Mind to Mind: Mr. Dennett & Mr. Gautama Exchange Ideas (part 1)

[Chronos]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Perception is necessarily limited to relational quantities observed within the 'event horizon' of perception. If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity.

 

[Royce]

Okay, just to be clear, I get the distinctions between sensory and nonsensory, physical and nonphysical. I wasn't talking about experiencing something more than yourself, what you had previously experienced, or physical theories explain. I meant removing yourself completely from the experience- whatever kind of experience it was. As in it wasn't you who experienced it, or you were experiencing nothing.
After reading Les' empirical induction thread, I understand his experience better. Apparently, he experiences union. That is, for him, union is a conscious experience of something. I assume yours are much the same.?

No, I have never had such an experience as you describe. My experiences have been varied and while I use different terms some of them were much like Les describes. Where Les' experiences and mine differ most is that I perceive the presence of another with me, within me as sure as I perceive my wife sleeping beside me in bed. Union to me is perceiving and being one with the whole, the One consciousness of which we are all a part of. Even the Void was full of connections and presence, more spiritual for lack of a better term but completely devoid of physical and mental aspects of reality.
This is really an inadequate description as the words just aren't available; but it is the best that I can do now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Perception is necessarily limited to relational quantities observed within the 'event horizon' of perception. If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity.

I'm not sure on what idea(s) you are commenting, but assuming it is the concept of union, I can't see what facts you are referring to which are assumed and not in evidence. When you say perception is "necessarily" limited to relational qualities, and if you mean sense perception (which is the normal meaning of the word), then I can see that.

In terms of innner perception (meaning: experience), that is practiced by withdrawing from the senses. When you say, " If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity," that sounds similar to the idea of union. In other words, the experience of the foundation of consciousness is perceived as the foundation of everything else. When union is experienced, the relational aspects seem only superficial appearances of a deeper reality that is being experienced as "one."

 

[Canute]

Happy New Year folks.

A while ago I suggested that Dennett was a straw man in relation to this debate. I thought I'd better put my money where my mouth is so I've tidied up my notes on his book, in which I attempt to destroy his arguments in a reasonably thorough if informal way. I'd post these here but they're too long. If anyone wants a copy just tell me where to send it.

Regards
Canute