materialistic baloney.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 对,就是这样。那's precisely what's entailed by materialism: The head 您 看到 in the mirror and touch with 您r hands 是 , supposedly, just a representation of 您r _actual_ head, within 您r 实际 head... and then, materialists turn around and say that 这个 amazing contrivance 是 necessary in order to explain 真实ity, even though they completely fail to explain the most obvious and present aspect of 真实ity, which 是 conscious experience itself. Go figure...

      删除
  3. Simm 这里 . This 看起来 100 % wrong. 您 can' trust common sense. As 您 know, Einstein believed too that properties are 真实ly 在那里, but he was proven wrong decades ago. Physicists now know that 观察 produce the world. Why not open a new thread in the forum, 这个 是 so crucial.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 爱因斯坦认为现实是"out there"在外在意识的意义上。我说的是质量-颜色,味道,气味等-确实"out there" in the sense of being outside our heads! I think all 真实ity 是 in 意识and, as such, "in 这里 ,' wherein "here" 是 the space of 主观 经验。 Our heads are in 意识, as well as the rest of the universe. 那里fore, colors can be in 意识while being entirely outside our heads. This 是 what I mean, and not what Einstein meant.

      关于常识的可靠性,在某些情况下证明它是错误的事实并没有't mean that it 是 wrong in all cases. How do 您 choose? By separating direct experience from 推断ence. Our direct experience tells us that the world 是 made of 品质 outside our heads. But the notion that 意识ends upon physical death 是 an 推断ence, since nobody alive can claim to know that directly.

      是的,在论坛中发起话题! :)

      删除
    2. "But the notion that 意识ends upon physical death 是 an 推断ence, since nobody alive can claim to know that directly."

      Millions have come back from physical death and know that 意识does continue. If 您r definition of death 是 an irreversible physical process then obviously no one could make a claim.

      删除
    3. That it continues may be direct 经验。.. not that it ends. Read again what 您 quoted from me. :)

      删除
  4. 您r statement:

    我们的经验并不能阻止我们的心理联系— unified —在最深,最模糊的层次,就像一棵树的可见分支在不可见的根部团结起来

    听起来像威廉·詹姆斯(William James):

    我们的生活就像海洋中的岛屿,或森林中的树木。枫树和松树可能会用叶子互相窃窃私语…但是树木也混根于地下的黑暗中,这些岛屿在海洋中悬垂在一起’ bottom. Just so there 是 a continuum of 宇宙意识 against which our individuality builds but accidental fences, and into which our several 心神s plunge as into a mother sea…


    ***

    那里’s a section in our yoga psychology book that deals with 这个 very 是 sue –也就是说,超出我们个人意愿控制范围的事件并不一定超出意识范围。如果以后再有机会,我’ll张贴在论坛上’s too long for 这个 content thread)

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. I would appreciate it if 您 did it, 唐! Though I should just buy 您r book... it'大约是我做的时间...

      删除
    2. 实际上,鲍勃(Bob)认为我所有的笨拙都是让人们买书的计划。实际上,我'我只是一个绝望的混蛋...

      删除
  5. Simm 这里 . 您 say that 品质 -- color, taste, smell, etc. -- are 真实ly "out there"在我们的头脑之外。但是量子物理学家说质量不是"out there" until they are observed; for example Mars has no color until someone 看起来 at it and notices that it 是 red. I still feel that 您 and Einstein make the same error. Please elaborate.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 您 are assuming that the observer 是 inside our heads. The point of what I am saying 是 precisely that our heads are inside the observer (i.e. 意识).

      删除
    2. When 您 dream, 您r "observations" 看到m to be channeled through 您r dreamed-up character, or avatar. Yet, it 是 that character/avatar that 是 inside 您r 意识, not 您r 意识inside them.

      删除
    3. Does that mean that before Pluto was discovered, it existed in the 神的心意? Isn't 意识the 神的心意? Do 您 agree in everything with Bishop Berkeley or 是 there some difference between 您r teaching and his?

      删除
    4. I'm very cautious about the G-word, since there are over 7 billion different definitions for it, most of which wildly different from how I would define it. But if we define 神 as the broader stream of non-self-reflective, non-lucid 意识not localized in the form of "whirlpools,"然后我想冥王星,在任何人发现它之前"whirlpool,"应该确实存在于"mind of 神"至少具有潜力,这正是QM所预测的。那一刻,潜力变成了现实"God" _self-reflectively_ observes Pluto _through one of its 漩涡浴s_. After all, fundamentally there 是 no difference between the stream and the 漩涡浴s in it... it's all just 水 in movement, forming specific patterns.

