Emanation

[Cold_Philter]

We can never truly know what the existence is of something within itself, meaning that we can know that things exist around us, but we can never know their ultimate reality within themselves. A representation is what we see of objects and interpret as being “real” when in actuality it is not. What we see is only a representation of ultimate reality that our eyes and brain perceives as being real. If, for example, you were looking at a chair, you know what you see is an interpretation of the actual chair, because it is not inside your head. If the actual chair were within your head you would die. Sounds funny, but it is true.

The monitor of your computer is composed of atoms and electricity, which flows through its circuitry. All of this is physical phenomenon. If you were to look at an image of a rock on your computer screen you would know that image is only a representation of a real rock, not a real rock in itself. Your monitor would not function if an actual rock were within it. This type of representation is even more misleading and uncertain because it is not directly originating from the object it represents. The atoms and electricity of the monitor are in themselves real, yet they can emit representations, which are not in themselves real. This representation is an emanation from the monitor.

One can view a single atom in a monitor and not be able to see what is being emanated. One can tell that the atom is creating a physical phenomenon, but it is only when you view the combined physical phenomenon of all the atoms in the monitor that you will see the emanation. For example, you can only see the image of the rock when you are viewing the combined physical phenomenon of all the atoms. This image of the rock is an emanation of the atoms and physical phenomenon. When looking at the rock image as a whole, you are not aware of the atoms and physical phenomenon that produce the image. This is the juncture. At this juncture the physical phenomenon transcend into the nonphysical when they produce an emanation. These emanations are not in themselves real yet they originate from the physical.

The brain, which is composed of atoms, and electrical impulses, is what makes up the mind in a materialist point of view. But really, the mind is the emanation of the atoms and electrical impulses within the brain. Not the brain itself. The brain can “create” thoughts, ideas, imaginings, and feelings: the things that comprise the mind, which in themselves are not real.

One can look at a single atom in a monitor and not be able to see what is being emanated. Only when viewing all the atoms as a whole can the emanation become viewed. The same is with the brain and the mind. The mind is a collection of all the emanations from the brain and its electrical impulses. A single atom cannot emanate an entire image nor can a single brain cell or electrical impulse emanate an entire mind. It is only when all the brain cells and electrical impulses are working together as a whole can a mind be emanated.

What separates the mind from all other emanations is the fact that the mind is aware of itself. The brain is aware of its own emanation. This is the concept of consciousness.
The brain is not aware of the electrical impulses or brain cells, yet it is aware of the emanation as a whole that that these electrical impulses and brain cell create which is the mind. It is consciousness that transcends the physical into the nonphysical. Consciousness is what allows the brain to perceive the mind as a nonphysical entity produced from the physical.


The path to truth is thin as a razor. Few can cross it without being divided.

[rich]

Dear Cold_Philter,

Welcome to thebigview. Thank you for starting a thread on Emanations .

Many times I think the same thoughts as you, and wonder about it.

These little impulses forming within brain, and interacting with
people via our fingers, transmit symbols on our keyboards via
our computers, express the thoughts in our minds for others who are tuned in, to read on their computers.

I think we are writing about an extemely important topic, here, but ICBW. :D

[a random hack]

hmm, phil,
much thinking there :)
so muchg to choose from.

What separates the mind from all other emanations is the fact that the mind is aware of itself. The brain is aware of its own emanation. This is the concept of consciousness.

so, what happens when the mind is not aware of itself? does the mind remian, or does it cease to exist?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Cold_Philter@Nov 7 2003, 01:55 AM
At this juncture the physical phenomenon transcend into the nonphysical when they produce an emanation. These emanations are not in themselves real yet they originate from the physical.
Hi Alex -

I can certainly appreciate the 'sense' of your 'analyses' in this regard and 'agree' with what you say in that regard, except for any implication (?), if there is such an implication in your words, that only the 'physical' qualifies to be in the 'category' of the is 'real'.

