Addiction

03-03-2000, 12:00 PM

> >The mental process is such a tremendous addiction. I know that *any*
> contents of *any* thought is unreal.
>
> >To cope with this * unsatisfying situation*, the mind keeps on saying not
to
> make any distinctions anymore which in itself is just another distinction
!
>
> This is nice! And it is so, not only for apples, bosses and schoolbusses,
but
> also for thoughts. If, like you say, any content of any thought is unreal,
> then thoughts themselves aren't real!

What's unreal? Is thought unreal? Perhaps it's more specific to say that the
observer's assumption that [s]he IS THOUGHT is what is false.

The senses report information to the brain. The senses are limited bandwidth
channels. In other words the information they report is only a limited
representation of the external world. Sight only reports a range of the
electromagnetic spectrum, hearing has frequency limits, touch/smell/taste
are all limited: your dog or the hawk in the sky have far superior smell &
sight interfaces. Furthermore some animals have sense interfaces that humans
don't even have: the shark & platypus (trying to play to the crowd down
under!) sense the nervous system electrical activity of their prey. And
apparently the goose has a built in magnetic compass for navigation.

So there's no argument: the senses are limited, but saying that sense
reports are "unreal" is an overstatement.

When the brain processes sensory input it attempts to match the incoming
data to stored patterns in memory. So the rope on a dark night may first fit
the general pattern of a snake and be reported as such. But we shouldn't
generalize this presumptive pattern matching as "unreal". The rope was
there, only the initial report was presumptive. Having had a close encounter
with a poisonous snake recently, I am quite pleased with the build-in
sensitivity we have for snake detection! An occasional false report is
acceptable in achieving a more rapid response in an emergency!

Memories are limited, they are only partial electro/chemical representations
of some past event, never a complete representation, how could the brain
even receive a complete report when the senses are limited? Furthermore,
memories can drift, degrade, merge, combine with time or sprout from
imagination. But we can't generalize all memory as "unreal", let's
understand it for what it is, a recording media with limitations.

Each human unit comes with a built in biological computer and it's
programmed to ensure the survival & prosperity of that individual unit.
Scientists have located various areas of the brain responsible for these
functions: it's all biological, chemical, electrical. You accomplish
something that furthers the biological goals of the organism and as a reward
pleasure causing chemicals are released by certain centers in the brain. But
this computer can only act on the limited inputs from memory & sense
reporting: garbage in, garbage out.

Thought is part of the operation of this biological computer. But, I don't
think we can jump to the conclusion that "thought is unreal", it might be
garbage but that's different than being unreal. Thought can be measured
electrically, so it does exist. Thought has it's place, it's part of the
biological organism. Enlightened people still think! right? So thought is
not the problem, it's our relationship to thought/emotion that's the key
issue.

Our assumption is that we (if I may use 'we' & 'our' presumptively) are
thought/ego/emotion, our assumption is that we are biological. But that's
false: chop off your foot and you're still you right? Remove even major
portions of the body and you're still you at least before the biological
organism shuts down down due to the damage. As a child in a developing body
you were the same 'you' that you are now? right? You were 'you' before
cultural, religious, economic indoctrination, and before the arrival of
adult responsibilities, before you were told that Jesus is going to save
you...

We observe the workings of the biological organism: thought, emotion,
senses, pleasure, pain... How can you be what you observe? If you can
observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation
between the observer and the object under observation. Pain & pleasure are
chemical & electrical. But that does not mean that they are "unreal".
Thought/emotion are biological events in the organism. They aren't 'unreal',
they are biological. The key seems to be: our essence isn't biological. Can
we understand this truth so deeply & thoroughly that the false
identification with the body ceases?

Roger

03-03-2000, 01:52 PM

Greg, chiming in with Hans, wrote:
>> This is nice! And it is so, not only for apples, bosses and schoolbusses,
>> but also for thoughts. If, like you say, any content of any thought is
unreal,
>> then thoughts themselves aren't real!

Roger writes:
>What's unreal? Is thought unreal? Perhaps it's more specific to say that the
>observer's assumption that [s]he IS THOUGHT is what is false.
>
>The senses report information to the brain. The senses are limited bandwidth
>channels. In other words the information they report is only a limited
>representation of the external world. Sight only reports a range of the
>electromagnetic spectrum, hearing has frequency limits, touch/smell/taste
>are all limited: your dog or the hawk in the sky have far superior smell &
>sight interfaces.

Yes, this is the pre-quantum physics view of scientific realism. According
to it, the world really exists, and really causes our ideas of it. In
short, perhaps innacurately so, this view says that mind activity is the
result of brain activity, which is the result of biological and physical
processes. This view itself is being abandoned by scientists these days,
partly because of results of quantum mechanics. Scientists are seeing that
the process of observation itself actually affects the observed phenomena.
There are others on this list (maybe you too, Roger) who have much more
information on this topic than I.