      删除
    5. 让我补充一下:正如我在书中所讨论的那样,意识的本地化也是“自我反思”或“清醒性”(即,不仅有经验,而且有经验的知识)兴起的手段。没有本地化,就不会有自我反省,头脑是本能的。因此,我上面所说的是,在进行自我反省的观察之前,现实存在于"mind of 神"(argh ...)作为模糊,非清晰的本能。但是一旦"流中的模糊涟漪" corresponding to these potentialities penetrate a 漩涡浴 and enter the field of self-reflection, the potentialities collapse into a specific, LUCID 实际ity. Since 漩涡浴s and stream are, at bottom, the same one 心神, 这个 collapse happens everywhere in a non-local manner, not only inside the 漩涡浴.

      删除
    6. Intense UV rays from a 您ng Sun bombarded life on the early Earth. Some organisms were better than others in dealing with UV light and got a survival advantage over other life forms. Was that already self-reflective observation? Were those early organisms pioneers who discovered the Sun? If not, then when did the Sun exactly emerge from the non-self-reflective potentiality and which organisms were the associated pioneers:? Amebas, worms, mouses, chimps, Neanderthals?

      删除
    7. 在生物学出现之前:现实是一个人的梦想,就好像您在夜晚梦见星星,岩石和尘埃的宇宙一样。在生活之前,太阳在那个梦中作为形象存在。自然,梦想就没有了't self-reflective or lucid (in the same way that 您r ordinary nightly 梦 aren'自反或清醒)。在某些时候,由于思维固有的模式和规律性(即"laws of nature"),一个人的思想分离(分裂)成看似独立的观点,每个人都从自己的角度见证一个梦想。在梦中这种分离或定位的形象是生物学或生命。请注意,分离是一种众所周知的心理现象。分离或本地化也使自我反省或清醒的出现成为了现实,但要付出更大的意识。
      The boundary between life and non-life 是 difficult to pin-point exactly (as viruses alive?). But 这个 difficulty 是 a virtual problem. 那里 are obvious differences between a teddybear and a 真实 bear; between a rock and an ameba. So the point holds fully despite the microscopic gray area.
      See: http://youtu.be/NCzbnuCVpEs

      删除
    8. And who 是 the mysterious observer that 是 capable of self-reflection? Are there two versions of us, a mortal social collection of atoms without free will; and an immortal solitary observer? Is 这个 discussed in 您r book(s)?

      删除
    9. 能自我反省或清醒的人就是我们,也许还有其他生命形式。正如我在“'为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼。'我们的身体只是意识在现实梦中的局部化的形象,而不是意识的成因。像漩涡一样,是水局部化的图像,而不是水的原因。现在,您可以说我们本地化的个人身份是一种幻想。毕竟,除了水本身,漩涡实际上什么都没有。那'water'(一种意识,宽广的胸怀,"宇宙意识" "God,"不是...)就是所有以不可约的方式实际存在的东西。然后你可能会问"那个意识是谁?"但是这个问题的真正含义是什么?一个意识就是所有主观经验的空间。我们可以'解释它,因为它是基本的,首要的。有一种解释需要将某些事物简化为其他事物,但这并没有'保持在基本水平上。物理学承认这一点,唯一的区别是物理学选择推断的不可见实体(量子元场,金属膜等)来考虑基础,而不是意识本身的经验事实。

      删除
    10. And yes, all 这个 是 elaborated upon at length in the book...

      删除
  6. I, Simm, find 这个 interesting. We could also say that a hurricane 是 the image of localization of wind energy. But 是 there any evidence that those 漩涡浴s of 心神 (images of localization of 意识) 真实ly exist? Well, chakras mean 'wheels' in sanskrit, and mandalas are obviously the same thing. Whirlpools are 车轮. Indian mystics claim that chakras appear only when 心神 turns completely inward until all 意识that 是 left 是 pure self-reflection. This 是 discussed in Rawson's book. I remember that 您 mentioned mandalas in Dreamed up 真实ity.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. Uh, now it gets deeper... Mandalas have a much broader symbolism than I intended with the 漩涡浴 metaphor. According to Jungian psychology, mandalas represent the centre of the Self, which 是 much beyond the ego or mere personal 身份.
      The evidence for the existence of a 漩涡浴 of 意识is 您r own 主观 experience: it 看到ms certainly localized and split off from the rest. :)

      删除
  7. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年8月14日,星期四,下午6:26:00

    I guess one 是 sue for me with what 您 say, Bernardo, 是 the idea that 在生物学出现之前,当自我反射的可能性被证明时(生物学实体是潜在地某种程度上或其他自我反射的“源头意识”中的图像),SC是't自我反省。我的意思是,我理解正确吗?

    如果我有,那么SC没有'显然知道或了解自己的潜力。 It 梦 the grand dream, in which everything happens to possess a certain consistency and logic, which at some point localised 意识can investigate and come to know/understand in systematic ways, discovering the existence of what 您 refer to as "模式和规律".

