How spatial perception inhibits one's own sense of presence.

[Daniel Webber]

The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings. However, in order to see the world as spatial, this perception becomes a tool, with the result that it becomes transparent. In effect, we sacrifice our own presence in order to give presence to objects. This tool is adapted by the mind to project thought. So, mankind's obsession with the material world and with ideas of who we are stems from his lack of affinity with the present moment. However, meditation can help each individual to reacquaint himself with his true presence and to transcend mankind's misguided ways.

Please read essay at http://www.the-door.info

[arcticpenguin]

I wouldn't try to argue with you unless I understood what you are saying.

[evildave]

Maybe if the link worked....

I think what he's trying to say is that because the world seems to move when you move, and turn when you turn, you should believe in God.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Daniel Webber
The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings. However, in order to see the world as spatial, this perception becomes a tool, with the result that it becomes transparent. In effect, we sacrifice our own presence in order to give presence to objects. This tool is adapted by the mind to project thought. So, mankind's obsession with the material world and with ideas of who we are stems from his lack of affinity with the present moment. However, meditation can help each individual to reacquaint himself with his true presence and to transcend mankind's misguided ways.

Please read essay at http://www.the-door.info
Not even Philosopher Yahweh knows where this is coming from or what it means... I'll make the best interpretation that I can...

I think you are touching a bit on the philosophical notion of self and identity. I make the explicit assumption that reality is spatial and is not confined to my consciousness. I dont believe my thoughts project reality, I dont believe my thoughts exist outside of the materialistic reality. I continually experience reality in the present moment. I dont have any problem recognizing my self or existence. I'm not sure what you mean by "sacrificing our presence to give presence to other objects". Finally, I dont meditate, its not something I'd ever feel like doing and its not my high on my list of priorities.

[jasonmccoy]

Originally posted by Daniel Webber
The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings. However, in order to see the world as spatial, this perception becomes a tool, with the result that it becomes transparent. In effect, we sacrifice our own presence in order to give presence to objects. This tool is adapted by the mind to project thought. So, mankind's obsession with the material world and with ideas of who we are stems from his lack of affinity with the present moment. However, meditation can help each individual to reacquaint himself with his true presence and to transcend mankind's misguided ways.

Please read essay at http://www.the-door.info

Could you reference any articles or books that might help us understand what it is exactly that you are attempting to communicate. I for one am open to just about any claim (providing it has the potential of being falsified; problem is, the one you are making is too nebulous.

[Soapy Sam]

If you perceive the world as rotating, yet you are sitting still.
1. Are you Pre-Copernican?
2.Are you Post-Copernican?
3.Are you the Prime Mover?
4. Are you drunk?
5. Do you have an inner ear infection?

Discuss.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I gave up when the dangling participle told me that motion had been reinstated as the fourth dimension.

[Nucular]

http://www.the-door.info/daniel.jpg

Daniel Webber, he is scary

[Nucular]

But welcome though, Daniel!

Okay, an initial perusal of your website gave an impression of a pseudo-psychological, pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical jargon-ridden diatribe extolling the virtues of meditation as a means to "discover our true nature".

But it's late, and I'm tired. I'll read it properly tomorrow :wink:

Edited to add: Okay, I seem to have confused long words for jargon, a failing of mine - apologies. I'll still read it properly tomorrow though.

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by evildave
Maybe if the link worked....

I think what he's trying to say is that because the world seems to move when you move, and turn when you turn, you should believe in God.

Dear Dave,

Sorry about the link not working. It has a Flash intro which might be the problem. Here's the essay, if you still feel inclined: http://www.the-door.info/liquid_time.htm

Could it be that I've gone to so much trouble just to explain the bleeding obvious?

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Not even Philosopher Yahweh knows where this is coming from or what it means... I'll make the best interpretation that I can...

I think you are touching a bit on the philosophical notion of self and identity. I make the explicit assumption that reality is spatial and is not confined to my consciousness. I dont believe my thoughts project reality, I dont believe my thoughts exist outside of the materialistic reality. I continually experience reality in the present moment. I dont have any problem recognizing my self or existence. I'm not sure what you mean by "sacrificing our presence to give presence to other objects". Finally, I dont meditate, its not something I'd ever feel like doing and its not my high on my list of priorities.



Dear Yahweh,

I suspect that there are plenty of people who have absolutely no problem dealing with their own existence. You're probably one of them. However, there are all sorts of incredible explanations in circulation, which suggests to me that the issue of how to appreciate existence is not settled for everyone.

My essay is certainly to do with self and identity, because ideas of self and identity are possessed, much as we possess physical objects. Like physical objects, they do not retain their value forever. If they cannot readily be replaced, identification potentially leads to loss of self esteem. If, for example, your apparent identification with being a "philosopher" feels threatened by my entering your circle, any uneasiness this may cause could lead you to retrace your sense of who you are to re-establish a firmer identity 'elsewhere'. You may have some back-up identities that will come to the rescue.