If that's how you 'view' reality, cool . . . but that's not the same way I 'view' reality. For instance, when I 'see' red (which I know doesn't exist as such 'out there' as such, only existing 'out there' as electromagnetic vibes of a certain frequency), I neverthless accept, as 'fact', that I personally really 'see' red in (my) 'mind'-'space', and I consider what 'takes place' in my 'mind'-'universe' to really be taking place 'there', which 'universe' I personally consider to be real, or really 'significant' in its own 'right', even tho it isn't 'physical'.

This doesn't mean that your way of viewing/speaking and mine are incompatible, by any means. Just want to let you to know that I personally regard what 'takes place' in my mind-'space', as well in my heart-'space', to be extremely significant in terms of 'my' Life ex·peer·ience, any 'physical' correlate of the same being of secondary 'significance' (or 'reality' <_< ). IOW, I consider what you are calling 'emanations' to be quite real thangs.

Looking forward to further conversation without our getting argumentative about and side-tracked by our respective uses of the word real to (possibly) mean different sorts of thangs.

David :)

[shifu]

Hi Phil, welcome to this forum. Indeed, in here you will learn a lot, especially concerning Philosophy. What gives you the motivation by the way? It is quite interesting to know that some people are still interested with this old thing (Philosophy).

Good point you have. It helped me to go back and scanned my old notes on Epistemology :D . Anyway, joking aside, we may have different view but it doesn’t mean that we’ll fight tooth and nails to find what reality and truth is. Philosophy is an enterprise of wisdom, reality and truth.

Well, if we’ll try to scan our books of philosophy we may gather different stand or point of view about what you have stated. In response to your post I would like to raise some point/s.

1.) We must deal first with the Metaphysical/Epistemological argument: (a.) Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world (b.) The basis of knowledge is generally described as either a priori—(rationalism) knowledge derived from reason alone. And/Or a posteriori—(empiricism) knowledge gained by reference to the facts of experience. We can take the whole year discussing this one, so I just present to you the overviews. :)

2.) It is still related to the first point but is more specific (nature of Mind vis-à-vis reality that is known and not known) We know what we know, but to what extent or how far can we know? It doesn’t mean that since we do not know a thing, it doesn’t exist anymore or cannot emanate.

3.) Existence precedes essence or essence precedes existence. Actually it is more or less arguing which comes first, the chin or the egg. In this point I would like to refute your statement (but we can never know their ultimate reality within themselves). In the Theory of Knowledge, though we may not know the ultimate reality, there is what we may call Reality (ideal/perfect) and reality (partial). The light that is emanated by the moon at night is from the sun. The essence/light is reflect and emanated. Though the light emanated by the moon is not the source, it is still the same light/essence. And essence themselves is the identity of a reality.

4.) Things that may emanate may not be true but there ways and means to validate them. The Allegory of the cave of Plato is I guess a perfect example please check this site: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

5.) There are many possibilities of realities. A chair is not yet a chair (physical) if it is still in the mind of the carpenter, ergo, no essence yet. (Its essence is for the chair to be seated upon). If the chair is now being actualized which came from the mind of the carpenter, its essence well follow. We can think of a falling tree even though we are in the middle of the desert. The falling tree is a possible reality, but not yet a reality. We can also think of a square-circle, however, we can not still know how that can be actualized.

shifu

[a random hack]

Anyway, joking aside, we may have different view but it doesn’t mean that we’ll fight tooth and nails to find what reality and truth is.

praps even more-so if we agree :D

[shifu]

praps even more-so if we agree :D

Hi Hack, what a nice comment with eloquence. Hope to learn more truth and knowledge under your care…Guru! :P

shifu

[a random hack]

praps even more-so if we agree

Hi Hack, what a nice comment with eloquence. Hope to learn more truth and knowledge under your care…Guru!

shifu

my pleasure, now get circumambulating! :P :lol:

[shifu]

[my pleasure, now get circumambulating! ]

No thanks, Hack. I supposed this is out of topic anymore. Need something substantial...with brains. Not just yad yada...., blah blah blah.

shifu :D

[a random hack]

if you say so :)

[shifu]

okey hack! start a thread with an interesting topic. :D

shifu

[rich]

Shifu,

Topics of Interest for some, may be Boring to others. :o
However, the topic you choose should be of interest for all. :D
I hope The Hack will come through on this one. :unsure:

[sahyo]

Need something substantial...with brains.*


algae?

