A Universe from Nothing?

[james bond]

The mortal mind has it's limitations, it is dualistic in nature and therefore is forever unable to realize the oneness of God.. However if the mind is still, there is no 'I' present to separate the mind from it's inherent oneness with the God..

Thanks. I'll have to let this one sink in.

 

[james bond]

Yes thanks for illustrating my point so well. The dress IS in reality black and blue no matter what some people think. We all see the same dress and the real color of the dress doesn't change.

You missed the point. And my second point is you did not come up with an experiment when you said that is what you were talking about. You're just trying to rationalize your pov. Rationalization is just your opinion.

 

[ArtieE]

A snapshot of whirling water is not a whirlpool. You are deluding yourself.

Never said it was. Strawman. The whirling water is the whirlpool not the snapshot of it.

We commonly say: 'It is raining'. But there is no such 'It' that rains. Likewise there is no such 'I' that thinks.

Strawman. Never said it was. "Rain" is just a name for water molecules behaving in a certain way like "I" is the result of the molecules in my brain interacting in a certain way.

I fail to see how unconscious material atoms/molecules creates a conscious non-material 'I'. Even if this were possible, show me where this 'I' exists.

Simply think of it this way: If there were no brains capable of thinking "I am" no "I"s would exist.

 

[ArtieE]

He calls the object 'ball', because it is an idea in his mind he has been conditioned with. But in reality, it is not a ball. It is a collection of atoms and molecules in a particular form which arose simultaneously and interdependently with all other 'things'

Of course not. The rubber tree collection existed before the ball.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Simply think of it this way: If there were no brains capable of thinking "I am" no "I"s would exist.

But apparently there would still be "cosmic consciousness" lurking in the quantum foam.

 

[ArtieE]

But apparently there would still be "cosmic consciousness" lurking in the quantum foam.

If quantum foam is capable of saying "I am conscious quantum foam" it's an "I".

 

[godnotgod]

Never said it was. Strawman. The whirling water is the whirlpool not the snapshot of it. Strawman. Never said it was.

You implied that it was a representation of a thing called 'whirlpool'.
You can call it a 'whirlpool', but the reality is that it is just whirling water, which is an action, not a thing.

"Rain" is just a name for water molecules behaving in a certain way like "I" is the result of the molecules in my brain interacting in a certain way.

True re: 'rain'; false re: 'I'. Flawed analogy. Molecules falling as rain cannot be compared to molecules creating consciousness. Once again: show me how unconscious material atoms and molecules create the conscious non-material 'I'. It's just an illusion that consciousness creates, not the brain's chemistry.

re: 'rain': the issue was not about the nature of rain, but about what we say about it, namely, 'It is raining', where there is no such agent of rain called 'it' that rains.

Simply think of it this way: If there were no brains capable of thinking "I am" no "I"s would exist.

They don't exist as all such 'I's are illusions.

Descartes cogito ergo sum* is flawed, as pointed out by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard :

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

*"I think, therefore, I am"

 

[godnotgod]

If quantum foam is capable of saying "I am conscious quantum foam" it's an "I".

But the quantum foam says no such thing. It is just consciousness without an 'I'. 'I' is just excess unnecessary baggage the ego creates for itself.

 

[ArtieE]

You implied that it was a representation of a thing called 'whirlpool'.
You can call it a 'whirlpool', but the reality is that it is just whirling water, which is an action, not a thing.



True re: 'rain'; false re: 'I'. Flawed analogy. Molecules falling as rain cannot be compared to molecules creating consciousness. Once again: show me how unconscious material atoms and molecules create the conscious non-material 'I'. It's just an illusion that consciousness creates, not the brain's chemistry.

re: 'rain': the issue was not about the nature of rain, but about what we say about it, namely, 'It is raining', where there is no such agent of rain called 'it' that rains.




They don't exist as all such 'I's are illusions.

Descartes cogito ergo sum* is flawed, as pointed out by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard :

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

*"I think, therefore, I am"

The molecules in the brain interact in such a way that the brain has a sense of self and can say "I am". Those organisms who evolved such a brain got a survival advantage.

 

[ArtieE]

But the quantum foam says no such thing. It is just consciousness without an 'I'. 'I' is just excess unnecessary baggage the ego creates for itself.

One of the things that defines consciousness is a sense of selfhood. "I".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

One of the things that defines consciousness is a sense of selfhood. "I".

It's also the case that consciousness always has an object, there is always consciousness OF something.

 

[`mud]

'I' think:
Consciousness is just a way to explain our sense of awareness,
and the gnosis within, merging with the knowledge within reach,
that which merges with the energies sensed that are available.
And then we die.
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'I' think:
Consciousness is just a way to explain our sense of awareness,
and the gnosis within, merging with the knowledge within reach,
that which merges with the energies sensed that are available.
And then we die.