But part of the investigation into freedom, nonduality, etc., is the
investigation and questioning of presuppositions and habitual ideas. So
then this realist world-view is a great candidate to question. The notions
of reality and unreality are other good candidates to throw into the hopper
as well. Usually, advaitic non-dual approach uses the word "real" to mean
"unchanging, permanent, independent" and uses the word "unreal" to mean
"changeable, impermanent, dependent upon something other than itself for
existence." It comes out that consciousness is real, and everything else
is unreal if seen separate from consciousness.

So -- sensory modalities, biology, physics, thoughts, information, external
objects, all that stuff. We do science with it. But how can any of it be
any more or less real than any of the rest?

--Greg

03-03-2000, 02:14 PM

From: "Roger Isaacs"

> >The mental process is such a tremendous addiction. I know that *any*
> contents of *any* thought is unreal.
>
> >To cope with this * unsatisfying situation*, the mind keeps on saying not
to
> make any distinctions anymore which in itself is just another distinction
!
>
> This is nice! And it is so, not only for apples, bosses and schoolbusses,
but
> also for thoughts. If, like you say, any content of any thought is unreal,
> then thoughts themselves aren't real!

What's unreal? Is thought unreal? Perhaps it's more specific to say that the
observer's assumption that [s]he IS THOUGHT is what is false.

The senses report information to the brain. The senses are limited bandwidth
channels. In other words the information they report is only a limited
representation of the external world. Sight only reports a range of the
electromagnetic spectrum, hearing has frequency limits, touch/smell/taste
are all limited: your dog or the hawk in the sky have far superior smell &
sight interfaces. Furthermore some animals have sense interfaces that humans
don't even have: the shark & platypus (trying to play to the crowd down
under!) sense the nervous system electrical activity of their prey. And
apparently the goose has a built in magnetic compass for navigation.

So there's no argument: the senses are limited, but saying that sense
reports are "unreal" is an overstatement.

When the brain processes sensory input it attempts to match the incoming
data to stored patterns in memory. So the rope on a dark night may first fit
the general pattern of a snake and be reported as such. But we shouldn't
generalize this presumptive pattern matching as "unreal". The rope was
there, only the initial report was presumptive. Having had a close encounter
with a poisonous snake recently, I am quite pleased with the build-in
sensitivity we have for snake detection! An occasional false report is
acceptable in achieving a more rapid response in an emergency!

Memories are limited, they are only partial electro/chemical representations
of some past event, never a complete representation, how could the brain
even receive a complete report when the senses are limited? Furthermore,
memories can drift, degrade, merge, combine with time or sprout from
imagination. But we can't generalize all memory as "unreal", let's
understand it for what it is, a recording media with limitations.

Each human unit comes with a built in biological computer and it's
programmed to ensure the survival & prosperity of that individual unit.
Scientists have located various areas of the brain responsible for these
functions: it's all biological, chemical, electrical. You accomplish
something that furthers the biological goals of the organism and as a reward
pleasure causing chemicals are released by certain centers in the brain. But
this computer can only act on the limited inputs from memory & sense
reporting: garbage in, garbage out.

Thought is part of the operation of this biological computer. But, I don't
think we can jump to the conclusion that "thought is unreal", it might be
garbage but that's different than being unreal. Thought can be measured
electrically, so it does exist. Thought has it's place, it's part of the
biological organism. Enlightened people still think! right? So thought is
not the problem, it's our relationship to thought/emotion that's the key
issue.

Our assumption is that we (if I may use 'we' & 'our' presumptively) are
thought/ego/emotion, our assumption is that we are biological. But that's
false: chop off your foot and you're still you right? Remove even major
portions of the body and you're still you at least before the biological
organism shuts down down due to the damage. As a child in a developing body
you were the same 'you' that you are now? right? You were 'you' before
cultural, religious, economic indoctrination, and before the arrival of
adult responsibilities, before you were told that Jesus is going to save
you...

We observe the workings of the biological organism: thought, emotion,
senses, pleasure, pain... How can you be what you observe? If you can
observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation
between the observer and the object under observation. Pain & pleasure are
chemical & electrical. But that does not mean that they are "unreal".
Thought/emotion are biological events in the organism. They aren't 'unreal',
they are biological. The key seems to be: our essence isn't biological. Can
we understand this truth so deeply & thoroughly that the false
identification with the body ceases?

Roger

geovani> And the brain itself is what Roger? Is it
diferent from sense inputs? Through what chanel
do we "perceive" the brain that would not be through
the senses? No. There is not a "another" real world
"out there". This assumption is the basic duality of man.

regards

-geo-