Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:It would be an error to allow my limitations to sully the stream of this duty-free venue. Forge ahead with the haste of a terrapin to engage greater minds. Endeavor to persevere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRX6hSGeZs4

I wasn't just talking about you, unfortunately.

Walker wrote:The upshot is that perceptions not cognized can be re-cognized from another state of consciousness as a body memory rather than a memory of concepts that were formed at the moment of sensory stimulation.

What would be a reason to believe that?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The upshot is that perceptions not cognized can be re-cognized from another state of consciousness as a body memory rather than a memory of concepts that were formed at the moment of sensory stimulation.

What would be a reason to believe that?

A reason to believe that is a function of the cerebellum. This function is popularly called muscle memory, and is what happens when an action , such as riding a bike, is over-learned and can be done without actively remembering how to do it.

Belinda wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The upshot is that perceptions not cognized can be re-cognized from another state of consciousness as a body memory rather than a memory of concepts that were formed at the moment of sensory stimulation.

What would be a reason to believe that?

A reason to believe that is a function of the cerebellum. This function is popularly called muscle memory, and is what happens when an action , such as riding a bike, is over-learned and can be done without actively remembering how to do it.

Let us take a much more common activity (say walking). We might "consciously" (I use the word loosely) decide to go for a walk. Walking is a complex activity, involving the coordination of multiple muscles, position feedback, ongoing corrections to position (etc.)) Virtually all of the mechanics of walking take place without "conscious" awareness. This is true for almost any complex action. It is also true for many mental operations (facial recognition), driving, all sorts of visual recognition and even retrieval of memories and many forms of problem solving. Most human mental operations are performed by the sub or un conscious mind and never result in translation to language. The little voice in your head that you think of as "me" or "I" is just the tip of vast complex of sub and un conscious mental activity. Much decision making takes place below the level of conscious deliberation even the decisions you think you make consciously. Neuro-science can show the decision has already been made, and action is in progress before consciousness is informed.

Belinda wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The upshot is that perceptions not cognized can be re-cognized from another state of consciousness as a body memory rather than a memory of concepts that were formed at the moment of sensory stimulation.

What would be a reason to believe that?

A reason to believe that is a function of the cerebellum. This function is popularly called muscle memory, and is what happens when an action , such as riding a bike, is over-learned and can be done without actively remembering how to do it.

Wait, first, the cerebellum is part of one's brain. He has to be making a distinction between brains and the rest of one's body, otherwise "rather than a memory of concepts . . ." would make no sense in context. Why? Well, because "a memory of concepts . . ." is something one's brain does, brains being a part of one's body, so if there's a distinction between that and whatever "a body memory" refers to, then "a body memory" can't refer to something our brains do. If "a body memory" refers to something our brains do, then the sentence in question is a semantic mess. ALL memory would be body memory if we're just referring to memory in general. Maybe he simply wanted to say, "'Memories' (in a figurative sense) about how to perform various body movements" or something like that, but the way he wrote it sure doesn't read like that.

In addition, I'm asking what a reason would be to believe (a) that "perceptions not cognized can be 're-cognized'" (how is something not cognized in the first place cognized again?), and (b) just what he's referring to re "from another state of consciousness" in conjunction with "body memory" etc.

We all know that concert pianist do not consciously think about the next note they are going to play, nor athletes about their next body movement. The self includes the body and the brain, and the brain (mind) includes perceptions, experiences and memories both conscious and unconscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory

sthitapragya wrote:

ypc wrote:
Hey Dalek...actually its a common misconception that yoga means simply stretching exercises...its actually a system that helps a person realize what im saying. The word Yoga means "the union of the soul with the supreme soul". One of the first things a person learns when taking up the process of yoga is that the body is only a temporary vehicle..its not actually the self.

What does the soul get out of it? Tell me this. The soul is supposed to be indestructible and imperturbable. So why does it need anything at all? It IS the supreme soul. Nainam chindanti shastrani nainam dahati paavakah nachaina kaledayantyapo na soshayati marutaha.(I assume that you know a little bit of the Gita and this is one of the famous shlokas) The soul cannot be pierced by a weapon, nor can it be burnt by fire. It cannot be wet by water nor can it be dried by the wind. Essentially, it is eternal, indestructible, IMMUTABLE and already in nirvana. So it already knows that it is one with the universal soul. How can yoga help? What can it teach the soul that the soul does not already know?

Well the purpose of the Gita is to teach devotional service to the Supreme Soul. this is the conclusion of the Gita. as stated in many other Verses in the Gita. (ch.10 text 8, ch.14 text 27 off the top of my head) that the individual atma is not the supreme atma. The Soul becomes satisfied when she is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. This is the natural function of the soul. The individual souls in this world are trying to be happy by becoming the Lord of Gods property, but this is contradictory to their true nature. So they suffer.
This was the essence of Krishna's Teaching. Arjuna was trying to become happy like we all try to be happy. by considering like we do "whats in it for me?". The esscence of the teaching of the Bagavad Gita and moral of the story is to change our consciousness from "i" centered to "God" Centered. the true yogi does not consider "whats in it for me" the pupose of the whole yoga system and the Bhagavad Gita is to change a person's consciousness to "whats in it for God?" This is usually not an over night process. but it is the goal of life and where the real happiness of the soul is to be found

Belinda wrote:

Walker wrote:

Belinda wrote:Similarly if some person were to lose their sense of disgust their reason would be adversely affected.