    I难以嘲笑一个SC,该SC可以幻想很多东西,具有一致性,模式和规律性,而无需对其目的做任何有目的的了解。 I mean, my own 意识operates purposely, and if I want to achieve some ordered end, I have to consciously apply some kind of logic to it, and be aware that that's what I'm doing. If 我不't,结果很可能是荒谬的,不是真正起作用。尽管任何可能缺乏自我反省意识,SC的梦想似乎都是相反的。

    当我've said, maybe I'm not understanding 您 correctly and 您 are saying something else. Whatever, my hunch 是 that SC has created a scenario in which it 是 possible for It to manifest as something unaware of Its own plan and aim that 是 capable, eventually, of coming to be so aware of it; capable of coming to know Itself. That 是 , creation becomes the means for SC to experience coming to know Itself, which in the end 是 a rediscovery, or returning home. Maybe it's a way of staving off the cosmic boredom of knowing all that can be known. As Alan Watts put it, a game of cosmic hide-and-seek that can be played out in countless different ways, one of which 是 您, and another, me.

    It 是 这个 philosophical viewpoint, 真实ly, which underlies my belief that our localised 意识es do not cease on physical death; because if they did, there would be no continuing awareness that could experience the return to Source. One could posit other explanatory frameworks, I suppose, but 这个 one 看到ms the most parsimonious to me.

    I'这暗示SC始终了解自己是什么,但已设计了事物,以便它可以同时体验认识自己。如果有's a duality, it'总是知道自己是什么的源与参与了解SC是什么的心理剧中的自身表现之间。它'一个对偶性,当表现形式认识到它不是SC时,在某个点上就消失了。

    我认为不时地,我们中的许多人对此有所了解:也许是自发的,也许是通过精神实践。他们可能还远没有返回家园的全部经验,但是仍然超出了我们的普通认识水平。一些精神传统讲的是"annihilation in 神"在人类还活着的时候,就人类自我的永久死亡进行思考(这确实是一种与分离的区别)。无论是最终的归乡,还是实际上朝着这个方向迈出的一个永久性步骤,我都不会't be able to say.

    In one way, maybe 您 lean to the view that SC 是 self-inventing in time (whereas I lean to the view that SC 是 self-rediscovering in time), through its manifestations? Would that be a fair way of putting it? If we find it hard to understand an SC that can simultaneously be Self-aware and Self-unaware, that may say more about the limitations of our localised viewpoints than anything else. After all, perhaps only through localisation of manifestations of SC could there be the possibility of "amnesia"显然,我们都参与了伟大的心理剧的冒险。

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. "在生物学出现之前,当自我反射的可能性被证明时(生物学实体是潜在地某种程度上或其他自我反射的“源头意识”中的图像),SC是't自我反省"

      至少不像生物学那样具有自反性。

      "如果我有,那么SC没有'显然知道或了解自己的潜力。"

      是的,我相信。

      "难以嘲笑一个SC,该SC可以幻想很多东西,具有一致性,模式和规律性,而无需对其目的做任何有目的的了解。"

      The 模式和规律 are intrinsic to "SC." They are what "SC"只是_is_。他们不'不需要在清晰,自觉的水平上进行计划,预谋或故意。他们发生了"by themselves," like 您 beat 您r heart and grow 您r fingernails without being self-reflectively aware of it.

      "In one way, maybe 您 lean to the view that SC 是 self-inventing in time (whereas I lean to the view that SC 是 self-rediscovering in time)"

      自我反省地意识到自己的内在本质,即变得清醒,是自我发现的一种形式,而不是自我发明的形式。

      删除
    2. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年8月15日星期五2:18:00 AM

      OK: self-discovery. And I think I get what 您 are saying about the 模式和规律 being simply what SC 是 . Maybe 您 are right, who knows; it has a certain logical consistency. I guess we have to follow our own intuition about such things.

      My intuition tells me that 您r interpretation 是 indicating that self-reflection 是 an emergent property of SC; that in a sense it 是 pre-adapted for such emergence. While I I'尽管没有以与唯物主义者相同的方式使用“出现”一词,但似乎涉及偶然性因素。也许吧'我对灵性的特别看法是对这个想法的怀疑。随便我'我会自由地承认我不't know whether my intuition 是 correct, and I do think I am somewhat clearer about what 您r intuition 是 telling 您, hence I'm glad I posted and that 您 responded, so thanks.

      删除
  8. Is the death of the body/mind the same as the dissolution of a localized 漩涡浴 or the dissolution of an image in 意识?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 我不'认为思想(从某种意义上说"consciousness") ever 死, because it 是 irreducible. That said, 我想我 know what 您 mean (you say "mind" in the sense of "thoughts").

      The 漩涡浴 _is_ the image of a process of localization in 意识. If the process of localization ends (which 是 what physical death 是 ), its image also dissipates. And for as long as the process doesn'最后,它的形象表现出来。所以我'd answer 您r question by saying: both.