[a random hack]

okey hack! start a thread with an interesting topic.

sorry, i seem to be better at responding to stimuli, which seem to usually come from posts in existing topics at the moment.... tho have posted in response to stimuli in real life in the past, and see no reason that this won't happen again, if we wait patiently :)

[rich]

Gee Hack, After receiving a stimuli of algae

from asheera, what else do you need/want? :D ;) :lol:

[a random hack]

Gee Hack, After receiving a stimuli of algae

from asheera, what else do you need/want?


lololol :lol:

[shifu]

Shifu,

Topics of Interest for some, may be Boring to others.
However, the topic you choose should be of interest for all.
I hope The Hack will come through on this one.

I haven’t had any thought ‘bout it, Rich! So, maybe Hack is already bored with us ehh!


sorry, i seem to be better at responding to stimuli, which seem to usually come from posts in existing topics at the moment.... tho have posted in response to stimuli in real life in the past, and see no reason that this won't happen again, if we wait patiently

Oh! Hack, I see an iceberg melting under a summer sun.

Stimuli? Seems interesting. Isn’t it, Hack, that stimuli could be an impetus of knowledge that may lead us to the known and the unknown? BTW, in view of stimuli, is it empirical or rational?

‘till next Pal!
shifu

[a random hack]

Oh! Hack, I see an iceberg melting under a summer sun.

every iceberg melts eventually :D

Stimuli? Seems interesting. Isn’t it, Hack, that stimuli could be an impetus of knowledge that may lead us to the known and the unknown? BTW, in view of stimuli, is it empirical or rational?



huh? :unsure:

[shifu]

Iceberge melting during summer is a natural design...But you seems melting is i guess unnatural :lol:

[QUOTE]

No stimuli? :(

[a random hack]

But you seems melting is i guess unnatural

perhaps :)

[shifu]

no stimuli Hack? :o praps hAck is bored ;)

shifu is waiting for hack-stimuli.... :rolleyes:

shifu

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 12 2003, 08:41 AM

Need something substantial...with brains.*


algae?


plankton

[shifu]

sonrisa, I wonder how big is the brain of planktons? :lol:

shifi :)

[sonrisa]

not much bigger than algae, I'm guessing :P

[sahyo]

navelingnipples

[sonrisa]

whatever B)

[sahyo]

:)

[rich]

;) Mr. shifu,

I THOUGHT THAT THIS hACK POST, was quite stimulating. Can't you see it? :unsure: Try to reconsider your position. Very important! Profound.:rolleyes:
every iceberg melts eventually.

[sonrisa]

...and we're all on the Titanic.....

[rich]

und der hackenfeffer ist der captain, cincinatti kid.
Time for der liverwurst sandwich on cherman rye mit a dill piggle. :lol:

[sonrisa]

whatever, Richie

What is a hackenfeffer?

[rich]

Sonrisa,

Better check this out mit Thomas.

Hackenpfeffer is a take off on hassenpfeffer(sp?), which is
rabbit stew. Pun of hack, translates to has, was
randomly made up.
Thought you would get it.

3 lashes for Sonrisa. :P :lol:

[sonrisa]

Nope, sorry my German is limited to, well let's just say if I used it here Thomas would probably throw me out of the group for not following the rules. B)

[rich]

but I do not read or speak any German, while Sonrisa's GERMAN is at least, limited.

[a random hack]

Nope, sorry my German is limited to, well let's just say if I used it here Thomas would probably throw me out of the group for not following the rules.

lol, and there are no rules :D

[sonrisa]

there's a no cussin rule. you didn't notice that when you signed up?

[a random hack]

nup, but then i don't cuss much... :unsure:

[sonrisa]

or so you say.

[a random hack]

yup....

not here anyway :lol:

[shifu]

Yeah Rich, i think i should reconsider my position. Hack Stimuli is PROFOUND beyond comparison... :D

BTW, whats that german language all bout...juz curious B)


...and we're all on the Titanic..... ...sonrisa, with Jack and Rose. :rolleyes:

shifu

[DavidS]

Originally posted by shifu@Nov 24 2003, 01:28 AM
...and we're all on the Titanic.....
Only my body's 'shadow' - my spirited mind became a flyin' fish an open·sez·me while ago! :lol:

[rich]

Shifu asked,BTW, whats that german language all bout...juz curious


sonrisa is from Cincinnatti, a city with a large German population.

