Consciousness as a fundamental quality of the universe

[midniterider]

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html

 

 "If the mind is just a byproduct of matter, it should not be able to influence the form and functioning of the body so profoundly.

That would be like saying that images on a computer screen can change the software or hardware inside the computer."

[florduh]

20 minutes ago, midniterider said:

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html

 

 "If the mind is just a byproduct of matter, it should not be able to influence the form and functioning of the body so profoundly.

That would be like saying that images on a computer screen can change the software or hardware inside the computer."

The mind-body connection is very obvious to me. How much "woo" that implies, though, I have no idea.

[Margee]

I'm not sure why I think the concept of consciousness is quite simple? I only have grade 9 but as I studied evolution over the last few years, it seems that  we have 'evolved' consciousness.  Here's a little cartoon on the subject  put out by ''Kurzgesagt -In a Nutshell''. He has lot of videos that are so simple to understand.  And I also am led to believe through research that consciousness is still in it's infancy. So much more to come in the future. Maybe man will even destroy himself as we evolve to the point of destruction. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

The illustrative video is a good way of looking at the situation.

 

I saw a Joseph Campbell quote the other day that popped up on my facebook feed, which I remember, but used to sort of read over years ago when I was going through his work. It was about how eastern philosophy looks at the brain and consciousness. That Consciousness is fundamental and transcends space/time, and the brain is a physical mechanism which narrows the focus of Consciousness and allows it to experience within the field of time and space.

 

This is mainly due to meditation and the experience of the brain working like a machine producing a steady stream of thoughts. Through meditation mystics were able to identify a difference between thoughts streaming by and the deeper experience of an 'observer effect' beneath the level of streaming thoughts, which is simply observing the thoughts streaming by and which is aware of the whole thing. That's the basis for the Brahman idea in eastern myth. A transcendent energy Consciousness which is the core of the existence of all time and space. Pantheism is derived from that same basic concept. Existence itself involves this fundamental type of core awareness as one of the very qualities of existence. How that has evolved into today is the idea that what they are calling Consciousness with a capital C, is a fundamental type of awareness which is ingrained into existence itself. The idea that anything that exists, does so with an underlying, and primitive as you go down scale, type of awareness.

 

Around 2:00 the video takes it back to the level of analyzing inanimate objects. But that's not where the search for awareness begins. It goes down into the sub-atomic realm. Way before rocks. It goes down to the existence of the building blocks of matter. Interactions between sub-atomic particles could be signs of awareness that exist. Not thinking brain directed awareness. Just the awareness of the existence of other sub-atomic particles by means of wave communication and the things that go on. There are interactions all the way down scale. That involve no brains or thinking. So the rock example would represent a later stage of internal material awareness's clumped together into the externally inanimate rock. There's an old thread about this:  

 

 

As the video progresses it's basically showing how awareness evolves in ways which allow it to get further and further funneled into narrower abilities of focus. The evolution of eye's become necessary for the advancement. This all leads towards central nervous systems and brains. You can look at that against the videos I've linked above arguing the primacy of consciousness from a very close focus. 

 

core primitive awareness > interactive atomic level > interactive cellular level > interactive animal kingdom > interactive human beings

 

Just about everything in the illustrative video gels with the above. Except that it only focuses in on the point of detecting external interactions between objects. And moving forward from there. The food summary looks spot on. And the odd thing is that ancient cultures recognized this. The Ouroboros symbol of the tail biting serpent or dragon represents the fact that life has to consume life in order to perpetuate its existence. Life is a self-consuming entity as a whole. They noticed that you have to eat living things (plants and / or animals) in order to live. The video does a good job of outlining that process. And that process clearly led to greater intelligence evolving based on food and survival. The intelligence grew based on predation and consumption-oriented drives and instincts. 

 

But you have to keep glancing back at the potential breakdown all the way down scale to the sub-atomic realm. Or else it appears that awareness magically appeared from nowhere at some fixed point on this spectrum. Which may not be the case at all.  I look at it similar to the issue of the beginning of the universe. The fixed beginning is illusive and can push back to where it's questionable if it did begin all of a sudden or has simply always been. The inherent awareness quality of existence itself is similar in that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:05 PM, midniterider said:

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html

 

 "If the mind is just a byproduct of matter, it should not be able to influence the form and functioning of the body so profoundly.