      删除
    2. 必须作出这一重要的澄清,身体的死亡不会't follow the death or end of universal 意识but it does signify (that 是 the death of the body) the end of a localized 意识. 让'庆贺我们的本质是永恒的提议,但同时也要记住我们的个人现实或'whirlpool' 是 not. Thanks!

      删除
    3. 人们喜欢听,并且会很容易地订阅“没有死亡”的口号。这与某些承诺永恒生命的宗教系统没有什么不同。再次感谢!

      删除
    4. I agree, but 这个 differentiation may become unimportant and academic after the fact of physical death, for the same reason that the end of 您r dreamed-up 真实ity upon waking up 是 n't important after 您 are awake (imagine how scary it would be if someone told 您 dreamed-up character that his entire 真实ity would vanish into thin air the moment a magical device called an "alarm clock" decided to go off?). What 您 truly are, and were all along, continues anyway. That's all that matters.

      删除
    5. Hmm, it sounds like 您'说我死后"I"不见了。这比唯物主义好吗?我要努力学习什么?如果我没有智慧,那会有什么不同?而且,如果我死时我走了,为什么在接近死亡的经历中那个人没有走?
      I understand what 您 mean about the brain localizing 意识which 是 unbound without a brain, but it might not be that simple. Despite loss of the brain, there might still be a subtle membrane of the soul, that contains the individual 意识, although in a much more free state.

      删除
    6. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年8月17日,星期日,4:40:00

      我个人认为's correct that when 您r ego 死, it 死. But 您r essence doesn't. 当我 recall, Bernardo mentions 这个 possibility in his membrane metaphor; some underlying structure might persist, which can support a different ego (if reincarnation happens). This underlying structure 是 what has the true potential to evolve, and the egoic self 是 meant to be something that enables us to experience what we call life and thereby advance our evolution. For whatever reason, experiencing what we call organic life as a localised 意识helps in doing that.

      It'这与苏非主义这样的精神传统不同,其目的是"die before 您 die"也就是说,在肉体死亡之前先经历自我的死亡。在某种程度上,非双重状态'我们经常看到它的描述,可能与此类似;但我怀疑 '不是人类可能达到的最终状态。要使这种意识与自我结合起来,可能需要一段时间,才能使人们的生活达到最佳状态,我认为这是为人类服务的重要元素。在新约中刻画的耶稣的人是完成这种服务的综合人的偶像。我认为可能还有更多人以各种方式有意识地服务。耶稣有他自己特殊的作案手法,我们称之为预言传统。其他人可能拥有表面上完全不同的MO,即使它们对服务的贡献不可或缺,在人类历史或文化中也可能没有受到赞誉。

      我们都可以在某种程度上服务,即使它'只有成为一个平衡,守法的人,为社会的整体福祉作出贡献。这样的社会有助于支持其所有成员的精神进化。随着时间的流逝,我们've probably become somewhat better at 产生 such societies, though probably still have a fair way to go.

      删除
    7. 我猜 depends on what 您 mean by essence. For that mater, I have heard people speak of ego for 40 years, but I still don't 真实ly know what anyone means. I understand that much of what I identify with as myself 是 a temporary affair relating to 这个 particular lifetime and its circumstances, which if I survive bodily death would certainly fade out in time, but if the ego 死, who 是 it that 进化?

      删除
    8. I think ego 是 a way of expressing 您rself rather than an entity in it'自己的权利。当我们死去时,我认为我们的个性和自我感会保持原样,但是由于我们发现自己处在一个截然不同的环境中,因此表达自我的方式也会随之改变。

      删除
    9. 我猜 depends on what 您 mean by essence. People use the word ego, but what does that 真实ly mean? My 身份 in 这个 life 是 of course made up of many temporary and unimportant details which will surely fade into insignificance after I die, but who 是 it that 'evolves'?

      删除
    10. 一个东西写道:"Hmm, it sounds like 您'说我死后"I" am gone."

      没有!反之。我认为你是真的'I' 是 never gonne, because it 是 意识itself, the very field of subjectivity that 是 您. What 死 是 the belief in the stories 您 told 您rself about who or what 您 are. When 您 wake up from a dream, 您r no longer believe in the stories 您 told 您rself about who 您 were in the dream. But the true 'you' survives and doesn'不在乎他没有't believe in the fundamental 真实ity of 您r dreamed-up avatar anymore ("it was just a dream!"). That'我认为身体死亡会发生什么。我想在本书的第7章或第8章中详细讨论这个问题(为什么唯物主义是Baloney)。书中讨论了许多这里要问的问题。

      删除
    11. 自我是什么?根据某些幻影,中间人和似乎记得自己前世的孩子的情况,看来死后坚持人类个性的可能性更大:意识,记忆,动机等,可以称为自我。

      删除
  9. 嗨,伯纳多,我'm following 您r work and I have a question. 您 say that there 是 没有 that it's like to be a glass of 水 and I get what 您 mean but when a person 死, surely there 是 没有 it 是 like to be their cremated body (for example). A cremated body might be what unconsciousness 看起来 like. If 您 perceive a glass of 水 as being in 意识but not conscious then why do 您 not also perceive ashes as in 意识but not conscious?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. I think Bernardo would 看到 also perceive ashes as in 意识but not conscious. What has he said that makes 您 think he wouldn't?