Was only teasing her, that is about all. :)

[sonrisa]

thanx for explaning that Richie. It went completely over my head too.

[shifu]

oh i see...thanks rich :rolleyes:

shifu

[slayer]

Cold Philter,

You seem to have a genuine philosophical concern, but there many things you are wrong about, though you like to attach the "but it's true" label to them, as if that makes them true. I'm going to address only a few things, because to address everything I think is mistaken would require too much effort and time.

You seem to be arguing that we can't have knowledge of the external world because we don't have direct access to it. That is, we come to believe this and that about the external world via representations of the real things. So you say that when we look at a chair, it's not the actual chair we have a hold of when we are looking at it (with our mind's eye, say) but only a representation of the chair, because, after all, the actual chair isn't physically inside our heads.

What I'm puzzled about is: What do you think constitutes having such knowledge? One, you might think that knowledge of something requires that you be able to see (as under a microscope) the smallest particles which make up this thing. Two, you might think that even if you could see these smallest particles, you would still only be (mentally) grasping a representation of these particles, for they wouldn't be inside our heads. You seem to be arguing for the second of these views.

Of course even if we jammed these particles into our heads, under your position, we still wouldn't know the ultimate reality of the chair, because atoms are physical entities and our consciousness doesn't have hands which can touch and feel these particles. This is why, under your view, we can't have knowledge about the ultimate reality of our brains, only our minds.

But knowing the ultimate reality of something just seems to mean that one is right about what constitutes these objects. So, let's say that the chair is composed of certain particles, particles X, Y, and Z, and under the microscope I see (or, it appears to me) that the chair is composed of particles X, Y, and Z. How is it that I don't know the "ultimate reality" of the chair?

You talk about the particles that I see are only representations of the actual particles that make up the chair, but you forget that representations are representations of something. So the question is whether the representation is accurate or inaccurate. If it's accurate, then don't I have knowledge about the ultimate reality of the chair? I think so.

That's why you're left claiming that we can never be sure whether it is accurate or inaccurate. And we can't know this because the medium we're always dealing with is representations.

But before I attempt to address such a claim, you'll have to clarify at least one thing for me: How is consciousness supposed to yield the ultimate reality of the mind?

What are you grasping when you think about an abstract entity such as a thought, belief, or idea?

Thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are just propositions (abstract entities). So when you're thinking about some abstract entity (proposition A), you're actually in the process of having another abstract entity (proposition B). You're not mentally holding proposition A, you're simply engaged in proposition B, which is ABOUT proposition A. It's not like you're mentally seeing what constitutes proposition A, for there is nothing to examine in the sense you have in mind. Thinking just is having these abstract entities going on.

So your claim isn't really about knowing the ultimate reality of the mind, or about the external world, but instead it's the perennial problem of other minds -- how we can know that others also have minds.

I am slayer, therefore I am slayer,

slayer

[Cold_Philter]

“but there many things you are wrong about, though you like to attach the "but it's true" label to them, as if that makes them true.”

Hmmm…In my original post I used the statement, “but it is true” a total of one time, and that was in regards to be whether or not a human being would be able to survive if a chair were within their head. I would like to think that to be correct in most cases.

In the above…if you are referring that I self-justify my posts by writing them in a matter-of-fact manner, than I need you to realize that a person who has doubts in their own convictions only weakens their ability to prove those convictions as being true. I do not defend the truth of what I say by simply saying it is true. I defend what I say with logic and reason. If you believe that what I say is flawed, that is your own opinion and you are entitled to it. However, if you are going to tell me that what I say is flawed, than I think you are obligated to say why you believe so, and defend your belief with logic and reason.

With that aside, here is my definition of ultimate reality/independent reality:

Independent reality is the reality of thing in itself. It is impossible to know the independent reality of a thing in itself because we cannot become the thing whose independent reality is in question.