That would be like saying that images on a computer screen can change the software or hardware inside the computer."

 

Z Dog MD has studied Hoffman's Conscious Realism pretty closely. And seems to have a good understanding of the application of the theory: 

 

 

[midniterider]

Good video, Josh. We used to be positive that the sun revolved around the earth because that is what we observed. It was obvious. We taught our children this. But the conclusion we made from the evidence was 100% incorrect. Maybe we 100% incorrect about the primacy of matter. 

 

One of the last points by the guy Z was talking to reminded me of things I hear on Ex-c, now and then. "If the bottle isnt really a bottle, but just an icon for consciousness, why can't I will it to rise off the table with my mind?" Something might actually be true but just doesn't function the way you think it ought to. 

 

An earlier point that is brought up is the processing power that exists in the visual cortex is far beyond what  is required to just report what our eyes see. Hinting that we perhaps create what we see. I think Kirby mentioned something similar in his book. 

 

I like Z Dawg's style of describing Hoffman's work. I've been watching bits of this video here, his interview with Hoffman. It's really long though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro

 

[Joshpantera]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:25 PM, midniterider said:

Good video, Josh. We used to be positive that the sun revolved around the earth because that is what we observed. It was obvious. We taught our children this. But the conclusion we made from the evidence was 100% incorrect. Maybe we 100% incorrect about the primacy of matter. 

 

One of the last points by the guy Z was talking to reminded me of things I hear on Ex-c, now and then. "If the bottle isnt really a bottle, but just an icon for consciousness, why can't I will it to rise off the table with my mind?" Something might actually be true but just doesn't function the way you think it ought to. 

 

An earlier point that is brought up is the processing power that exists in the visual cortex is far beyond what  is required to just report what our eyes see. Hinting that we perhaps create what we see. I think Kirby mentioned something similar in his book. 

 

I like Z Dawg's style of describing Hoffman's work. I've been watching bits of this video here, his interview with Hoffman. It's really long though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro

 

 

I'm halfway through it now. Many an interesting point made. One glaring issue is how this relates to cosmology. What could our perceptions of deep space be aside from a species specific, icon-oriented way of perceiving an objective reality that does exist, but isn't anything like what we're looking at? 

 

 

[midniterider]

Is everything a mental construct 

[Joshpantera]

On 12/25/2021 at 11:16 AM, midniterider said:

Is everything a mental construct 

 

As far as our perceptions of what exists, yes. The icons are constructed in our minds. What the icon actually are we don't perceive. Which leads me to the next interesting part of the interview.

 

Psychedelics.

 

That part makes a lot of sense. And sort of gives some deeper insight into Dean Radin's book. Because he clearly has experiments that are not explained by the current academic world view. But conscious realism allows for all of it. Conscious agents can explain probably every mysterious experiment they've run. 

 

And the notion that psychedelics represent a natural, and ancient method for "hacking the interface," could possibly lead towards figuring out how to do it more consciously and with intent through our advancing science. As to whether altered states of consciousness represent seeing the conscious agents as they really are, or simply seeing into another interface, was unknown and debatable per the discussion. But it's obviously something. And the beings that appear from DMT and similar experiences warrant further investigation for sure. 

 

This is tied into synchronicity and the issue of reality drawing in what is according to your own inner focus. If everything is conscious agents (micro and macro) then we're merely looking at a natural reality where like tends to attract like and it's all according to what nature and reality are and how it works via the species-specific user interface metaphor. 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

To the point of this forum, what this sort of represents are scientific and spiritual reasons that illustrate problems with the christian and monotheistic worldview in general. If people get tempted to start calling this god, well, then it leads to a pantheistic model of god. It's not a path to validating monotheism. In fact, it's the opposite.

 

It illustrates how everything is interconnected and whole.

