.. HoneySuckle (Lonicera Periclimenum) .. (click to enlarge ..)
perhaps
the holon of all
interconnections
of all elementary particles
contained within ourselves
with the universe and All
make up what some call clear light
and what others call a soul
and others call just energy
your interconnections
my interconnections
a mix of intuition
emotion
thought
being
doing
joy
happiness
wisdom
compassion
and a smile
and all opposites
intercontained
interconnected
where does your google stop and
where does my google start
thank you, Lena, now you have become a muse 🙂
Picture by bvdb (whoisbert) september 2014 – @botanical gardens Leuven(B) – Canon Ixus HS230 – IMG_8204
who is bert 
Reminds of 1968
I love the way you show interconnectivity. Light, energy, soul. We still all touch.
Lovely post!!! so much clarity in the picture, must have been take with lot focus and care…
wauw, I feel honoured !
🙂
Sounds enlightened. The Self in you is the Self in me ad infinitum.
🙂 not enlightened — a small insight that will fade away with time as fast as a spiderweb during a storm 🙂
I know EXACTLY what you mean!! But keep stringing those moments together and maybe one day….
… those 2 last words, are very important … ‘ad infinitum’
‘where does your Google stop and where does my Google start’
This phraseology implies computation, sorting, categorisation and so forth. So obviously the localisation of the individual brain, which is necessary to perform these functions as you allude to them is self-evident. Then there is the possibility that the awareness which reveals these computations is an inherent property of all apparently material things. The idea at the cutting edge of all this is the concept of awareness as integrated information i.e. Integrated Information Theory. [see: http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.full ] You can search all this on Bing Bert. 😉
… so many difficult words … i just wanted to allude to the fact that if we have something like a soul, we are interconnected through it and don’t know exactly at which point me or you starts … 🙂
[just put up a vpn that serves nothing — but it interconnects and tunnels and I have already the idea to use it for ipv6 courses when ipv6 is not available locally … when there is no data on it, it is invisible]
‘so many difficult words’
Then you need Giulio Tononi’s book ‘Phi’‘ which explains IIT with lots of big pictures. The subtitle to it is ‘A Voyage from the Brain to the Soul’
Happy shopping Bert. 🙂
‘so many difficult words’ — I try to avoid them as much as possible, in my courses in IT. Any idea can be simplified to its roots. Some keywords are necessary to keep the message, other jargon only confuses the student.
That’s a very sound policy wherever it may be applicable Bert. George Orwell always advocated using plain, commonly understood terminology in literature. On the other hand, what you are opening for discussion here is an enormous idea; it is at the cutting edge of the science of consciousness. The ‘roots’ you refer to are not so self-evident. I suspect that if you invited all your readers to specify what consciousness is, or what this imaginary ‘soul’ is, then very few would concur; and even if they did, it would be in wishy-washy terminology.
Hi Hariod,
I’m very sure that consciousness will never be science. Neuroscience can draw lines here and there, and build a map of the brain, but the experience itself cannot be quantified, perhaps only qualified a little?
Psychology also draws big lines here and there, but just scratching the surface. Genetic research very recently brought to light that schizophrenia is just a set of at least 8 different disorders.
Philosophy applies logic on incertain statements about consciousness. Then what can be the result? At the same time I’m pretty sure that logic and reason do not work the way ‘we think’ in the transmental realms (if those realms exist at all).
I’d only like to invite everyone to listen to themselves, observe what happens and check whether others feel, sense, think, opinionate, intuit, function in a similar or not similar way. Nothing more than that. Think about the question of what is self, mind and brain. Are they different, and if yes or no, why?
Next … I write poetry on something that I do not understand: the soul.
I try to make the reader wonder about the internet as grid, and whenever they use google (=the grid) whether they can actually draw a line between themselves and that grid or not. I’m not discussing Wittgenstein or Hofstadter.
“They would necessitate the use of an inherently complicated language” (my expensive words) == Then I will need to use perhaps 10 special words that I will not use at the bakery. (that’s how i really talk and try to write)
Your expensive words:
“phraseology” I intuit what it means (a study of expression through language) — is there no easier way of starting a comment?
“So obviously the localisation of the individual brain, which is necessary to perform these functions as you allude to them is self-evident.” === I can interpret this in 3 ways; in the end, it looks like language foam, and it reminds me of certain politicians.
“the possibility that the awareness which reveals these computations is an inherent property of all apparently material things.” === is it only applicable to that awareness that reveals the computations, or applicable to all awarenesses? Complicated statements are easier to misunderstand.
“The idea at the cutting edge of all this is the concept of awareness as integrated information i.e. Integrated Information Theory.” === ‘the idea’ is ‘the concept’ or what is the subject of this phrase? Do you also talk like this? 🙂
Do we need an integrated information theory to talk about a soul that does not exist? Connecting to a grid of “God and All” that doesn’t exist either.
Language needs to be clear and simple, also for difficult matters. Otherwise we need a lawyer when going to the townhall to renew our passport, (and an interpreter when reading comments on facebook or wordpress)
—
Most of the comments that we have exchanged so far, often make me think that we are very similar in many ways. And then I get lost in those unimportant details …
Hi Bert,
Many thanks for your lengthy and detailed response. I can only apologise if my language appears cumbersome to yourself or to your readers. What I cannot do is reduce my thoughts to words which carry no meaning – what I previously called ‘wishy-washy’ thoughts. Whether or not my words are understood or misunderstood, comes to be so in their interpretation, and for which I bear no responsibility. My task, as a writer, is to convey my thoughts as clearly as is possible, and this may mean that at times a little effort is required on behalf of the reader. Trying to adhere to this principle is not always easy when doing so in blog comments, and I can only once again apologise for my undoubted failings here. Having said that, then on my own blog I am grateful to repeatedly receive many very kind compliments on the way that I write, and you are welcome to view them for yourself, or make complaints as you see fit Bert. Enough on this.
I disagree with you when you say that you are ‘very sure that consciousness will never be science’ and am at a loss to think why you might believe this to be the case. We cannot scoop it up and measure it of course, but neither can we do that with other phenomenon that we may analyse and formulate theories about – the entire sphere of theoretical physics for example. Perhaps you will have come across Roger Penrose and his work, such as that contained in his book ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’. Mr. Penrose is a scientist – a mathematical physicist – and devotes a great deal of his efforts to gaining a scientific understanding of consciousness. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose ] I have posted below a brief video of him talking a little about that work. Whether or not you, I or any readers here understand quite what is being said, is not the point I am making; I merely invite you to ask yourself whether you consider this man to be a scientist working on the nature of consciousness.
I also apologize because I found no better words to say what I said.
I was said to use a language too difficult for most, in the late eighties. Since then I have tried to find ways to cut up bite-wise whatever message I had/have.
As a teacher I have to.
As a writer, I don’t have to. Language can be a symphony, and the right public will surely appreciate this.
science: you can use a scientific method to acquire data, and statistics to analyze it, but data alone … we first need a Kepler to connect Tycho’s dots.
Thank you Bert.