The ultimate reality of a thing is the utmost level of reality capable of being known or unknown. It is physically impossible through empirical observation to obtain knowledge of the ultimate reality of any thing simply because the tools with which we use for sense perception are not adequate to perceive the highest level of reality of a given thing. For example, we cannot perceive ultraviolet light empirically.

A representation of a thing is only as accurate as your mind and the tools of perception allow the representation to be. Eyesight has evolved from monochromatic sensitive to color sensitive. A representation of a thing, which is monochromatic, would not be as accurate as a representation of the same thing which has color. It is known that the eye is not capable of seeing every physical phenomenon that exists, so it is reasonable to say that the representations we perceive of the things around us are not entirely accurate. We may evolve to have eyes that can perceive different wavelengths of light, and therefore perceive different and currently non-perceivable colors, which would alter the representations.



“But before I attempt to address such a claim, you'll have to clarify at least one thing for me: How is consciousness supposed to yield the ultimate reality of the mind?”

In my original post I never said that consciousness could become aware of the ultimate reality of the mind. What I did say is that the consciousness is aware of the brain’s emanation, which is the mind. The consciousness allows the mind to become a functioning entity. If the mind were absent of its own self-consciousness, the thoughts, ideas, memories, feelings, which comprise the mind would become static because consciousness is integral in being able to acknowledge those ideas, memories, feelings, and therefore make sense out of them and use them for a rational purpose.

The mind, coinciding with its own consciousness can know its own independent reality from other things, but not its ultimate reality. Only when we possess ultimate consciousness will we be able to know the mind’s ultimate reality.

[slayer]

Originally posted by Cold_Philter@Jan 30 2004, 05:05 AM
(a) Hmmm…In my original post I used the statement, “but it is true” a total of one time...

( b ) than I need you to realize that a person who has doubts in their own convictions only weakens their ability to prove those convictions as being true.

( c ) if you are going to tell me that what I say is flawed, than I think you are obligated to say why you believe so, and defend your belief with logic and reason.

With that aside, here is my definition of ultimate reality/independent reality:

(d) Independent reality is the reality of thing in itself.
(e) It is impossible to know the independent reality of a thing in itself because we cannot become the thing whose independent reality is in question.

(f) The ultimate reality of a thing is the utmost level of reality capable of being known or unknown.
(g) It is physically impossible through empirical observation to obtain knowledge of the ultimate reality of any thing simply because the tools with which we use for sense perception are not adequate to perceive the highest level of reality of a given thing. For example, we cannot perceive ultraviolet light empirically.

(h) A representation of a thing is only as accurate as your mind and the tools of perception allow the representation to be.

(i) It is known that the eye is not capable of seeing every physical phenomenon that exists, so it is reasonable to say that the representations we perceive of the things around us are not entirely accurate.

(j) What I did say is that the consciousness is aware of the brain’s emanation, which is the mind.

(k) The consciousness allows the mind to become a functioning entity.

(l) If the mind were absent of its own self-consciousness, the thoughts, ideas, memories, feelings, which comprise the mind would become static because consciousness is integral in being able to acknowledge those ideas, memories, feelings, and therefore make sense out of them and use them for a rational purpose.

(m) The mind, coinciding with its own consciousness can know its own independent reality from other things, but not its ultimate reality.

(n) Only when we possess ultimate consciousness will we be able to know the mind’s ultimate reality.

(1) We can never truly know what the existence is of something within itself, meaning that we can know that things exist around us, but we can never know their ultimate reality within themselves.

(2) A representation is what we see of objects and interpret as being “real” when in actuality it is not.

(3) What we see is only a representation of ultimate reality that our eyes and brain perceives as being real. If, for example, you were looking at a chair, you know what you see is an interpretation of the actual chair, because it is not inside your head.

(4) But really, the mind is the emanation of the atoms and electrical impulses within the brain. Not the brain itself.

(5) The brain can “create” thoughts, ideas, imaginings, and feelings: the things that comprise the mind, which in themselves are not real.

(6) The brain is aware of its own emanation.

(7) This is the concept of consciousness.

(8) The brain is not aware of the electrical impulses or brain cells, yet it is aware of the emanation as a whole that that these electrical impulses and brain cell create which is the mind.




