Consciousness

[crossfire]

As I understand it, Brahman is understood as That which does NOT change; which does NOT come and go; which is unconditioned Pure Consciousness, etc. and so is considered the only true Reality. Everything else is maya.

Not everyone are metaphysical idealists.

 

[godnotgod]

Why don't you simply say God is the space between, and within atoms? That God IS "Pure Abstract Intelligence. That God is the source for everything that exists. That God IS the universal thought, consciousness, unconsciousness, etc. Why don't you just say that God is everywhere, and that God did it all, and be done with it?

Because that would imply a 'creator of the creation', when the reality is that there is only creation itself. That creation is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence, sans an agent of Pure Abstract Intelligence. To put it another way, The Universe is none other than The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, and playing ITself as 'The Universe'. What you've done is to buy into the illusion that the play of The Absolute as 'The Material Universe' is real.

You also can't simply mold established scientific principles to suit your self-serving logical perspective and beliefs. The difference between you a creationists, is that they try to discredit science evidence without evidence, and you try to redefine science evidence without evidence. In other words no difference since you both want to justify a belief in the supernatural, using science and not evidence.

You're quite wrong about that. I have never brought up any such notion of a 'supernatural' force. Such a force implies power over nature. I am saying that the force is nature itself. Reality remains singular and seamless. I am only employing the use of science in order to have a handle to communicate with you, since that is your orientation. The thing about you is that you can only accept the scientific view and not the mystical view, but I can accept both, and see no contradiction. However, science is only a partial limited view of Reality. As I have said repeatedly, it gives us all the facts, ma'am, but tells us nothing. In fact, it just leads us on and on and on. What's missing is an insight into the true nature of things as the basis for understanding the meaning of all those dead facts, data, and minutiae, an insight which science cannot provide. Another kind of knowledge is required, one having a larger scope than science, one beyond the microscope and the telescope.

Energy is a property of everything in the Universe. But unless energy is used to do some kind of work, or change from one form to another, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. How much work does a disembodied consciousness do? Nothing! How much work does disembodied space do? Nothing! Is space empty? NO! Are we made up of the elements we label on the periodic table as atoms? Yes. If you want to call them discrete energy packets(quanta), so what, this is already well understood. What is your point since they also must do work.

No. Energy IS what the Universe actually IS. You just said: 'every-thing IN the universe. There is no such thing. What comprises The Universe are those very 'things', which are not things at all, but actions. 'Every-thing' is in constant flux, though much of it may appear to be without movement, as the movement is imperceptible.

Once again: 'all known particles in the universe are standing waves'

The point is that what you think to be material reality is an illusion, and what you think is energy doing work, is actually a play on the part of Pure Abstract Intelligence, creating the appearance of a real, solid material world. This coincides with what Quantum Physics says about what we call 'material reality': that is is actually a 'superposition of possibilities', and that all known particles are actually standing waves.

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
― Albert Einstein

"Consciousness doesn't need a brain. Brains need consciousness. Consciousness is Pure Abstract Intelligence, the source for everything that exists.". This for me is inconceivable, based on the evidence alone.There is simply much more evidence supporting that consciousness is created by the brain than vise versa(stroke victims, Alzheimer, drugs, MRI's, etc.). Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes can produce subjective experiences. Not the other way around. Even changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can even predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions they made. By using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing. Does all this mean that consciousness cannot exist without a brain to exist? NO! It only means that the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that it can't. Maybe you can provide a similar amount of evidence to support your position? Don

LOL. This reminds me of the old idea of abiogenesis, by which maggors were believed to have originated from rotting meat. Sounds nice and seems right. But tell me: how does non-material consciousness emerge from the material brain? At which point does this miracle occur?

 

[godnotgod]

Not everyone are metaphysical idealists.

But what you have called 'the rest of reality' is ...what? What do you mean by 'reality', in terms of your description of a world where everything is changing all the time? And if what you see as a world that is changing all the time as something real, then logic tells us that there must, by definition, be something underlying this 'change', and that something can only be That which does NOT change, and if that is the case, then what we see as change is only an illusion.

As I understand it, the Buddha noted the effervescence of the world along with its temporal nature, and so he sought higher ground. What he found was solid and robust, beyond all doubt. The ordinary conditioned mind sees this world as real. The awakened mind sees its illusory nature, and gets in touch with That which is creating the illusion of a material reality. That is what the Buddha did.

 

[crossfire]

But what you have called 'the rest of reality' is ...what? What do you mean by 'reality', in terms of your description of a world where everything is changing all the time? And if what you see as a world that is changing all the time as something real, then logic tells us that there must, by definition, be something underlying this 'change', and that something can only be That which does NOT change, and if that is the case, then what we see as change is only an illusion.