The ultimate solution is to stop projecting meaning altogether. It's the most frightening choice to grapple with because it's uncharted territory. For all you know, it's death itself, or whatever death might mean to you. But, until you renounce every interpretation you have of yourself, you'll never be free of the identification trap. Again, plenty of people ride through life without a hitch. In any case, the vast majority of people are too busy dealing with life's circumstances. But, I do believe that a lot of people run into difficulty at some point in their life.

To explain what I mean by "sacrificing our presence to give presence to other objects" I first need to establish that presence stems from the mind's ability to see a correlation between the changing scenery and one's motion relative to it. Firstly, this correlation is between an objective reality (your own motion) and a subjective one (the changing appearance of the scenery). Secondly, the correlation is immediate. It's not so easy to describe the nature of immediacy. The essay goes into greater detail. However, I think there is a tendency to regard immediacy as a singular event. But, that interpretation doesn't apply here, because the correlation I'm refering to is both immediate and constant. The point, however, is that we inadvertantly ignore this sense of immediacy in order to use the resulting perspective to see the depth of space. It becomes a depth finding tool. We obviously retain a degree of presence. But, without nurturing a familiarity with its actual source, we're bound to project it onto something else and to identify with that instead.

If I disengage the depth finding tool, my awareness shifts from the position of objects before me to the changing appearance of the scenery resulting from my own motion through it. I become acutely aware of how the scenery passes me at different rates depending on how close it is to me. And all of this 'information' points to me, or more acurately to my motion. Paradoxically, the self that remains feels more resilient than the self that I had formerly clung to, despite seeming so fluid. Only when I am in this state can I say that I "continually experience reality in the present moment". But, to experience reality in this this way, I have to completely dissociate myself from the world as I had become accustomed to it. Having subsequently built a familiarity with it, I find that the context for my life no longer has to do with status or material wealth. It would seem that the identification mechanism has been disabled.

How does crucifiction occur in cyberspace?

Just kidding.

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by jasonmccoy


Could you reference any articles or books that might help us understand what it is exactly that you are attempting to communicate. I for one am open to just about any claim (providing it has the potential of being falsified; problem is, the one you are making is too nebulous.



Dear Jason,

I can understand the impulse to do more research, but I'm afraid the best source is buried under a whole lot of crap inside ourselves.

But, I did feel encouraged by the brain research presented in the book entitled: Why God Won't Go Away. The authors discovered that during meditation there was reduced activity in the part of the brain that orients the person in physical space. Interesting critiques of the book can be read at:

http://www.psych-books.com/Why_God_Wont_Go_Away_Brain_Science_and_the_Biology _of_Belief_034544034X.html

Apparently my views on time are compatible with those of McTaggart. However, I think McTaggart was concerned with whether time actually exists. That's not really what I'm driving at. I'm more interested in how the mind apparently harnesses its own presence to determine the depth of space, and in so doing reduces the experience of presence. There's info on McTaggart at:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/flow.html
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mctaggart.html

I'd like to draw some parallels with Zeno's paradox of motion, but that might be a bit extravagent, since I'm not sure I understand it. There seems to be some overlap in our thinking. He's referred to near the end of this article:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm

A paper by a TR Mongan, entitled Motion Control and Consciousness, could benefit from my standpoint, I think:

http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2002/Mongan.htm

I hope you can tell me which claims you feel uncomfortable with. I'd like to have a chance to defend them.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Daniel Webber
The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings. However, in order to see the world as spatial, this perception becomes a tool, with the result that it becomes transparent.

Well Duh

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Daniel Webber




Could it be that I've gone to so much trouble just to explain the bleeding obvious?


If you don't know ( if you have gone to too much trouble ), you probably have..


Oh, and thanks for calling your audience a bunch of idiots, by inferring that only you, could point out the obvious, that the rest of us seem to be missing..

[elliotfc]

The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings.

I disagree. Motion implies continuous time, and there are no true moments in continuous time because time can not stop.

If our eyes are closed we can still perceive motion (acceleration or decceleration).

-Elliot

[Nucular]

Hi again Daniel,

Thanks for postingt the link to your essay. I confess it took me a little while to work out your point - but I concluded you were attempting to either prove or illustrate how the perceptions of connectedness to all of reality, dissolution of the ego, and timelessness which can all be experienced subjectively during meditation may reflect the true nature of subjective reality.

As a description of how it feels to have those experiences, I would find little fault with your essay. But if it attempts to go further - and I think it does - then I have just a few comments.

My first sticking point with following your reasoning was your use of the concept of the 'subconscious'. What do you mean by this? How does it differ from the 'conscious'? What evidence do you have that there is something we can meaningfully label such, and which conforms to your definition?

