Re: The nature of 'relations' in Mind at Large
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:16 pm
But the chemicals ARE dependent on my body to appear.
The chemicals are like the neuron.
You are having a great experience playing ping pong. When I look at you, your great experience *appears* to me as neurons lighting up (or however I am representing your body).
This is where we find the correlates between the neurons (which MY body produces as appearances when I look at your experience) and your experience.
So the activity of the neurons is objective in that I don't just make them up out of nowhere and they do correspond to your experience, but they are not the experience itself and they are definitely not its cause.
So back to the chemicals.
I watch one chemical get poured into another chemical and I see the highly details effects that take place. That is like looking at your neurons interact as you experience ping-pong. The chemicals and all that I see are dependent on my localized human alter.
The experience going on 'behind' the chemicals (Mind at Large's experience) is something else altogether.
I'm trying to ask how we relate the objective relations we find in the chemicals (or neurons) to the experiencing of which they are partial images.
I think this is where we hit the problem of how our language and perceptual systems simply did not evolve to deal with the actual nature of reality and, therefore, it is hard to find how to even conceptualize the relationship between this kind of objectivity (the chemicals effects) and that which they are images of (the experience of the Cosmos).
Anyway, thanks so much for hanging in there with me. It has helped me become more clear as to why this is such an issue
The chemicals are like the neuron.
You are having a great experience playing ping pong. When I look at you, your great experience *appears* to me as neurons lighting up (or however I am representing your body).
This is where we find the correlates between the neurons (which MY body produces as appearances when I look at your experience) and your experience.
So the activity of the neurons is objective in that I don't just make them up out of nowhere and they do correspond to your experience, but they are not the experience itself and they are definitely not its cause.
So back to the chemicals.
I watch one chemical get poured into another chemical and I see the highly details effects that take place. That is like looking at your neurons interact as you experience ping-pong. The chemicals and all that I see are dependent on my localized human alter.
The experience going on 'behind' the chemicals (Mind at Large's experience) is something else altogether.
I'm trying to ask how we relate the objective relations we find in the chemicals (or neurons) to the experiencing of which they are partial images.
I think this is where we hit the problem of how our language and perceptual systems simply did not evolve to deal with the actual nature of reality and, therefore, it is hard to find how to even conceptualize the relationship between this kind of objectivity (the chemicals effects) and that which they are images of (the experience of the Cosmos).
Anyway, thanks so much for hanging in there with me. It has helped me become more clear as to why this is such an issue