Factors affecting change may in themselves be impermanent and changing. Complexity builds quickly in interacting systems.
Buddhism calls this interdependent co-arising.

 

[godnotgod]

Factors affecting change may in themselves be impermanent and changing. Complexity builds quickly in interacting systems.
Buddhism calls this interdependent co-arising.

Yes, but is the phenomena that is dependently co-arising and subsiding real or not? We know it is empty of self-nature, and we know it is temporal.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Because that would imply a 'creator of the creation', when the reality is that there is only creation itself. That creation is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence, sans an agent of Pure Abstract Intelligence. To put it another way, The Universe is none other than The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, and playing ITself as 'The Universe'. What you've done is to buy into the illusion that the play of The Absolute as 'The Material Universe' is real.



You're quite wrong about that. I have never brought up any such notion of a 'supernatural' force. Such a force implies power over nature. I am saying that the force is nature itself. Reality remains singular and seamless. I am only employing the use of science in order to have a handle to communicate with you, since that is your orientation. The thing about you is that you can only accept the scientific view and not the mystical view, but I can accept both, and see no contradiction. However, science is only a partial limited view of Reality. As I have said repeatedly, it gives us all the facts, ma'am, but tells us nothing. In fact, it just leads us on and on and on. What's missing is an insight into the true nature of things as the basis for understanding the meaning of all those dead facts, data, and minutiae, an insight which science cannot provide. Another kind of knowledge is required, one having a larger scope than science, one beyond the microscope and the telescope.



No. Energy IS what the Universe actually IS. You just said: 'every-thing IN the universe. There is no such thing. What comprises The Universe are those very 'things', which are not things at all, but actions. 'Every-thing' is in constant flux, though much of it may appear to be without movement, as the movement is imperceptible.

Once again: 'all known particles in the universe are standing waves'

The point is that what you think to be material reality is an illusion, and what you think is energy doing work, is actually a play on the part of Pure Abstract Intelligence, creating the appearance of a real, solid material world. This coincides with what Quantum Physics says about what we call 'material reality': that is is actually a 'superposition of possibilities', and that all known particles are actually standing waves.

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
― Albert Einstein



LOL. This reminds me of the old idea of abiogenesis, by which maggors were believed to have originated from rotting meat. Sounds nice and seems right. But tell me: how does non-material consciousness emerge from the material brain? At which point does this miracle occur?

The only thing worse than your "word salad", baseless assertions, and redefining simple terms, is that someone else actually liked it. Look I get it;

There is no God
The creation created itself
The creation is Pure Abstract Intelligence
The Universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass(?) of Time, Space and Causality
Force is not the interaction between objects, it is simply Nature
I'm being fooled by this Absolute to think that the Material Universe is real. But, It is only an illusion
My scientific orientation prevents me from accepting any mystical point of view. But you can accept both.
Science can only provide the facts, but can't tell us anything about our reality
We must go beyond science in order to understand the true nature of reality
Everything in the Universe are not things, they are only standing waves with imperceptible movement(or none at all)
Energy doesn't do work, material reality is an illusion, and the PAI creates the illusion of a real, solid material world
A non-material consciousness can't come from a material brain

I think I've heard enough. G'day. Don

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but is the phenomena that is dependently co-arising and subsiding real or not? We know it is empty of self-nature, and we know it is temporal.

Yep. Like I said, not everyone is a metaphysical idealist.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but is the phenomena that is dependently co-arising and subsiding real or not? We know it is empty of self-nature, and we know it is temporal.

Yep. Like I said, not everyone is a metaphysical idealist.

The phenomena are actual, they can affect change in the here and now, and can interact with other phenomena, conscious or not.

 

[godnotgod]

The only thing worse than your "word salad", baseless assertions, and redefining simple terms, is that someone else actually liked it. Look I get it;

There is no God

There is neither god, nor not-god.
Now what do you see?

The creation created itself

I was using the word 'creation' only as a matter of convention. I suppose I should have used the word 'manifestation' instead. Pure Abstract Intelligence manifests what we know as 'the material world'. It's an illusion.

The creation is Pure Abstract Intelligence

No. The Universe is Pure Abstract Intelligence as seen through the glass (ie; 'the conditioned mind') of Time, Space, and Causation. We therefore see it as a 'material universe', divided into parts, composed of atoms, and changing all the time.

The Universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass(?) of Time, Space and Causality

see above

Force is not the interaction between objects, it is simply Nature

Same thing.