The way you discuss the conscious and the subconscious, and their different modes of perception, require much more evidence than you've included. What makes you think that your observations about the perception of extension on one level and perception of motion on the other are valid? To be quite honest, they don't tally with either my understanding of the findings of the modern psychology of perception, or my subjective feeling of the way I perceive. Where, therefore, are you coming from with this? Are you sure you haven't allowed yourself to reify the fairly primitive Freudian/psychoanalytical terminology of these levels of consciousness, and assign them convenient, but invalid, roles?

Your passage on the nature of the structure of thoughts as built from our spatial perception I thought didn't take into account other, extremely important factors which help to give our thoughts 'structure' - primarily language. Your spatial model of concept + context misses our grammatical, semantic, and often extrinsically verbal thought structures, as well as assuming that only one type of thought exists (I think studies into the modularity of cognition, and the different types of cognitive construction and memory we have call this into question), and that thoughts are only formed in one way.

I wondered in your bit about how we misunderstand the nature of motion (i.e., instead of us moving within space, we should understand it as space itself moving) whether you were conflicting with the findings of physics about the nature of space, extension and movement. I'm not a physicist, but I understood that we knew what types of things cause space to 'move' and change, and that these things are high velocity and mass (gravity). The concept I find myself defending is that we move within space, and space moves around us, rather than understanding all movement as movements of space. I'm outside my area there though :)

But to continue with my pseudo-physics: what makes you think that dimensionality can be categorised or hierarchised in the way you propose, or that it can be viewed as non-discrete? Your claim there I think needs backing up.

Finally, just to say I wish you'd clarified one or two concepts - like your slightly opaque (forgive the pun) use of the term 'transparent'.

I wonder if your essay is based too firmly in your introspectionist investigations of the experience of meditation? Introspectionism can lead to bad psychology and bad philosophy if taken alone and not backed up or validated.

Just some reactions - I'd like to hear your views on these things?

Edited cos I changed my mind slightly about what you were saying.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Daniel Webber
If I disengage the depth finding tool, my awareness shifts from the position of objects before me to the changing appearance of the scenery resulting from my own motion through it. I become acutely aware of how the scenery passes me at different rates depending on how close it is to me. And all of this 'information' points to me, or more acurately to my motion. Paradoxically, the self that remains feels more resilient than the self that I had formerly clung to, despite seeming so fluid. Only when I am in this state can I say that I "continually experience reality in the present moment". But, to experience reality in this this way, I have to completely dissociate myself from the world as I had become accustomed to it. Having subsequently built a familiarity with it, I find that the context for my life no longer has to do with status or material wealth. It would seem that the identification mechanism has been disabled.


This is why I love driving. The world passes so quickly that you have no choice to experience less of the world, and therefore are more intimately in tune with yourself. Driving is like a form of meditation.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Keneke
This is why I love driving. The world passes so quickly that you have no choice to experience less of the world, and therefore are more intimately in tune with yourself. Driving is like a form of meditation. [/B]

So true. Running fits this same category of 'active' meditations. I think that also while running you have less thoughts in your head because of the exhaustion, so it's in a sense even more effective.

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by Nucular
Hi again Daniel,

My first sticking point with following your reasoning was your use of the concept of the 'subconscious'. What do you mean by this? How does it differ from the 'conscious'? What evidence do you have that there is something we can meaningfully label such, and which conforms to your definition?

The way you discuss the conscious and the subconscious, and their different modes of perception, require much more evidence than you've included. What makes you think that your observations about the perception of extension on one level and perception of motion on the other are valid? To be quite honest, they don't tally with either my understanding of the findings of the modern psychology of perception, or my subjective feeling of the way I perceive. Where, therefore, are you coming from with this? Are you sure you haven't allowed yourself to reify the fairly primitive Freudian/psychoanalytical terminology of these levels of consciousness, and assign them convenient, but invalid, roles?

[/i]


I haven't defined the subconscious, because such a discussion would open a can of worms and distract the reader from the ideas I am presenting. I appreciate that it's not acceptable academic practice, however, I'm acutely aware of people's limited attention spans, and I think the majority of readers accept that the subconscious exists. It's a complex discussion isn't it?

In the essay, the terms "conscious" and "subconscious" are used to distinguish the mind's awareness of space from it's awareness of the changing appearance of the scenery that tells the mind where it is relative to the surroundings. This distinction is important because the latter is made subconscious in order to achieve the former. The awareness of my own motion, as depicted by the changing scenery, is harnessed in order to see space, with the result that my experience of the changing scenery is diminished. My use of the terms "conscious" and "subconscious" is also motivated by the idea that during meditation, you sink into the subconscious and become more aware of its presence.

