A Re-coordination Rumination
Rather, René should have recited, “Sum, ergo cogito”!!
For there is that which we term Sentience which subtends and transcends the existential and material-phenomenological of our selves (consciousness, cognitive content such as synthesized/stored information/sensation in the labyrinthine reticuli which interconnect the modules and domains of brain and its almost infinite connections with the body).
Sentience is “absolute”, undis- yet unprovable. Sentience is that which yogas
seek by concentration and "harmommmmmmic" resonance of their organism with greater being. It is, too, the quest of the ascetic by negation of the self and substantive.
It is the locus of life in a being? Or is it (too?) the focus of a quantum in life's . . . field?
One can, by ritual or deprivation or isolation or sacred afflatus, minimize
realities to grasp the sentience state. Or one can just close the eyes *, let retinal after-glows extinguish into total visual dark, expunge all thought and feeling, hearing, touch . . . . . .and there is sentience. One is aware of being.
Sentience needs not knowledge nor reference-domains. Sentience is, yes,
“Sum” . . . . “I am” . . . .the intellectus purus.
Sentience, like incarnation's camera or monitor?
Or nucleus? Centricity? But not of dimension or vector. Various words can be employed to attempt description, to convey understanding. But perhaps the closest we can come to an appropriate term, no matter its “archaicism” and religious connotations, is . . . . SOUL . . .
(No matter how complex or sophisticated the developments of IT or AI, the “soul of man’s total
sum” is of a dimension (and domain) beyond such technology, . . .and even neuroscience).
* . . .or with eyes wide open to the substantive, material realm, (a spectrum
of such vastness from the mundane to majestic), perhaps we most fully
sense our beings as one-with-Being – and, of course, vice versa.
Appleton Schneider
Rather, René should have recited, “Sum, ergo cogito”!!
For there is that which we term Sentience which subtends and transcends the existential and material-phenomenological of our selves (consciousness, cognitive content such as synthesized/stored information/sensation in the labyrinthine reticuli which interconnect the modules and domains of brain and its almost infinite connections with the body).
Sentience is “absolute”, undis- yet unprovable. Sentience is that which yogas
seek by concentration and "harmommmmmmic" resonance of their organism with greater being. It is, too, the quest of the ascetic by negation of the self and substantive.
It is the locus of life in a being? Or is it (too?) the focus of a quantum in life's . . . field?
One can, by ritual or deprivation or isolation or sacred afflatus, minimize
realities to grasp the sentience state. Or one can just close the eyes *, let retinal after-glows extinguish into total visual dark, expunge all thought and feeling, hearing, touch . . . . . .and there is sentience. One is aware of being.
Sentience needs not knowledge nor reference-domains. Sentience is, yes,
“Sum” . . . . “I am” . . . .the intellectus purus.
Sentience, like incarnation's camera or monitor?
Or nucleus? Centricity? But not of dimension or vector. Various words can be employed to attempt description, to convey understanding. But perhaps the closest we can come to an appropriate term, no matter its “archaicism” and religious connotations, is . . . . SOUL . . .
(No matter how complex or sophisticated the developments of IT or AI, the “soul of man’s total
sum” is of a dimension (and domain) beyond such technology, . . .and even neuroscience).
* . . .or with eyes wide open to the substantive, material realm, (a spectrum
of such vastness from the mundane to majestic), perhaps we most fully
sense our beings as one-with-Being – and, of course, vice versa.
Appleton Schneider