 

To call the greater totality of all existing conscious agents god, is to then illustrate how exactly you and god are one and the same, interconnected, whole, and not separate in any way. It all has to be god if anyone tries to take it that direction. Which steam rolls the christian concepts of good and evil battling it out. Both sides would be conscious agents, and both sides would make up the totality. None of it could be taken literally in terms of light wiping out darkness or good versus evil. Which steam rolls the message and belief system. 

 

It's good to understand how christians can not get away with trying to usurp new ideas like this and claim them for christianity. They produce pantheistic conclusions. And christianity is not pantheistic. 

[midniterider]

On 12/26/2021 at 8:57 AM, Joshpantera said:

To the point of this forum, what this sort of represents are scientific and spiritual reasons that illustrate problems with the christian and monotheistic worldview in general. If people get tempted to start calling this god, well, then it leads to a pantheistic model of god. It's not a path to validating monotheism. It's the opposite. It illustrates how everything is interconnected and whole. To call the greater totality of all existing conscious agents god, is to then illustrate how exactly you and god are one and the same, interconnected, whole, and not separate in any way. It all has to be god if anyone tries to take it that direction. Which steam rolls the christian concepts of good and evil battling it out. Both sides would be conscious agents, and both sides would make up the totality. None of it could be taken literally in terms of light wiping out darkness or good versus evil. Which steam rolls the message and belief system. 

 

It's good to understand how christians can not get away with trying to usurp new ideas like this and claim them for christianity. They produce pantheistic conclusions. And christianity is not pantheistic. 

 

I recognized some seeming pantheistic/zen/advaita/non-dual bible scriptures and was directed away from that when I went to church. There is no reason to worship Christ if you and Christ are one and the same. Jeez, I could have  used that as a debate point when it came to tithe... give 10% of my money to myself.

[midniterider]

Well, I got a Barnes and Noble gift card so I'll be getting this soon:

 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/why-materialism-is-baloney-bernardo-kastrup/1118053258?ean=9781782793625

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

50 minutes ago, midniterider said:

give 10% of my money to myself.

That's still not a bad idea.  It's okay to miss a bill payment now and again because you want to treat yourself on a tight budget. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

This discussion is intriguing.  There is a heck of a lot we don't know.  Many, many possibilities.  Thank you midniterider for posting the subject.

[Joshpantera]

"Truly, I say unto you, there are some reading this post who will not taste death till they see the power and glory of the Totality and embrace it unto their own personal existence!" 

 

1 Pantera 16:28

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

"Truly, I say unto you, there are some reading this post who will not taste death till they see the power and glory of the Totality and embrace it unto their own personal existence!" 

 

1 Pantera 16:28

Seriously, I don't think that will happen unless an alien from a far advanced galaxie shares some info with us.

[pantheory]

On 11/12/2021 at 10:05 AM, midniterider said:

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html

 

 "If the mind is just a byproduct of matter, it should not be able to influence the form and functioning of the body so profoundly.

That would be like saying that images on a computer screen can change the software or hardware inside the computer."

 

Consciousness also exists for other animals as well as humans.  The mind and its consciousness have two facets to it. The first is physical, its cellular living matter. The second is its energy. Like all nerve energy in our bodies, brain energy is electrical. This energy produces the impulses that cause feelings, initiates motion, and in the brain this energy initiates all our sensing organs and self-awareness which we call consciousness. Because humans have greater intelligence and complex language, our thinking, conscious awareness, and understandings are usually much more complicated than in the other animals.

[Joshpantera]

On 1/1/2022 at 2:34 PM, pantheory said:

Consciousness also exists for other animals as well as humans. 

 

That's just it. We're only conscious in so much as we're a type of animal, and animals are conscious. It's a product of the animal kingdom. Where we've become a little more self-conscious than other species. But there's consciousness right on through. 

 

According to the formal theory of Conscious Realism, it goes much deeper than even that. Animals are only conscious because ultimately "conscious agents" exist.

 

All of the animals perceive through species specific user faces which have their own system of icons. All of which are perceiving an objective reality indirectly through their species-specific iconic perceptions. That only exist because of evolution based, fitness-oriented reasons. The species that have been able to dumb down objective reality to 'simple perceptions' have gone on - while the others who were less able went extinct. 