      删除
    2. Bernardo suggests that 意识continues after death but if the body becomes ashes then 是 that not the image of something that was once conscious and 是 now unconscious? Bernardo says that a brain 是 what 意识looks like. I'我说的是一种无意识的死尸。

      删除
    3. I think it 是 没有 more complicated than a living brain/body 是 the images of 意识and a dead brain/body 是 an image that 是 no longer conscious. Just because a dead body 看起来 very similar to an alive body, for a while at least, doesn'这意味着它必须是具有相同意识属性的图像。如果这样做了,那么看起来完全像一个身体的纯合成身体就必须要有意识。

      删除
    4. 贝尔纳多提到了身体的其他可能尺寸,并且也许虽然可以放弃3维尺寸的物体,但物体的更高尺寸现实可能会继续存在。那's the only thing I've heard Bernardo say which could explain why 意识continues after the death of the body. Stephen 您 看到m to be agreeing with me above but using different wording. How does 意识continue after the death of the body according to Bernardo then? Remember, a living brain/body 是 what 意识looks like. A dead brain/body 是 an image that 是 no longer conscious. 那里fore 意识ends with death. If anyone knows how to get around 这个 please comment.

      删除
    5. 我不't think it follows that 意识ends with death it just moves into a different dream with a different image.

      删除
    6. I think the living body 是 the image of a _localized segment of_ 意识, not of 意识as such. Consciousness 是 the 水, not any particular 漩涡浴. When the body 死, that particular segment of 意识-- a particular 漩涡浴 in the stream -- de-localizes. The 漩涡浴 dissolves. But 意识doesn't disappear for exactly the same reason that 水 doesn't disappear when the 漩涡浴 dissolves. It simply becomes de-localized. The dead body 是 merely an echo of the localization process that 是 no longer happening. Back to the stream analogy, a dead body 是 simply the disturbances -- ripples -- in the stream originally created by the 漩涡浴, and which continue to propagate in the stream after the 漩涡浴 dissolves.

      Now, the other question 是 whether 意识can still remain partly localized after the body 死. That 是 what 您 refer to when 您 talk of a hyper-dimensional body that transcends our five senses. That, speculatively speaking, may be the case. It could be that the body 是 merely a _partial_ image of the 漩涡浴. The dissolution of the body may imply merely a dissolution of certain (visible) aspects of the 漩涡浴, but not the 漩涡浴 as a whole. Be it as it may, the bottom line 是 that 意识itself -- the field of subjectivity that 是 您r inner-most 'I' -- never disappears, for exactly the same reason that 水 never disappears even if all 漩涡浴s and ripples dissolve completely everywhere.

      删除
    7. I'm not quite sure what 您 are asking but cremated ashes like any other collection of atoms have a limited 意识but are at the same time IN 意识. The so called physical body 是 a vehicle an entity uses for a period of time. An entity has various subtle bodies over and above the physical. When the physical body 'dies' the controlling entity vacates that structure which then breaks down into lessor components. All components used to build the universe from the very smallest to the most sophisticated lifeforms have a degree of 意识or intelligence according to their position in a hierarchy of evolution.
      MK

      删除
    8. Thank 您 for 您r response Bernardo. I can now visualize 意识and its localisations now whereas I couldn't before as 我没有'不能完全理解。也感谢其他所有人的见解。

      删除
  10. So how does 意识experience colours and form etc if it 是 not through the brain? 您 看到m to dismiss the role of the brain in how we perceive 真实ity as a materialist fantasy, but surely what the materialist describes 是 exactly what happens, it 是 just that from an idealist's point of view it happens inside 意识. 您 看到m to argue that it doesn't happen at all, that 意识somehow experiences colours and forms directly, not via the brain?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. The brain 是 merely the image of a process of 意识localization, like a 漩涡浴 in a stream. Empirical 真实ity are the ripples in the broader stream, which can penetrate several 漩涡浴s, injecting similar information in each of them. As the ripples penetrate the 漩涡浴, they can be distorted in unique ways by the internal flow dynamics of each individual 漩涡浴. This explains how two people can interpret or recall the same events in different ways: from the ego's perspective, what 是 being experienced 是 the compound interaction between the original ripple that penetrated the 漩涡浴 and the internal dynamics of the 漩涡浴 itself. This interaction 是 idiosyncratic and unique to each 漩涡浴. All 这个 是 explained at length in chapter 4 of 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼, and in an even better way in chapter 6 (with the vibrating membrane metaphor, which 是 superior to the 漩涡浴 one). I encourage 您 to read that book because 您 are asking all the right questions.
      Yet, notice that all 漩涡浴s and all ripples are still just the movement of 水 in the stream. 那里 是 没有 to any 漩涡浴 or to any ripple but 水 in movement. In the analogy, the 水 是 意识itself. So there 是 没有 to 真实ity but 意识in movement, which 是 what we call 主观 经验。

      删除
  11. 我已经两次发表评论/问题,并且两次说过我的评论已发布,但尚未发布。

    回复删除
  12. If I have 这个 right...

