A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Well, there are some subjects that I'm not going to touch.

You conveniently avoid answering questions of importance, and launch instead into your own personal, narrow minded diatribes.

 

[ChristineM]

You haven't gotten it yet, have you? The 'taunts' were targeted not to masturbation, but to the fact that Poly's comment was designed to discredit. Get it? Live and unlearn, ok?

The taunts were deliberately and personally aimed at masturbation. But at least you are beginning to admit yor taunts.

 

[godnotgod]

The taunts were deliberately and personally aimed at masturbation. But at least you are beginning to admit yor taunts.

Duh! " aimed at masturbation" because it does not represent the idea of consciousness playing itself as the universe. See how logic works? I know. You had a tough life. Ho hum.

Methinks ye are going bye bye, ie on "Ignore". Ya ha ha

 

[metis]

If a guy masturbates, does that make him a jerk?

 

[YmirGF]

If a guy masturbates, does that make him a jerk?

There is no jerk. There is no masturbator. There is only the Universal Consciousness®©.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no jerk. There is no masturbator. There is only the Universal Consciousness®©.

And yet, it, too, is empty of self-nature, which is exactly why it can simultaneously play all of the parts of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Unfortunately, you don't even understand the words and concepts you are using. You have been sold a bill of goods and have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

You haven't listened to a word I've said re: anthropomorphism, and continue to persist in your erroneous assessment of what it means, and then foisting your twisted version of it onto me, failing to understand that there is no projection of human characteristics onto the universe in higher consciousness.

The nature of Higher Consciousness is that it is transcendent of the ordinary conditioned mind, and it is the conditioned mind that reacts with fear and then creates superstition based upon that fear. Higher Consciousness is beyond a fear based mentality because it is free of conditioning. That is why it can be called 'higher' consciousness.

Prove such a higher consciousness exists. ALL consciousness ever seen is a product of brains.

There is no supernatural component to higher consciousness as in 'god'. Nature and intelligence are one and the same.

Consciousness is what makes the senses possible. You cannot experience taste, touch, sight, smell, or hearing without it, because you need consciousness to process them. Something has to be able to tell you what it is you are experiencing via the senses, and that something is consciousness.

You get it backwards. Very primitive animals have sensory perceptions and respond to them without having consciousness. That shows that consciousness is dependent on sensory perceptions, not the other way around.

That the brain is the source of consciousness is just a weak hypothesis, and not a bona fide scientific theory, let alone established fact. That is the reason it is considered the 'hard question' in science. Science doesn't know what to do with it, and so some scientists do away with the issue by simply saying that consciousness is nothing more than the electro-chemical reactions going on in the brain. Completely ridiculous. I want you to show me how a physical brain can create non-physical consciousness; at which point does this occur?

I don't consider consciousness to be 'non-physical'. In fact, I believe that consciousness supervenes on the physical.

Each species employs sensory apparatus differently, but all are limited by the environment within which they exist and function. All of the senses are faulty to some degree or another, and so cannot be ultimately relied upon when attempting to ascertain the true nature of Reality. Therefore, a consciousness transcendent of the senses must be employed, but the ordinary conditioned mind is not equipped for such a task. Only an unconditioned view can directly apprehend the true nature of things, simply because it is uncontaminated by opinion, belief, dogma, and conceptual thought, and that is why we call it Pure Consciousness.

Understand?

I understand. I just disagree. The fact the sensory organs are imperfect means that we have to be cautious in their use and understand how they can give faulty information. It also shows we need to test our ideas and use reason to figure out 'reality'. Consciousness alone cannot do so.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence already provided. I began by stating that consciousness was playing itself as the universe in all its myriad forms. Only Poly and you responded with allusions to masturbation. That is fact. Deny it if you will, but show evidence to the contrary and stop lying.

Yes, it was an attempt to show the ridiculousness of the position. You then jumped on it and ran with it. Just wow.

Anyway, you still have to show that there *is* a 'Higher Consciousness' that produces the universe through elaboration of its fantasies, i.e, 'playing itself in all its myriad forms'.

ALL consciousness we have *ever* witnessed is due to brain activity. When the brain shuts down, we lose consciousness. When certain areas of the brain shut down, or alter their activity, we lose consciousness (sleep or anesthesia). That is quite sufficient evidence that it is the brain that produces consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

Prove such a higher consciousness exists. ALL consciousness ever seen is a product of brains.

You get it backwards. Very primitive animals have sensory perceptions and respond to them without having consciousness. That shows that consciousness is dependent on sensory perceptions, not the other way around.

That's what I have been trying to tell gng, that brains together with sensory perceptions are involved with consciousness, and not his imaginary "Cosmic Consciousness", "Pure Consciousness", "Higher Consciousness" or whatever capitalised superlative nonsenses that he can come with.

He cannot provide evidences that "consciousness" is the property of the universe, other than just more of his twisted logic and wishful fantasy.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, it was an attempt to show the ridiculousness of the position. You then jumped on it and ran with it. Just wow.
...