Sounds reasonable. Consciousness is perhaps best described as awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

[`mud]

hey Rick,
I plugged that site into my topic sorter.
Could have not another so thoroughly expressed,
but mine's better
~
'mud

 

[james bond]

So what's my point with these optical illusions? I'm not really sure because it's still a mystery. Here is another:

We have learned it's not because some are right or left brain dominant, but the new theory could be brain fluctuations which would fall under the study of neurology.

The kicker is this classic experiment which is NOT an optical illusion. It is still a mystery. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with light. And when we're traveling at the speed of light, we are traveling in the 4th dimension or spacetime. If sound is affected by the atmosphere, then certainly light would be affected by spacetime. Light would not be traveling just through space.

 

[gnostic]

You just didn't get very far, that's all. In fact, if you had been holding onto the idea of 'seeing cosmos or reaching epiphany' as an expectation, then you were wasting your time on your mat. If you really want to meditate, just sit. Don't do anything else.

You are right, I didn't go far enough.

But at that time, I was 18, and searching for answers...any answer, no matter how strange it was.

The previous year when I decided to join sister's church, I had changed my mind at the very last moment, while I right in front of water for my baptism. I changed my mind, because I came to realisation that I would be joining this church because of my sister's faith, instead of my own.

I was semi-independent when I started university, trying different things, trying to find my own places, and one of them I was trying out were Buddhism and meditation.

Now you need to understand my situation, during primary and high schools, my sisters and I were the only Chinese there. So most of people I was surrounded by, were either of Anglo-Saxon background or Greeks or Italians. So religious-wise, I was only exposed to Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and my parents mixture of Chinese folk cult (ancestor worship) and Taoism. I had never met any others who following religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism until I had started university.

Did you know that have never met an Indian person, until uni? I mean I hear about them, seen pictures of them, but never met any until I started my civil engineering course.

Because university was a different environment, so it was possible to experiment and try other stuffs that I couldn't do earlier, in high school.

But you are right, I didn't try harder enough, but when you are uni student, there were a lot of pressures, so I wanted results. When I wasn't successful, I would just move on, seeking something else.

I did remember a couple of the guys were trying to teach and help me to meditate. I know that Ben is laughing at me, but they were trying to get me to relax, and one of the processes of relaxing, is focusing on my breathing.

Were you patience and disciplined at that age? Well, I don't know of your background.

I'd suppose I wasn't, so I couldn't.

 

[godnotgod]

The molecules in the brain interact in such a way that the brain has a sense of self and can say "I am".

Non-human creatures have brains. Do they have a sense of self and can say 'I am'? You are still making a quantum leap from material unconscious atoms and molecules to the non-material conscious 'I'. How does that happen?

 

[godnotgod]

You are right, I didn't go far enough.

But you are right, I didn't try harder enough, but when you are uni student, there were a lot of pressures, so I wanted results. When I wasn't successful, I would just move on, seeking something else.

I did remember a couple of the guys were trying to teach and help me to meditate. I know that Ben is laughing at me, but they were trying to get me to relax, and one of the processes of relaxing, is focusing on my breathing.

Were you patience and disciplined at that age? Well, I don't know of your background.

I'd suppose I wasn't, so I couldn't.

One of the goals of meditation is to subdue the discursive mind, which is always jumping about, latching onto this thought or that. If we actively attempt to subdue it, we only make it worse. It just has to happen of its own accord, like mud settling to the bottom of a pond. Then you can see clearly to the bottom. Only watch thoughts, but don't attach to them as 'my' thoughts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'I' think:
Consciousness is just a way to explain our sense of awareness,
and the gnosis within, merging with the knowledge within reach,
that which merges with the energies sensed that are available.
And then we die.
~
'mud

But consider...somewhere along the line, the thinker self identity that has merged with the sensed energies available at all levels, become one with those energies......which energies continue to exist when the present body of the soul dies....and thus the present season comes to an end...but not the series... .

 

[godnotgod]

One of the things that defines consciousness is a sense of selfhood. "I".

'I' is only present when there is thought. When no thought is present, however, consciousness is still there. IOW, 'I' is about thinking; consciousness is about seeing, without thought, and therefore, without any such 'I'. 'I' is an illusion of the mind. So consciousness is not defined by or dependent upon 'I'; the opposite is the case.

Can you just sit, without a single thought in your head, without any idea of self, and just simply SEE what is? I know you want to say 'I see', but there is no such agent of seeing or thinking, just as there is no agent of whirling water called 'whirlpool'.

See?