    From 这个, what "we"是对连续梦境般的环境的特殊见解。我们不是我们的思想,行动或观念;这些出现"within us". We 推断 that there 是 a solid, underlying world that causes these experiences, although we never 实际ly experience 这个 directly.

    根据意愿,我们可以任意分配我们的'identity'体验的一部分,将其与某些时空限制相关联。我们确定'us'延伸至动觉感的空间极限,但没有超越,我们认为'us doing something'在一定时间范围内发生的意图体验和结果体验。 (尽管事实上,我们不'故意将我们的大多数行动单独计划在内;我们经历他们)

    When 您 die - possibly - the experience of bodily sensations might fade along with 您r anchoring or localisation to a particular perspective, revealing that 您 were not these things after all.

    只要我们抛开 考虑 在第三人称视角中的现实体验,而是站在 存在或拥有 the experience of 真实ity in the 1st person, 这个 works. All good so far.

    但是,这仍然给我带来了一个问题:如果我所经历的(作为意识)有效地'mental objects' arising within me - and everyone else, because there 是 just one continuous 意识- how come I encounter illusions? How can I mistake a rope for a snake, and so on? And how can I 看到 a snake when at the same time another reports 看到ing a rope? This implies some 'mechanism'将我对物体的直接体验与物体的体验区分开来'true nature',从某种意义上讲-并且在给定时间的观点之间可能会有所不同吗?

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. >> From 这个, what "we"是对连续梦境般的环境的特殊见解。我们不是我们的思想,行动或观念;这些出现"within us". We 推断 that there 是 a solid, underlying world that causes these experiences, although we never 实际ly experience 这个 directly. <<

      是!究竟!

      >> 根据意愿,我们可以任意分配我们的'identity'体验的一部分,将其与某些时空限制相关联。我们确定'us'延伸至动觉感的空间极限,但没有超越,我们认为'us doing something'在一定时间范围内发生的意图体验和结果体验。<<

      是!究竟!

      >> When 您 die - possibly - the experience of bodily sensations might fade along with 您r anchoring or localisation to a particular perspective, revealing that 您 were not these things after all. <<

      YES! Just like when 您 wake up from a dream, and 真实ize that it was the dream within 您, not 您 withint he dream, all along.

      删除
    2. >>但是,这仍然给我带来了一个问题:如果我所经历的(作为意识)有效地'mental objects' arising within me - and everyone else, because there 是 just one continuous 意识- how come I encounter illusions? How can I mistake a rope for a snake, and so on? And how can I 看到 a snake when at the same time another reports 看到ing a rope? This implies some 'mechanism'将我对物体的直接体验与物体的体验区分开来'true nature',从某种意义上讲-并且在给定时间的观点之间可能有所不同吗?<<

      为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼的第四章对此进行了解释。每个特定的,本地化的'point-of-view'梦中的内在也有自己的局部经验-内在意识的局部激发'whirlpool' -- in the form of 思想, interpretations, conclusions, opinions, views, etc. Moreover, each localized 观点看法 may also have a distorted perspective on the excitations of 意识-at-large. The distortion happens when mental excitations transition from the collective, obfuscated segment of 心神 that 'dreams'共识现实,直至我们称为自我的本地化,私有化的思想领域。幻觉只是自我所解释的这种特有的,可能被扭曲的兴奋,就像一个扭曲,被错误解释,被错误回忆的梦一样。从根本上讲,这仍然是意识的激发,就像共识现实一样。但这不是共享的激励。相反,它是私有的。幻想和共识事实之间的区别仅在于此:前者是一个私人梦想,而后者是一个共同的梦想。从根本上讲,它们是相同的,只是共享程度不同。这本书对此作了更好的解释。

      删除
  13. Yes I share 您r final question and 实际ly posted it as part of a discussion that 是 going on on Bernardo's discussion forum - although 您 have expressed the question far more eloquently than I did.
    //groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/metaphysical-speculations/w-nPePPcTjk