Evidence supports the opposite conclusion. One grows accustomed to what first disgusts. Once accustomed, the rational mind is less distracted by disgust. This works for surgeons and garbage collectors and other folks, though surgeons as a rule have a greater access to rationality than garbage collectors, unless the collector is a bright fellow locked into a caste system.

Desensitisation is specific though. Doesn't the ability to be disgusted remain in place? I can easily imagine a desensitised garbage collector who is disgusted by the idea of sex between two men.

Numbing of sensitivity dulls intelligence.
Surgeons are not stupid.

Think of Saint Teresa for situations of potential disgust. Bathing lepers, cleaning the sores of untouchables, that sort of thing. A clearer perception of reality which is larger than transitory ideas or situations replaces disgust.

Going through disgust clears the path for intelligence.

Avoiding disgust gives attention to disgust.
Attention is psychic subsidy of disgust, which causes more disgust.
Disgust looking for a situation to be activated causes disgust to return, in action or idea.

Numbing of sensitivity and intelligence is caused by the mental conflict which is created from the tension between accepting and rejecting.

Without that tension, mental conflict no longer clouds apprehension of what’s going on.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The upshot is that perceptions not cognized can be re-cognized from another state of consciousness as a body memory rather than a memory of concepts that were formed at the moment of sensory stimulation.

What would be a reason to believe that?

Can't think any reason or need to believe that.
Just observe.

So any philosophy, or just a bunch of questions.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:It would be an error to allow my limitations to sully the stream of this duty-free venue. Forge ahead with the haste of a terrapin to engage greater minds. Endeavor to persevere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRX6hSGeZs4

I wasn't just talking about you, unfortunately.

Perhaps I was talking about you. Fortunately?

ypc wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: What does the soul get out of it? Tell me this. The soul is supposed to be indestructible and imperturbable. So why does it need anything at all? It IS the supreme soul. Nainam chindanti shastrani nainam dahati paavakah nachaina kaledayantyapo na soshayati marutaha.(I assume that you know a little bit of the Gita and this is one of the famous shlokas) The soul cannot be pierced by a weapon, nor can it be burnt by fire. It cannot be wet by water nor can it be dried by the wind. Essentially, it is eternal, indestructible, IMMUTABLE and already in nirvana. So it already knows that it is one with the universal soul. How can yoga help? What can it teach the soul that the soul does not already know?

Well the purpose of the Gita is to teach devotional service to the Supreme Soul. this is the conclusion of the Gita. as stated in many other Verses in the Gita. (ch.10 text 8, ch.14 text 27 off the top of my head) that the individual atma is not the supreme atma. The Soul becomes satisfied when she is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. This is the natural function of the soul. The individual souls in this world are trying to be happy by becoming the Lord of Gods property, but this is contradictory to their true nature. So they suffer.
This was the essence of Krishna's Teaching. Arjuna was trying to become happy like we all try to be happy. by considering like we do "whats in it for me?". The esscence of the teaching of the Bagavad Gita and moral of the story is to change our consciousness from "i" centered to "God" Centered. the true yogi does not consider "whats in it for me" the pupose of the whole yoga system and the Bhagavad Gita is to change a person's consciousness to "whats in it for God?" This is usually not an over night process. but it is the goal of life and where the real happiness of the soul is to be found

But that still does not answer the question. How can the soul suffer if it is imperturbable? Chapter 2 verse 24 summarizes as : The soul is indestructible, insoluble, incombustible and unwitherable. The soul is eternal, all pervading unmodifiable, immovable and primordial. How can this soul ever suffer? It is impossible, since it cannot be modified.

sthitapragya wrote:

ypc wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: What does the soul get out of it? Tell me this. The soul is supposed to be indestructible and imperturbable. So why does it need anything at all? It IS the supreme soul. Nainam chindanti shastrani nainam dahati paavakah nachaina kaledayantyapo na soshayati marutaha.(I assume that you know a little bit of the Gita and this is one of the famous shlokas) The soul cannot be pierced by a weapon, nor can it be burnt by fire. It cannot be wet by water nor can it be dried by the wind. Essentially, it is eternal, indestructible, IMMUTABLE and already in nirvana. So it already knows that it is one with the universal soul. How can yoga help? What can it teach the soul that the soul does not already know?

