It implies that the entire universe is alive.
-
-
Replying to @davidarredondo
What does being alive mean for a Shintoist? Most people I know are quite puzzled about what it means to be alive, so I would probably not trust the translations without understanding the translator's set of perspectives either...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @davidarredondo
Presumably, a Shintoist knows a property that distinguishes living animals from dead animals, so not all things will be alive in that sense. The Shintoists may be referring to a different property if it is shared by all things in their ontology, for example state evolution.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
You must be correct because as I understand it, rocks, trees, & mountains are "alive". That the universe is made of ontologically foundational "stuff" that is alive and potentially conscious. Shinto ground is thus* *conscious* & *reality is it's " product".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
Again, if the Shintoists are able to distinguish between an unconscious human and an unconscious one, then either the word "conscious" means something different in this context, or the word "ground". Ground might not mean substrate but mind, and reality is a model in the mind?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Wittgenstein again.

In Zen (for example) there is conventially 2 minds. Neurobio ( Small) mind and Big Mind. The reality of small mind has no necessary relationship to the reality of Big Mind. The instance of cncns. in human brain creates Human Reality.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @Plinz
So yes, if I understand you correctly and we are speaking as second or third persons ( the default scientific stance currently). First person leads in another direction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
The first person is a fiction, like all the other persons too. We perceive that we are that fiction, as long as our mind tells us that we are if we ask it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Agree that it is fiction from neurobiological point of view ( 3rd person). Not so much from first person pov as far as I can tell. This qualia of "existing" precedes the self and doesn't rely on it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I perceive my self as what's on the other side of attention. If I relax my attention on that relationship, then there is only the attended. If it is no longer attended, there is still attention. If attention itself ceases, there is nothing.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Way cool. Wittgenstein might say that you are using the correct technical computational terminology (attention) where lay people might use the word consciousness. Maybe I'm all wet but it seems to me that this might help understand and talk about both.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @Plinz
What is the least complex system that you would say has a capacity for *attention*?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.