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼的第四章对此进行了解释。每个特定的,本地化的'point-of-view'梦中的内在也有自己的局部经验-内在意识的局部激发'whirlpool' -- in the form of 思想, interpretations, conclusions, opinions, views, etc. Moreover, each localized 观点看法 may also have a distorted perspective on the excitations of 意识-at-large. The distortion happens when mental excitations transition from the collective, obfuscated segment of 心神 that 'dreams'共识现实,直至我们称为自我的本地化,私有化的思想领域。幻觉只是自我所解释的这种特有的,可能被扭曲的兴奋,就像一个扭曲,被错误解释,被错误回忆的梦一样。从根本上讲,这仍然是意识的激发,就像共识现实一样。但这不是共享的激励。相反,它是私有的。幻想和共识事实之间的区别仅在于此:前者是一个私人梦想,而后者是一个共同的梦想。从根本上讲,它们是相同的,只是共享程度不同。这本书对此作了更好的解释。

      删除
  14. Additional thought which I find brings 这个 into direct experience: Hold 您r hand up in front of 您. Is that 您r 真实 手?如果没有,哪里 您r 真手? Can 您 point to it where it 是 ? (If 您 then find 您rself pointing to 您r head, to indicate 您r brain, then 您 can do the same thing starting with the question, "Where 是 您r 真实 head?")

    If 您 think there 是 a "real hand" that 是 the underlying source for the experience of 看到ing 您r hand in front of 您, then 您 are forced to admit that 这个 "real hand" 是 outside of all experience, in some parallel other place that 您 can never access or have direct evidence for. It 是 effectively a convenient fiction.

    另一种方法是访问没有"real hand"除了手的经验-或者 除了体验,不可能有意义地谈论任何其他事情,可能略有不同。

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 但是以你的手为例'增加了一些其他观察者,以反映我们在共同现实中生活的实际经验。让's假设您站在手边,而站在雪地里的外面。一只驯鹿注视着您的手,在与之形成鲜明对比的紫外线下看到一个黑影,尽管我们可以't,那反射着你周围的雪。一条经过的科罗拉多con蛇看到你的手'的热量再次与使用它的冷空气和雪形成鲜明对比'的红外传感器。一位新时代的治疗师看着您的手,并看到周围有不同颜色的光环。一位科学家用显微镜观察并看到您手部的各个皮肤细胞。另一个人则拍摄您的手的X射线图像并看到您的骨头。

      每个观察者都有独特的体验和独特的图像,但是在同一时刻只有一只手处于同一共享现实框架中。我们如何才能逃脱一个结论,即存在一个被不同观察者以不同方式感知的潜在现实的结论?为什么我们要避免这个结论呢?

      Each conscious observer 是 receiving data and co-constructing an image from that data. Data would 看到m to be a sensible proposition as to what the underlying 真实ity may be and quantum mechanics supports 这个.

      The question of whether 这个 underlying data arises from an overarching 意识or not can then be discussed. But to say that all the images of our perception are just exactly as they appear and just arise directly from Mind/consciousness 是 真实ly not saying anything at all.

      删除
    2. 史蒂芬

      说所有现实都在意识中,并不是说在自我内部存在感知到的现实。在《为什么唯物论是鲍洛尼》中,我竭尽全力地解释了这一点。显然,有一个潜在的,共享的现实来源超越了个人的自我,这正是您坚定地解释的原因。但这并不与这样的共享现实不是外界意识的主张相矛盾。意识不仅限于自我,否则你不会't experience 您r 梦 and nightmares -- or schizophrenic visions, if 您 have those -- as something being created outside 您, even though they are obviously only in 您r 意识. That the human psyche 是 fragmented into segments, some of which we do not identify with or control, 是 an empirical fact in depth psychology.

      >> The question of whether 这个 underlying data arises from an overarching 意识or not can then be discussed. <<

      Idealism states that it does arise from a collective, overarching segment of 意识. The interpretation and recollection of what arises can then vary from ego to ego, for exactly the same reason that we (i.e. our egos) misinterpret or mis-recall our nightly 梦, believing them to have been or meant something other than they 实际ly were or meant.

      >>但是,要说我们感知的所有图像都与它们的出现完全一样,并且仅是由思维/意识直接产生的,实际上根本没有说什么。<<

      Here 您 are saying two different things. Our 知觉 are exactly as they appear insofar as egoic 意识is concerned. But yes, 知觉 within egoic 意识ultimately arise from a deeper, collective, obfuscated segment of our psyches (similar to that which generates 梦 and visions). And that means that they still arise from Mind/consciousness, even not from the ego. 您 看到m to be suggesting a contradiction above that doesn't 真实ly exist. It 是 true, however, that, when experiences arising from 这个 deeper segment of 心神 penetrate the ego, distortions can occur in that transition. The ego can recall or interpret things in its own distorted, idiosyncratic way. This 是 analogous to how we (i.e. our egos) recall or interpret the meaning of our 梦 in distorted ways.