 

This seems to put a hurting on truth seeking. Perceive the truth in full, go extinct!

 

But that may not be the case indefinitely. As they discussed the possibility of 'hacking the system' with advancing technology, once the realizations about the core issue between consciousness and existence itself have been made. And then integrating the theory into the existing scientific framework, including biological evolution. 

 

It may be that upon realizing that reality has been dumbed down for very specific life and survival-oriented reasons, we may find as a species that we're content with not being able to handle the truth. There's no indication here that seeing the truth of everything through a 'direct perception' is something that we're able or meant to ever do. Maybe, maybe not.

 

Our perceptions of the external universe (astronomy / cosmology), no doubt, then take on this same problem.

 

It's not possible that we're perceiving it as it actually is out there in deep space. We lack the perception of anything as it actually is - in the sense of a direct perception. That has to include the seemingly infinitude of deep space and all of its visible, and as of right now, invisible contents. Anything that could possibly come into vision through observation can only be a species-specific icon for what's actually there. Somethings there when we see fading clusters of galactic clusters, but it's obviously not what we're seeing in a literal sense. 

 

This is some really heavy shit to take in, @midniterider

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's just it. We're only conscious in so much as we're a type of animal, and animals are conscious. It's a product of the animal kingdom. Where we've become a little more self-conscious than other species. But there's consciousness right on through. 

 

According to the formal theory of Conscious Realism, it goes much deeper than even that. Animals are only conscious because ultimately "conscious agents" exist.

 

All of the animals perceive through species specific user faces which have their own system of icons. All of which are perceiving an objective reality indirectly through their species-specific iconic perceptions. That only exist because of evolution based, fitness-oriented reasons. The species that have been able to dumb down objective reality to 'simple perceptions' have gone on - while the others who were less able went extinct. 

 

This seems to put a hurting on truth seeking. Perceive the truth in full, go extinct!

 

But that may not be the case indefinitely. As they discussed the possibility of 'hacking the system' with advancing technology, once the realizations about the core issue between consciousness and existence itself have been made. And then integrating the theory into the existing scientific framework, including biological evolution. 

 

It may be that upon realizing that reality has been dumbed down for very specific life and survival-oriented reasons, we may find as a species that we're content with not being able to handle the truth. There's no indication here that seeing the truth of everything through a 'direct perception' is something that we're able or meant to ever do. Maybe, maybe not.

 

Our perceptions of the external universe (astronomy / cosmology), no doubt, then take on this same problem.

 

It's not possible that we're perceiving it as it actually is out there in deep space. We lack the perception of anything as it actually is - in the sense of a direct perception. That has to include the seemingly infinitude of deep space and all of its visible, and as of right now, invisible contents. Anything that could possibly come into vision through observation can only be a species-specific icon for what's actually there. Somethings there when we see fading clusters of galactic clusters, but it's obviously not what we're seeing in a literal sense. 

 

This is some really heavy shit to take in, @midniterider

 

midniterider and Josh,

Yes, Conscious Realism has been called a theory by some, but it relates to philosophy and social sciences and has very few adherents. The mainstream has a far simpler understanding of Consciousness which can be seen below by its definition.

Conscious Realism:

Conscious Realism is a non-physical monism which holds that consciousness is the primary reality and that the physical world emerges from that. The objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences. "What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs of conscious agents but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world. Consciousness is fundamental."

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

Mainstream dictionary definition of Consciousness:

“The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something." and "The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and of the world." Of course this also applies to higher animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

IMHO everything in reality can be simple in its understanding. ‘Consciousness’ is a good example of this concerning the dictionary definition of it. Conscious Realism is the opposite of simplicity and certainly not my philosophical cup of tea.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's just it. We're only conscious in so much as we're a type of animal, and animals are conscious. It's a product of the animal kingdom. Where we've become a little more self-conscious than other species. But there's consciousness right on through. 

 

According to the formal theory of Conscious Realism, it goes much deeper than even that. Animals are only conscious because ultimately "conscious agents" exist.

