Why do alters of mind at large need to eat in order to stay alive?

[AshvinP]

It's only incremental from our perspective as alters. From the perspective of M@L its all happening now in one big thought orgasm.

Well that's a slightly better way of putting it I suppose, because that means from MAL perspective there is eternally Self-aware Willing, Feeling (Love, etc.), and Thinking, which is not altogether different from the meaning we can all experience now.

[Starbuck]

It's only incremental from our perspective as alters. From the perspective of M@L its all happening now in one big thought orgasm.

Well that's a slightly better way of putting it I suppose, because that means from MAL perspective there is eternally Self-aware Willing, Feeling (Love, etc.), and Thinking, which is not altogether different from the meaning we can all experience now.

Not sure how those characteristics follow. Would prefer to state that this understanding of M@L makes it completely unqualifiable and beyond even the description you have given it here. You could say it is itself. But not much more.

[AshvinP]

It's only incremental from our perspective as alters. From the perspective of M@L its all happening now in one big thought orgasm.

Well that's a slightly better way of putting it I suppose, because that means from MAL perspective there is eternally Self-aware Willing, Feeling (Love, etc.), and Thinking, which is not altogether different from the meaning we can all experience now.

Not sure how those characteristics follow. Would prefer to state that this understanding of M@L makes it completely unqualifiable and beyond even the description you have given it here. You could say it is itself. But not much more.

They follow because, even at the extremely low resolution at "MAL-alter" idealism, it makes no sense that the alter's ideational activity and qualitative experience would be fundamentally disconnected from the ideational activity and qualities of MAL. The question is whether it is possible and worthwhile to discover the details of that connection or not; whether we have to wait until death or some 'final' event to occur. If a foreigner came to the U.S. without understanding any English and asked me about the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution, I could tell that person, "don't bother, because you don't understand English, you haven't gone to an American college, you haven't attended American law school, and it's extremely unlike you ever will in this lifetime, so just stop asking about it or thinking you will ever understand it." That person would be justified in listening to my statement and concluding either (a) I don't understand anything about those principles and/or (b) I have no interest in helping other people understand them. They are human beings and their moral intuitions, which are embedded as principles within the U.S. Constitution, are the same as mine. When the Ground of existence is asserted to be "completely unqualifiable" by an idealist, of all people, no matter how much inner effort and transformation a person puts into the endeavor of discovering its qualities, the same thing applies.

[Jim Cross]

Hi all,

Something that I haven't been able to figure out after reading (and absolutely loving) quite some of Bernardo's work is why alters need food in order to stay dissociated from mind at large. Consciousness obviously does not need 'fuel' in order to exist, and it also seems strange that an alter needs to consume certain endogenous experiences that are happing in mind at large(what to us looks like food) in order to continue to exist. Couldn't mind at large just as easy have resulted in alters that just exist and don't need food? Why does it cost energy to maintain an alter? Isn't energy just an appearance within in consciousness? If mind at large could also created alters that don't need food, then it is strange that all organisms need food.

Under idealism the entire shebang is Mind-conceived idea construction. And part of the corporeal idea construct is the metabolic process that sustains the corporeal form. Could Mind have conceived of another way? I really don't know. I suspect BK would have his own answer, as he would for your other topic question, but alas he participates only rarely in this forum's Q&A.

Could Mind have conceived of another way? I really don't know.

That's the problem with BK's approach. It doesn't have any explanatory power to explain why things are the way they are that goes beyond the physicalist explanation.

If you look at Friston's free energy principle and Markov's blankets that BK relies on, they already have all of the explanation that we have for the moment. Alters and a mind at large don't add any additional explanation.

[Starbuck]

Well that's a slightly better way of putting it I suppose, because that means from MAL perspective there is eternally Self-aware Willing, Feeling (Love, etc.), and Thinking, which is not altogether different from the meaning we can all experience now.

Not sure how those characteristics follow. Would prefer to state that this understanding of M@L makes it completely unqualifiable and beyond even the description you have given it here. You could say it is itself. But not much more.

