To which you replied: Yeah, that’s my point. This doesn’t demonstrate that it is separate from existence but is an inherent part of all of it. Especially since, “it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way.” This is why I complained about the ‘artificial split.’ You keep wanting to insist that the ‘intangible’ is something that is somehow ‘apart’ from reality, which you keep separating into ‘material’ existence and ‘immaterial’ (i.e., consciousness) when everything you say demonstrates it is all HERE. It is all part of this (necessarily redundant) reality.
Except for the fact that you don’t appear to grasp my point WRT the “artificial split,” we do not seem to be disagreeing about much here. The “artificial split” is not a property of nature per se; it is a property of mind intending objects. There is a part of reality that seems to be intangible – mind, consciousness; but I never said it was “apart from reality.” Evan Harris Walker, in his book The Physics of Consciousness, describes consciousness as real, but non-physical -- i.e., as intangible or, in common street parlance, "immaterial."
There is something rather “mysterious” about the observer; for “he” causes state vector collapse. (I assume that laws operating at the quantum level are the same as those that operate at the macro level. But we are not yet quite clear what that actually means at the macro level.)
You quote the I Ching, “everything that exists must extend beyond itself from the realm of the visible to that of the invisible.” Moreover, you state that “the principle (of consciousness) exists, so it exists as part of the Universe. For me, for you, for everything else for all I know. Who’s to say it isn’t an inherent property of the Universe?”
Well, not me. But then, who’s to say that specifically located individual consciousness is not itself also an “inherent property of the universe?” In making a choice from among a set of possibilities, we set up a cascade of events that extends well beyond the securing of our intended goal, events that run invisibly away from us, like ripples spreading over the surface of a pond….
The dualistic idealism that you seem to attribute to me is not the last word about how I conceive of this issue. I have already confessed to be a “closet monist!” :^)
Here’s a rather striking comment from Walker that you might like:
"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."
The passage strikes me as fine grist for an extended meditation....
Fine, then we agree there is no supernatural source for consciousness. THAT was my point.
Evan Harris Walker, in his book The Physics of Consciousness, describes consciousness as real, but non-physical -- i.e., as intangible or, in common street parlance, "immaterial."
It wasn't the definition I had a problem with, but you seemed to be saying that since it was 'immaterial' it must have some 'other source' than the natural world. If I have this wrong then we agree.
Well, not me. But then, who’s to say that specifically located individual consciousness is not itself also an “inherent property of the universe?”
Yes, precisely. I see no reason to make the distinction.
In making a choice from among a set of possibilities, we set up a cascade of events that extends well beyond the securing of our intended goal, events that run invisibly away from us, like ripples spreading over the surface of a pond….
What lovely poetry you write.
The dualistic idealism that you seem to attribute to me is not the last word about how I conceive of this issue. I have already confessed to be a “closet monist!” :^)
Whether it is 'dualistic idealism' or not I don't really know or care. Sometimes I think people are too quick to name other people's beliefs, so that once they get that 'handle' on it they now know everything about it, and are then free to ridicule it. Happens to me all the time. I don't really want to go back and drag up the words where you were questioning me about how consciousness could arise in the purely material natural world, but for me 'purely material' begs the question that it is 'purely material' and this was the point I was making. If you agree it isn't necessarily purely material then fine.
"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."
This was along the lines expressed by Jung when first observing the vast African plain with its writhing mass of wildabeasts, zebras, lions, elephants, giraffes, gazelles and all the rest. He said this was why we existed in the first place, because without an observer none of that would have existed either.
As for the quote itself, it is fine as poetry. First he says,There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. then he says, "Our observation – our coming together – created matter." which is an utter contradiction. If it wasn't 'created' then there wasn't anything to 'come together' and if it was created by observation, then it cannot be separate from the mind.
Then there is, Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace." The first sentence is sheer poetry, meaning it has no discernable meaning, but it sounds pretty, and the second is an unwarranted conclusion derived from nothing. There is no connection between this last and all that went before.
First you say your not saying there is a separation then you give me a quote from a guy who says there is a separation.
Oh, and proper meditation is silent. Maybe that is the problem, you ever stop thinking about the unthinkable?