 

All of the animals perceive through species specific user faces which have their own system of icons. All of which are perceiving an objective reality indirectly through their species-specific iconic perceptions. That only exist because of evolution based, fitness-oriented reasons. The species that have been able to dumb down objective reality to 'simple perceptions' have gone on - while the others who were less able went extinct. 

 

This seems to put a hurting on truth seeking. Perceive the truth in full, go extinct!

 

But that may not be the case indefinitely. As they discussed the possibility of 'hacking the system' with advancing technology, once the realizations about the core issue between consciousness and existence itself have been made. And then integrating the theory into the existing scientific framework, including biological evolution. 

 

It may be that upon realizing that reality has been dumbed down for very specific life and survival-oriented reasons, we may find as a species that we're content with not being able to handle the truth. There's no indication here that seeing the truth of everything through a 'direct perception' is something that we're able or meant to ever do. Maybe, maybe not.

 

Our perceptions of the external universe (astronomy / cosmology), no doubt, then take on this same problem.

 

It's not possible that we're perceiving it as it actually is out there in deep space. We lack the perception of anything as it actually is - in the sense of a direct perception. That has to include the seemingly infinitude of deep space and all of its visible, and as of right now, invisible contents. Anything that could possibly come into vision through observation can only be a species-specific icon for what's actually there. Somethings there when we see fading clusters of galactic clusters, but it's obviously not what we're seeing in a literal sense. 

 

This is some really heavy shit to take in, @midniterider

 

Well, Hoffman's desktop icons aside, humans only can handle certain amounts of input. We can only detect a certain bandwidth of what we call audio frequencies and a certain bandwidth of what we've dubbed visual light. We are only commonly aware of 5 physical senses and 3 (or 4) dimensions. We cannot biologically detect what we call radio frequencies, infrared, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma rays, etc. What other 'senses' might exist that we dont know about. 

 

String theorists seem to posit a 10 dimensional universe which would probably blow my 85 billion neuron mind if I could somehow experience that via the usual 4 dimensions.  It would be too much information. Chaos magicians assert that there is a psychic censor (lets not say woo, lets say undiscovered science) that only allows a certain amount of 'reality' to enter your head. 

 

Data throttling is probably required for consciousness to assume a physical form so we dont flip out as humans. lol.

 

Hoffman's idea of icons to dumb down reality and data throttling (psychic censor) have similarities. 

[pantheory]

35 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Well, Hoffman's desktop icons aside, humans only can handle certain amounts of input. We can only detect a certain bandwidth of what we call audio frequencies and a certain bandwidth of what we've dubbed visual light. We are only commonly aware of 5 physical senses and 3 (or 4) dimensions. We cannot biologically detect what we call radio frequencies, infrared, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma rays, etc. What other 'senses' might exist that we dont know about. 

 

String theorists seem to posit a 10 dimensional universe which would probably blow my 85 billion neuron mind if I could somehow experience that via the usual 4 dimensions.  It would be too much information. Chaos magicians assert that there is a psychic censor (lets not say woo, lets say undiscovered science) that only allows a certain amount of 'reality' to enter your head. 

 

Data throttling is probably required for consciousness to assume a physical form so we dont flip out as humans. lol.

 

Hoffman's idea of icons to dumb down reality and data throttling (psychic censor) have similarities. 

 

As to string theory, I think it is entirely BS.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

 

Although the mind of man and higher animals is complicated in its form and function, I think the understandings of it and its function is quite simple to understand.

Thought,  like consciousness, is also something simple according to the dictionary definition of it. 

A Thought:: is an idea, plan, opinion, picture, etc., that is formed in your mind and is something that you think of.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

your question:  "Is everything a mental construct?

As you explained, our senses of reality represent just a small amount of what emissions are being given off by matter. We have instruments that can give us a much broader mental vision of what additional is really there in total. Even so, any representation of reality by science is still a perspective of reality because there are almost an infinite number of ways to organize reality. But our sensing of reality is generally all we need to get along in a human life outside of medicine. Our broader understandings via instrumentation and study just improves our intellectual understanding of reality and is generally not needed outside of science and medicine.

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

midniterider and Josh,

Yes, Conscious Realism has been called a theory by some, but it relates to philosophy and social sciences and has very few adherents. The mainstream has a far simpler understanding of Consciousness which can be seen below by its definition.