I'm being fooled by this Absolute to think that the Material Universe is real. But, It is only an illusion

You should know: you are none other than The Absolute, pretending not to be, immersed in the illusion you think to be reality.

My scientific orientation prevents me from accepting any mystical point of view. But you can accept both.

You want proof for the mystical POV when it can only be directly experienced.

Science can only provide the facts, but can't tell us anything about our reality

It cannot tell us what the nature of Reality is. In fact, it cannot tell us what the Universe actually is. It can tell us facts about the Universe, how it behaves, what its characteristics are, and so on, in order to make predictions about its behavior.

We must go beyond science in order to understand the true nature of reality

Yes, which will put science in the right context of Reality, rather than trying to put Reality into the context of science.

Everything in the Universe are not things, they are only standing waves with imperceptible movement(or none at all)

No. All particles are standing waves. 'Things' are just frozen concepts the mind creates about reality in order to make bite-sized 'sense' of something it does not yet understand.

Energy doesn't do work, material reality is an illusion, and the PAI creates the illusion of a real, solid material world

Why that is the case is for you to discover....someday, perhaps, not just right now.

A non-material consciousness can't come from a material brain

Not to say that it cannot. It's just that no one has yet been able to demonstrate how this occurs.

.I think I've heard enough. G'day. Don

"The green wolf with his bunch of red roses is slinking away;
all on a summer's day"

 

[godnotgod]

The phenomena are actual, they can affect change in the here and now, and can interact with other phenomena, conscious or not.

Heart Sutra says all phenomena are empty of self-nature. This is the view via Ultimate Reality. The ordinary mind sees all phenomena as being in possession of self-nature.

To say that phenomena affects change in the here and now is perceptual reality, not Ultimate Reality. Perceptual reality does not see that all such 'things' are co-arising in dependent origination; it sees instead cause and effect, and thus, 'change', which is illusory.

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both are moving'
passerby: 'your minds are moving'

Zen Source

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but is the phenomena that is dependently co-arising and subsiding real or not? We know it is empty of self-nature, and we know it is temporal.

Heart Sutra says all phenomena are empty of self-nature. This is the view via Ultimate Reality. The ordinary mind sees all phenomena as being in possession of self-nature.

So, substance-based theory is not the way to go then. I have no qualms with that, and agree. There is no "substance" to be found. What you are left with is process philosophy and other alternatives.

To say that phenomena affects change in the here and now is perceptual reality, not Ultimate Reality. Perceptual reality does not see that all such 'things' are co-arising in dependent origination; it sees instead cause and effect, and thus, 'change', which is illusory.

You still have not given reasons as to why process/change is illusory.

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both are moving'
passerby: 'your minds are moving'

Zen Source

Yes, it is an interactive universe, which includes our minds. Seeing the waving flag causes the mind to ponder (move.)

 

[godnotgod]

So, substance-based theory is not the way to go then. I have no qualms with that, and agree. There is no "substance" to be found. What you are left with is process philosophy and other alternatives.

Only if the mind is still active. Stop the mind. Now there is no more philosophy; no more metaphysics. There is only the reality of your conscious awareness that sees, without thought, what is.

You still have not given reasons as to why process/change is illusory.

If you understand Time and Space to be illusory, then there cannot be change, because change takes place only in Time and Space.

All process/change is experienced via perception. On this level, it is real. On the level of the awakened mind, however, it is not.

Are the events in a dream real? You know they are illusory via the act of awakening, yes? So, too, will you know that the events in this 'material' world are also illusory via awakening to a yet higher level. However, unlike the dream/sleep which vanishes upon awakening, the 'material' world does NOT vanish, making it far more difficult to awaken. This phenomenal world and all it's attractions captivate the mind, keeping it asleep, and steering it away from awakening. If one is sincere about awakening, one's efforts must be totally dedicated, and attention to the present moment continually kept alive. Other than this, I would say that genuine love is a way of awakening.

Yes, it is an interactive universe, which includes our minds. Seeing the waving flag causes the mind to ponder (move.)

Where is this moving mind, and who, or what, is it that knows it to be moving?

 

[crossfire]

Only if the mind is still active. Stop the mind. Now there is no more philosophy; no more metaphysics. There is only the reality of your conscious awareness that sees, without thought, what is.

Sure.

If you understand Time and Space to be illusory, then there cannot be change, because change takes place only in Time and Space.

Space and Time are not illusory. While they may be relativistic, they are not necessarily illusory.

All process/change is experienced via perception. On this level, it is real. On the level of the awakened mind, however, it is not.

One can stare into the void, or even become the void on a subjective level. This does not negate the reality of space-time, however. The subjective experience still has a beginning and an end.