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by Nucular

Your passage on the nature of the structure of thoughts as built from our spatial perception I thought didn't take into account other, extremely important factors which help to give our thoughts 'structure' - primarily language. Your spatial model of concept + context misses our grammatical, semantic, and often extrinsically verbal thought structures, as well as assuming that only one type of thought exists (I think studies into the modularity of cognition, and the different types of cognitive construction and memory we have call this into question), and that thoughts are only formed in one way.

[/i]



I haven't bothered to discuss other thought structures because my intention is to establish the thought structure responsible for our perception of time, ie. that the concept + context model underpins the concept of "now" as a point in "time".

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by Nucular

I wondered in your bit about how we misunderstand the nature of motion (i.e., instead of us moving within space, we should understand it as space itself moving) whether you were conflicting with the findings of physics about the nature of space, extension and movement. I'm not a physicist, but I understood that we knew what types of things cause space to 'move' and change, and that these things are high velocity and mass (gravity). The concept I find myself defending is that we move within space, and space moves around us, rather than understanding all movement as movements of space. I'm outside my area there though :)

But to continue with my pseudo-physics: what makes you think that dimensionality can be categorised or hierarchised in the way you propose, or that it can be viewed as non-discrete? Your claim there I think needs backing up.

[/i]



I'm not a physicist either. I just thought it made sense. In any case, it serves to present "time" as a problem, namely, that it's not clear how time contains its lesser dimensions. This provides the opportunity for me to reconstruct reality to solve the problem. I back up my reconstruction by giving the example of a whirlpool, which I suggest demonstrates all the dimensions united.

[Daniel Webber]

Originally posted by Nucular

Finally, just to say I wish you'd clarified one or two concepts - like your slightly opaque (forgive the pun) use of the term 'transparent'.

[/i]


By "transparent", I mean that one is not aware of it when it is put to use. Just like in computer interface design, you kind of lose yourself in an effective design and only become aware of it when it fails to function as expected.

[Daniel Webber]

Sorry about the delayed response. I think I have finally addressed all of your concerns. The essay has evolved into a book entitled: The goofy Sufi and his parameters of perception. It can be read online at: surfism.net

"Surfism is a philosophy that views existence in terms that correspond to surfing. The interaction between the surfboard and the wave represents the interplay between spatial and temporal relations in how we perceive reality. The surfboard shaper's ability to invoke the link between spatial and temporal relations is key to the surfboard being absorbed into the surfer's movements. This legitimises the surfing metaphor as a tool for visualising the spatio-temporal structure of experience."

[Hokulele]

XsBlxmdrPDM

[Wolrab]

Six more posts or six more years and he'll be able to post links himself.

[Jeff Corey]

...To explain what I mean by "sacrificing our presence to give presence to other objects" I first need to establish that presence stems from the mind's ability to see a correlation between the changing scenery and one's motion relative to it. Firstly, this correlation is between an objective reality (your own motion) and a subjective one (the changing appearance of the scenery). Secondly, the correlation is immediate. It's not so easy to describe the nature of immediacy. The essay goes into greater detail. However, I think there is a tendency to regard immediacy as a singular event. But, that interpretation doesn't apply here, because the correlation I'm refering to is both immediate and constant. The point, however, is that we inadvertantly ignore this sense of immediacy in order to use the resulting perspective to see the depth of space. It becomes a depth finding tool. We obviously retain a degree of presence. But, without nurturing a familiarity with its actual source, we're bound to project it onto something else and to identify with that instead.

If I disengage the depth finding tool, my awareness shifts from the position of objects before me to the changing appearance of the scenery resulting from my own motion through it. I become acutely aware of how the scenery passes me at different rates depending on how close it is to me. And all of this 'information' points to me, or more acurately to my motion. Paradoxically, the self that remains feels more resilient than the self that I had formerly clung to, despite seeming so fluid. Only when I am in this state can I say that I "continually experience reality in the present moment". But, to experience reality in this this way, I have to completely dissociate myself from the world as I had become accustomed to it. Having subsequently built a familiarity with it, I find that the context for my life no longer has to do with status or material wealth. It would seem that the identification mechanism has been disabled...
I don't see what's the big deal here. One cue for depth is motion parallax. As we move, further objects appear to move more slowly than closer ones. I don't know one would "disengage this depth finding tool", but I do know what happens if you reverse the cues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QgoX78q-0Y

[!Kaggen]

The most direct evidence we have of the present moment is the perception of our own motion as revealed in the changing appearance of our surroundings. However, in order to see the world as spatial, this perception becomes a tool, with the result that it becomes transparent. In effect, we sacrifice our own presence in order to give presence to objects. This tool is adapted by the mind to project thought. So, mankind's obsession with the material world and with ideas of who we are stems from his lack of affinity with the present moment. However, meditation can help each individual to reacquaint himself with his true presence and to transcend mankind's misguided ways.

Ice skating, handstands and walking does it for me.