Cold Philter,

re (a): My apologies. I did critique you unfairly about "but it is true."

re ( b ): I disagree. What does it matter when you're giving an argument whether you're unsure of the premises supporting it or of the veracity of the conclusion? Your doubts lend nothing to the the truth of your claim. And since you were laying out an argument, then your attitude (of doubt) is irrelevant to your "ability to prove those convictions."

re ( c ): I gave reasons.

re (d): What does a "thing in itself" mean? I'm familiar with its use in philosophy, but you seem to be clear on this concept, which I've never had explained to be satisfactorily, so perhaps you'll do me the honor.

re (e): So, I can't know the independent reality of my octopus, say, because I can't become my octopus. Okay.

re (f): ultimate reality is something possibly known.

re (g): a lacuna --> 'and all things are beyond all of our tools right now.' You need that premise, otherwise, your ultraviolet light example doesn't do much work.

re (h): Agreed.

re (i) No, it's not reasonable to say this. It's only reasonable if every thing is composed of something which our eye is incapable of seeing. Otherwise, say, lint was composed of things our eyes can see, then what you say is false. As it stands, you need the premise I've indicated.

re (j): It's wrong to call the mind the brain's emanation. Even if we could 'see' the ultimate reality of the atoms or particles that make up the brain, we wouldn't be seeing the thoughts, ideas, etc., that are the mind.

re (k): Agreed.

re (l): If the mind lacked consciousness, you mean? Or, if the the mind weren't able to be conscious of itself? And "because consciousness is integral in being able to acknowledge those ideas..." -- having those ideas is consciousness. The mind isn't conscious of its own consciousness. That is, the mind needn't reflect on it's own ideas in order to implement them. Thinking is being conscious, but consciousness is constituted by your thoughts.

re (m): I'm confused. If two things coincide they are in the same location? Or, are the same things? You're saying that anything that has a mind knows its own independent reality, but not necessarily its own ultimate reality.

re (n): ultimate consciousness? How does this work?

re (1): Is "their ultimate reality within themselves" different from "their ultimate reality"?

re (2): No, if my representation only gets me the surface of something, then insofar as it's accurate, then it's real. That is, that's how the thing is. Perhaps you meant that the representation wouldn't be ultimately real.

re (3): Wrong. When I look at a chair, I see the chair, not a representation of a chair. Try it yourself, look at your hand. Now ask yourself whether you see an image in your head as you're looking at it? I think Austin and others have completely destroyed sense-date theories, and you seem to hold something akin to this.

re (4): The mind is not an emantion of the atoms. We believe that our brains, which are composed of atoms, is what gives rise to our consciousness (our minds), but not that thoughts, ideas, etc., are emanations from atoms.

re (5): Thoughts are real.

re (6): Not if by emanation you mean the mind, because you've been talking about the brain as a material thing, composed of atoms, which itself is not the mind. And the mind is what is aware.

re (7) Not really, since you've mistated things above.

re (8): The brain is not aware of the mind!

slayer

[slayer]

Cold Philter,

Perhaps I can spare you from reading that long post I just posted, and instead you could just correct me if I'm wrong about a few things here pertaining to what I take to be your position. I'll just number each claim for referencing.

(1) We can't know the independent reality of something because we'd have to be that thing to do so.

(2) It's possible to know the ultimate reality of something we're not, if we can somehow grasp, all at once, all the emanations from the tiniest things which compose this something.

(3) The mind grasps the emanations of the brain; therefore the mind grasps itself, because the emanations of the brain just are the mind.

I'm having difficulty calling a thought an emanation from some atoms, neurons, synapses, or whatnot. This type of emanation doesn't seem to be the same type as the emanations you speak of when talking about the emanations from the chair.

Are you claiming that we can't (now) see the emanations of the tiniest particles of any object? Or, are you claiming that we can't (now) all at once see all the emanations of the tiniest particles which make up an object? Or, are you claiming that we can't (now or ever) 'know' the ultimate reality of an object because even if we take in accurate emanations from all the tiniest particles which make up an object, we'd have no way of verifying they were indeed accurate?

slayer

[thirst4sun]

I agree with your thread. Thanks for posting it :)