Well the purpose of the Gita is to teach devotional service to the Supreme Soul. this is the conclusion of the Gita. as stated in many other Verses in the Gita. (ch.10 text 8, ch.14 text 27 off the top of my head) that the individual atma is not the supreme atma. The Soul becomes satisfied when she is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. This is the natural function of the soul. The individual souls in this world are trying to be happy by becoming the Lord of Gods property, but this is contradictory to their true nature. So they suffer.
This was the essence of Krishna's Teaching. Arjuna was trying to become happy like we all try to be happy. by considering like we do "whats in it for me?". The esscence of the teaching of the Bagavad Gita and moral of the story is to change our consciousness from "i" centered to "God" Centered. the true yogi does not consider "whats in it for me" the pupose of the whole yoga system and the Bhagavad Gita is to change a person's consciousness to "whats in it for God?" This is usually not an over night process. but it is the goal of life and where the real happiness of the soul is to be found

But that still does not answer the question. How can the soul suffer if it is imperturbable?

This is due to identifying with the body and the mind. Just like in a nightmare the person suffers due to accepting the goings on in the dream as real, when he wakes up he realizes those things weren't actually happening to him. So when the self realized yogi knows his real eternal identity and is thus unaffected by the goings on in the body and mind. As long as a person is not self realized he accepts the body and mind as the self and lives in the world of suffering, accepting it as real. but when he wakes up then he realizes that he is actually unchanged and eternally the same.

ypc wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ypc wrote:
Well the purpose of the Gita is to teach devotional service to the Supreme Soul. this is the conclusion of the Gita. as stated in many other Verses in the Gita. (ch.10 text 8, ch.14 text 27 off the top of my head) that the individual atma is not the supreme atma. The Soul becomes satisfied when she is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. This is the natural function of the soul. The individual souls in this world are trying to be happy by becoming the Lord of Gods property, but this is contradictory to their true nature. So they suffer.
This was the essence of Krishna's Teaching. Arjuna was trying to become happy like we all try to be happy. by considering like we do "whats in it for me?". The esscence of the teaching of the Bagavad Gita and moral of the story is to change our consciousness from "i" centered to "God" Centered. the true yogi does not consider "whats in it for me" the pupose of the whole yoga system and the Bhagavad Gita is to change a person's consciousness to "whats in it for God?" This is usually not an over night process. but it is the goal of life and where the real happiness of the soul is to be found

But that still does not answer the question. How can the soul suffer if it is imperturbable?

This is due to identifying with the body and the mind. Just like in a nightmare the person suffers due to accepting the goings on in the dream as real, when he wakes up he realizes those things weren't actually happening to him. So when the self realized yogi knows his real eternal identity and is thus unaffected by the goings on in the body and mind. As long as a person is not self realized he accepts the body and mind as the self and lives in the world of suffering, accepting it as real. but when he wakes up then he realizes that he is actually unchanged and eternally the same.

So the mind suffers. What does it matter? The mind will die with the body. The soul never suffered. So what is the problem if the temporary body of the immortal soul suffers a little because of it's temporary mind? What is the big deal? Why is such a big deal made of the suffering of the temporary body, when the real soul is untouched by it?

sthitapragya wrote:

ypc wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: But that still does not answer the question. How can the soul suffer if it is imperturbable?

This is due to identifying with the body and the mind. Just like in a nightmare the person suffers due to accepting the goings on in the dream as real, when he wakes up he realizes those things weren't actually happening to him. So when the self realized yogi knows his real eternal identity and is thus unaffected by the goings on in the body and mind. As long as a person is not self realized he accepts the body and mind as the self and lives in the world of suffering, accepting it as real. but when he wakes up then he realizes that he is actually unchanged and eternally the same.

So the mind suffers. What does it matter? The mind will die with the body. The soul never suffered. So what is the problem if the temporary body of the immortal soul suffers a little because of it's temporary mind? What is the big deal? Why is such a big deal made of the suffering of the temporary body, when the real soul is untouched by it?

If the soul has not conquered material desires and lamentation. In otherwords, still has material desire. Then she must accept a new material body and is still covered by the same mind. So the soul is covered by two material bodies. The gross physical body (made of earth, water, fire, air and ether) and the subtle mental body ( comprised the subtle material elements of mind, intelligence and false ego), Death just simply means taking off the gross physical body. But Nature provides a new material body to attempt to carry out her material desires. In order to be liberated a person must overcome material desires. This is a long subject.

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:Can't think any reason or need to believe that.
Just observe.

So any philosophy, or just a bunch of questions.

If there's no reason or need to believe that p, then why would you believe that p? Just per whim?

If there's something we can observe that would provide support for believing that there is "body memory" which is distinct from regular old (brain) memory or concept formation, etc., that would be a reason to believe it, by the way. It would provide an empirical reason. So what do we observe? "Body memory"? How do we observe that?

Likewise, how would we observe that perceptions "not cognized can be 're-cognized'" with respect to some "other" type of consciousness?

Re the questions comment, you must not be very familiar with philosophy if you think that questions have nothing to do with it. And I suppose you've never read Plato.