Seems gng has sulked to admin regarding my highlighting of his childishness. It has been requested that I place him on my ignore list to preserve the integrity of the thread... Done.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Seems gng has sulked to admin regarding my highlighting of his childishness. It has been requested that I place him on my ignore list to preserve the integrity of the thread... Done.

Laffin!
I knew gng was ready to snap a couple of posts back, so predicted you were gonna get it if you continued. Without even one more from you, gng snapped.
Now i've been LMAO ever since you told him he ran at it like a dog with two d***s, which he DID!
Funny how he got both of his all tangled up in the naaaaasty stiiiiicky peepee, then wanted nothing more than to be extricated from it.
Cosmic escapism is overrated.

 

[ChristineM]

Laffin!
I knew gng was ready to snap a couple of posts back, so predicted you were gonna get it if you continued. Without even one more from you, gng snapped.
Now i've been LMAO ever since you told him he ran at it like a dog with two d***s, which he DID!
Funny how he got both of his all tangled up in the naaaaasty stiiiiicky peepee, then wanted nothing more than to be extricated from it.
Cosmic escapism is overrated.

The more he dug the deeper he got. Was fun while it lasted but probably better off ignored. He had some of the strangest ideas I've come across.

 

[Polymath257]

The more he dug the deeper he got. Was fun while it lasted but probably better off ignored. He had some of the strangest ideas I've come across.

I have to say that RF is a very good source of very strange viewpoints.

 

[ChristineM]

I have to say that RF is a very good source of very strange viewpoints.

Chuckling.

 

[YmirGF]

And yet, it, too, is empty of self-nature, which is exactly why it can simultaneously play all of the parts of the universe.

So, in effect, one could say that the universe is playing with itself. Good to know.

@ChristineM @gnostic @Polymath257

 

[godnotgod]

So, in effect, one could say that the universe is playing with itself. Good to know.

@ChristineM @gnostic @Polymath257

Not the way you and Poly intend the meaning to be. Oh, I know, you guys like to have your fun, and so do I. But really, now, what is far, far more compelling than a juvenile induced masturbatory universe you guys keep suggesting (gee I wonder where this idea keeps popping up from?) is a universe that is being projected in all its myriad forms as play, while at the same time, That which is manifesting it has deliberately forgotten its own nature. IOW, it actually thinks it is those things that the universe is manifested as, and, surprise, that includes you and I. When you awaken to your true nature, you realize that the character you have been running around at in this world is nothing more than pure fiction. It is like a great actor who is playing the character so perfectly, that he actually has become that character. It is only at the end of the play that the masks are removed and the true identity of the actor is revealed. You are none other than the divine nature itself, pretending to be someone else. The Universe is none other than The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation. What could possibly be more compelling? That it's just a dead universe composed of stupid atoms, evolving bags of blood 'n bones that are conscious by some fluke? I don't think so. We can do better than that. So c'mon, now boyz, stop your horsing around; I expect something far more from you than the sterile reductionism we see everywhere being pandered as 'truth' and 'thienthe'. You're fooling yourselves and you know it, deep down inside. Been der, dun dat. ha ha ha....ah....HA..

 

[godnotgod]

Prove such a higher consciousness exists. ALL consciousness ever seen is a product of brains.

Emergent Theory only a hypothesis; not even a scientific theory.

Note the qualifier: 'higher', as in 'higher than Reason, Logic, or Analysis'. Therefore cannot be proven via such means. Not something resident in any of those boxes, and yet, is exactly what allows those boxes to function. Can only be directly experienced, without thought. You are urged to go see for yourself, however, for perfect verification beyond any doubt, just as the skeptical prisoners in Plato's Cave would have to go see The Sun for themselves.

You get it backwards. Very primitive animals have sensory perceptions and respond to them without having consciousness. That shows that consciousness is dependent on sensory perceptions, not the other way around.

Logic does not necessarily follow; detectable consciousness may not be the case, just as TV signals are not detectable without the proper receptors, and yet, the images in the TV are present. IOW, the consciousness present on the level you describe may be non-local.

I don't consider consciousness to be 'non-physical'. In fact, I believe that consciousness supervenes on the physical.

Explain, please.

I understand. I just disagree. The fact the sensory organs are imperfect means that we have to be cautious in their use and understand how they can give faulty information. It also shows we need to test our ideas and use reason to figure out 'reality'. Consciousness alone cannot do so.

Tell me: what is the kind of mind or consciousness you would be employing in order to do that? IOW, that which is detecting the flawed senses would itself have to be without flaw, is that correct?

 

[Darkstorn]

Emergent Theory only a hypothesis; not even a scientific theory.

Which one of those better describes all your claims of reality to you? Hypothesis, or scientific theory?

Or are you trying to imply that it's even less than a hypothesis?

 

[godnotgod]

Which one of those better describes all your claims of reality to you? Hypothesis, or scientific theory?

Or are you trying to imply that it's even less than a hypothesis?

Please rephrase; I don't understand your question.

 

[Darkstorn]

Please rephrase; I don't understand your question.

You call something "only a hypothesis; not even a scientific theory." I'm asking: What do you call your own claims?