      删除
  15. 我想谈几点。

    1主要问题是,一切都沦为一种选择:在理想主义和唯物主义(或二元论)之间进行选择,但在我看来,并没有令人信服的理由去追求一个或另一个,因为一切都简化为看起来更直观但直觉不能成为一个很好的指导,或者可能是。

    2我主要感兴趣的是找出是否有来世,其本质是什么,但是说接受理想主义是更明智的,唯心主义没有理由排除来世的存在是完全不足的。首先,没有办法知道理想主义在第一点上是否正确。其次,即使理想主义与来世的存在相容,也不能告诉我们是否确实存在来世。为此,需要进行经验研究,就像心理学研究人员所做的那样。但是这项研究在形而上学上是中立的,因为来世仍然与唯物主义相适应,因为我们可以想象我们在生物生命中的现象世界是由我们的大脑造成的,但是在我们死亡的情况下,现象世界将是​​由第二个身体(以太体)引起的,对此有证据。

    3. 漩涡浴 metaphor suggests that our individuality disappears after death, which conflicts with some NDEs, some cases of apparitions, mediumship and children who 看到m to remember their past lives.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. 我认为您提出了一些有趣的观点。经验证据必须在评估任何理论的价值和准确性中发挥重要作用。我认为,无损检测和OBE的有力证据对于唯物主义者而言更成问题,因为这些经验本质上是非物理的。但是,现在,科学家们开始慢慢接受这样一个事实,即所谓的物理现实实际上是基于最基本水平的信息,因此应该使他们对其他方面更加开放'non-physical'经验的维度也从根本上由信息产生。将所有现实作为基本虚拟现实的新模型可能是唯物主义者和理想主义者找到比他们目前所接受的更为普遍的基础的前进之路。

      删除
    2. 我强烈反对你的观点1。它为N'根本不是对称选择。经验的质量是存在的唯一确定的经验性事实。外界经验是一种推断,而不是经验本身那样的经验事实。因此,如果我们能够在没有额外推断的情况下解释所有现实-而不将整个宇宙置于任何人所知的唯一现实载体之外-那么这就是最好的解释。以完全相同的方式,可以想象飞行的意大利面条怪兽可以解释世界的创造,但我们没有'不需要额外的假设来理解这个星球。选择是'•对称:在两种情况下,简约和理性的标准清楚地确定了首选方案。

      Regarding 2, Idealism, as I formulate it, implies in the continuation of 意识-- albeit in a different, less localized state -- after physical death. That 是 an 'afterlife,' even if articulated in a less romantic manner. So if 您 accept idealism as I formulate it, 您 necessarily accept a form of afterlife.

      Regarding 3: physical death, under my formulation of idealism, implies a partial de-localization of 意识because the physical body 是 the image of a process of 意识localization. But I go to great pains in the book to emphasize that 这个 image 是 not necessarily complete; that it 是 most likely a partial image. As such, physical death 是 likely a _partial_ de-localization of 意识, not a complete one. A form of more diffuse individuality may persist after bodily dissolution, which would be consistent with NDE reports. In the book, I elaborate on 这个 quite explicitly.

      删除
    3. 1. But the only thing that 是 not 推断ential 是 my 意识here and now: the past, the future, other 意识and meta-consciousness remains 推断ential in idealism, so the situation 是 symmetrical, because both idealism and 真实ism are unprovable and only can be 假定, not proven.

      2. Idealism under 您r formulation has no reason to discard an 来世 but 这个 是 not the same as that involving an afterlife.

      3.好的,但这需要从实证研究开始,例如,研究幻影和媒介,而不是从形而上学的推测。

      删除
  16. 有趣的文章和优点,但是我'd challenge 您r logic regarding the conclusion that "your 意识—你的主观感觉—在您身体死亡时将不复存在".

    您说如果所有现实都是意识,并且您的身体和大脑都是您意识中的形象,那么"consciousness —你的主观感觉—在您身体死亡时将不复存在"。但是我认为这在逻辑上是有缺陷的。的逻辑含义"你的身体在你的意识中" 是 : "if 意识ceases to exists, then 您r body would also cease to exists"。相反,不一定是正确的,因为逻辑告诉我们。因此,您只能说:"upon 您r physical death, 您r 意识will not _necessarily_ cease to exist"-也就是说,它可能不存在,也可能不停止存在,这确实与唯物主义观点大相径庭(这必然意味着肉体死亡也是良知作为其产物的终结)。

    I think 这个 distinction 是 important and does not weaken 您r arguments. Proving that the converse 是 also true 是 a very different matter, 您 might have discussed it elsewhere.

    回复删除
    回覆
    1. The point 是 that, if it 是 the body that 是 in 意识and not the other way around, then __we simply have no reason whatsoever__ to associate the dissolution of the body to a hypothetical dissolution of 意识. 您 have no reason to think that 您 will go blind if the person 您 are watching turns around the corner and disappears from view; 您 have no reason to think that 您 will go deaf if the song playing in the radio stops. For exactly the same reason, 您 have no reason to think that 您r 意识will disappear if 您r body dissolves.

      Strictly speaking, I understand what 您're saying. But it 看到ms to me a bit like hair-splitting.

      删除