Conscious Realism:

Conscious Realism is a non-physical monism which holds that consciousness is the primary reality and that the physical world emerges from that. The objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences. "What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs of conscious agents but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world. Consciousness is fundamental."

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

Mainstream dictionary definition of Consciousness:

“The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something." and "The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and of the world." Of course this also applies to higher animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

IMHO everything in reality can be simple in its understanding. ‘Consciousness’ is a good example of this concerning the dictionary definition of it. Conscious Realism is the opposite of simplicity and certainly not my philosophical cup of tea.

 

 

 

 

It's a fact that there is a present awareness (usually called I) that is observing stuff and also aware that it is observing. "What" is doing the observing is unknown. An observer cannot observe itself. Whatever it observes is other than itself. That is pretty much the end of Advaita (for me anyway). From there I either make the leap that, having eliminated everything I am not, then "I" is a false idea, or I am nothing or I am everything. lol. The conclusion gets philosophically sticky and cant be figured out logically. 

 

The simplicity of reality might be relative to the individual. Certain barmaids may understand quantum superposition while others may give a blank stare. They also  may pour you a cocktail that you could never quite reproduce at home. 

 

Conscious realism might be complicated if you hold onto the assumption that the foundation of reality is physicalism. Or it might be simple if you just ignore physical realism.

[pantheory]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It's a fact that there is a present awareness (usually called I) that is observing stuff and also aware that it is observing. "What" is doing the observing is unknown. An observer cannot observe itself. Whatever it observes is other than itself. That is pretty much the end of Advaita (for me anyway). From there I either make the leap that, having eliminated everything I am not, then "I" is a false idea, or I am nothing or I am everything. lol. The conclusion gets philosophically sticky and cant be figured out logically. 

 

The simplicity of reality might be relative to the individual. Certain barmaids may understand quantum superposition while others may give a blank stare. They also  may pour you a cocktail that you could never quite reproduce at home. 

 

Conscious realism might be complicated if you hold onto the assumption that the foundation of reality is physicalism. Or it might be simple if you just ignore physical realism.

 

Your ideas are philosophical. Consciousness is a type of self awareness, and self observation can be made in many ways by modern humans.

 

Yes barmaids, I married one   As to "barmaid physics," it relates to the "lying to children" principle.

 

http://www.eoht.info/page/Barmaid physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

 

Explaining complicated subjects in a simple way can have exceptions and may not be the most accurate way of explaining something, but it can improve the understandings of the subject and eliminate much of its complications and possible BS of modern theory.

 

 

[midniterider]

21 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

As to string theory, I think it is entirely BS.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

 

Although the mind of man and higher animals is complicated in its form and function, I think the understandings of it and its function is quite simple to understand.

Thought,  like consciousness, is also something simple according to the dictionary definition of it. 

A Thought:: is an idea, plan, opinion, picture, etc., that is formed in your mind and is something that you think of.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

your question:  Is verything a mental construct?

As you explained, our senses of reality represent just a small amount of what emissions are being given off by matter. We have instruments that can give us an idea of what additional is really there in total. Even so, any representation of reality by science is still a perspective of reality. But our sensing of reality is generally all we need to get along in a human life. Our broader understandings via instrumentation and study just improves our intellectual understanding of reality and is generally not needed outside of science.

 

 

More questions, then about thought. How is a thought formed in your mind? What is your mind? How does it work? When I see a picture in my head, what is that picture, exactly? Is it an array of neurons turning on and off like a tv screen? If so, who is watching it? Who is the "I" of consciousness that observes internal full motion video, as it were, going on? Is the "I" a bundle of neurons? Is this bundle of neurons observing the signals of another bundle of neurons? 

 

@Joshpantera also. I believe both Hoffman and Kirby talk about how the visual cortex is way more than sufficient for processing visual data, hinting that it probably also 'creates' our visual reality.

 

It is the ultimate conundrum.  Fun stuff. Have to run for a while. Take care. 

[midniterider]

Barmaids probably have more common sense than nerds like us.