They follow because, even at the extremely low resolution at "MAL-alter" idealism, it makes no sense that the alter's ideational activity and qualitative experience would be fundamentally disconnected from the ideational activity and qualities of MAL. The question is whether it is possible and worthwhile to discover the details of that connection or not; whether we have to wait until death or some 'final' event to occur. If a foreigner came to the U.S. without understanding any English and asked me about the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution, I could tell that person, "don't bother, because you don't understand English, you haven't gone to an American college, you haven't attended American law school, and it's extremely unlike you ever will in this lifetime, so just stop asking about it or thinking you will ever understand it." That person would be justified in listening to my statement and concluding either (a) I don't understand anything about those principles and/or (b) I have no interest in helping other people understand them. They are human beings and their moral intuitions, which are embedded as principles within the U.S. Constitution, are the same as mine. When the Ground of existence is asserted to be "completely unqualifiable" by an idealist, of all people, no matter how much inner effort and transformation a person puts into the endeavor of discovering its qualities, the same thing applies.

You'll note I didn't say its qualities were unnameable to being discovered by endeavour. Just that those qualities are unqualifiable - meaning they can be qualified are validated by language. "the toa that can be spoken etc". I Agee, we cannot make a fundamental disconnection - which is why BKS water/ripple analogy works so well. again, a myth pointing at the unqualifiable.

[AshvinP]

You'll note I didn't say its qualities were unnameable to being discovered by endeavour. Just that those qualities are unqualifiable - meaning they can be qualified are validated by language. "the toa that can be spoken etc". I Agee, we cannot make a fundamental disconnection - which is why BKS water/ripple analogy works so well. again, a myth pointing at the unqualifiable.

So when you say,

Are not our desires often repetitive and based on themes and 'story arcs'? Just expanded that to nested, Russian doll layers of experience and representation. I imagine your own life is rich, nuanced and augmented. When you look back, that has all been shaped by your preferences and non-preferences creating your perception and reality. And as Bernardo repeatedly says 'it's got to look like SOMETHING'. So why not this?

The "themes and story arcs" are pointing to actual qualities of MAL, correct, and not just our own personal ideational inventions, i.e. ripples in water which will fade away upon death or some other 'final' event? I was under the impression you were claiming the latter.

[Starbuck]

Mind at large does not experience death, and dissociation and qualities are only apparent. Nothing ever happened as Ramana Maharshi said.
Yet thanks to Mind at Large we are not talking nihilism here. Only the real survives, that which can die never existed in the first place.

[AshvinP]

Mind at large does not experience death, and dissociation and qualities are only apparent. Nothing ever happened as Ramana Maharshi said.
Yet thanks to Mind at Large we are not talking nihilism here. Only the real survives, that which can die never existed in the first place.

What do you mean by "qualities"? I am speaking of meaning i.e. the inner meaning of actions, feelings, thoughts. Those, fortunately, cannot be "only apparently" under idealism. But, if they somehow became only apparent (which I do not think is possible), then we are definitely talking nihilism, as in humans on planet Earth would go extinct quickly.

[Starbuck]

I would say the water includes but transcends the ripple. In the same way, meaning is a dynamic metacognitive process and therefore analogous to a ripple. It can never reference its water-ness. And yet the nature of the 'all that exists water' is to ripple and vibrate. Meaning is build in but only at the nominal level of ripples. The water is always there and yet always transcends its own creation while being responsible for it. This can be known trans-rationally and when it is, nihilism is soo to be absurd.

[AshvinP]

I would say the water includes but transcends the ripple. In the same way, meaning is a dynamic metacognitive process and therefore analogous to a ripple. It can never reference its water-ness. And yet the nature of the 'all that exists water' is to ripple and vibrate. Meaning is build in but only at the nominal level of ripples. The water is always there and yet always transcends its own creation while being responsible for it. This can be known trans-rationally and when it is, nihilism is soo to be absurd.

That's just a variation of Kantian transcendental idealism except without even the knowing and loving God. In other words, it makes no sense and is nihilistic to boot. Try telling the above to anyone in real agony and see how they feel about it. I have a feeling it won't make them realize how absurd nihilism is, rather it will make them wonder why they are not more nihilistic than they already are.