Are the events in a dream real? You know they are illusory via the act of awakening, yes? So, too, will you know that the events in this 'material' world are also illusory via awakening to a yet higher level. However, unlike the dream/sleep which vanishes upon awakening, the 'material' world does NOT vanish, making it far more difficult to awaken. This phenomenal world and all it's attractions captivate the mind, keeping it asleep, and steering it away from awakening. If one is sincere about awakening, one's efforts must be totally dedicated, and attention to the present moment continually kept alive. Other than this, I would say that genuine love is a way of awakening.

Sure, the phenomenal world has its attractions and the capacity to captivate the mind. So does the void. In that respect they are the same--the common factor is the mind being captivated or enchanted. The mind also has the capacity to become disenchanted by either or both.

Where is this moving mind, and who, or what, is it that knows it to be moving?

Mu.

 

[atanu]

I was not making any equivocation between consciousness and a man-made machine. I was giving you an analogy. I was trying to relate to you that consciousness is a term(not a thing), that we use to describe a state of being. That is, a state of awareness of the position of self within space-time. It is inconceivable to think that consciousness can exist as a disembodied entity without a functioning brain.

The 'states' that you are talking of is of Consciousness, which is the power of discernment in variety of ways -- not only in human way. States are not the consciousness itself.

If you want an analogy, the three states of water is a good one. Water itself assumes three forms. Consciousness assumes three forms: waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. The states are not consciousness in itself.

Further, the following will show how petty many of our notions of consciousness are. Consciousness and its manifestation -- discernment, is not limited to brain.

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic
The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
Scientists Discover That Slime Mold Is Capable of Learning
A single-celled organism capable of learning

Further, if you knew Quantum Mechanics, you would know that paired photons when separated many miles know the state of each other instantaneously. So, human type of discernment is not the only type of discernment in the universe.

This can be easily demonstrated, and studied using many different artificial means. Simple logic says that if we lose the brain, consciousness does not exist. But if we lose consciousness, the brain still exists. Therefore, consciousness can't exist without a functioning brain.

On the contrary, a body-brain is never known in absence of a discerning consciousness. Whereas a dead body or a dead brain does not exhibit consciousness. Consciousness is not the fundamental property of brain or body. What makes bodies conscious is beyond our mind.

As shown above from scientific papers, consciousness is exhibited by brain-less organisms too.

A better question to ask is what fuel does the brain need to sustain its functions. The brain needs blood chemicals, neural activities, and lots of oxygen to sustain its function. Consciousness only needs a brain.

Yes. This is the question that I will ask. What is absent from a dead body that the brain therein loses its so called consciousness creating power?

Since you can't decide what to dream, it is your subconscious mind that is interacting with your conscious mind. Your dreams revel your innermost emotions and your conception of self. It is still consciousness, but at a subconscious level. If the brain was removed and replaced, or you were reincarnated into another brain, then you can loosely say that consciousness was reborn. But there is no evidence to support these ideas. Therefore, asking a question that assumes that consciousness disappears and is reborn, is making a faulty assumption that consciousness does disappear and is reborn. The truth is it doesn't disappear or go anywhere. It is just chemically separated from its sensory inputs. How this process works, we are not certain. But the evidence supports that depriving the brain of sensory inputs will induce an unconscious state. Therefore they are related.

No. Some people say that there is no consciousness when we are in deep sleep. Then how do we know that we slept? How does a person 'xyz' come back as 'xyz'? There is surely a connecting consciousness that manifests in three different states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

The point is: consciousness is not same as the manifest conscious mind, which is a manifestation.

Yes, I can conclude the "physical origin of consciousness". Consciousness itself is not physical, or sentient. It is only a state of awareness that is represented to the subjective mind as snapshots of reality by a functioning brain. Without sensory information, no snapshots, thus no conscious awareness. I don't blame others that their beliefs are nonsense. Beliefs don't require evidence or need to be defended. I happen to believe that a universal perspective must exist at all times. Therefore no one actually dies, they simply switch to a another perspective. But I'm not going to bother defending what I can't prove. Don

Okay. I see that you call yourself 'Truly Enlightened'. But if your intelligence is a created artefact of a mechanistic process, how will your intelligence be free to determine the truth value of a proposition? As, its results are already 'pre-determined' by the mechanistic process, how does it have any freedom to discern the truth of any proposition? Your intelligence is just an appearance.

 

[godnotgod]

Space and Time are not illusory. While they may be relativistic, they are not necessarily illusory.

No, not necessarily illusory. But even science is careful to define 'space-time' as a concept. So both of these concepts exist only as a function of the conceptual mind. IOW, they are descriptions as in 'measurement'. But once the mind is silenced, and only seeing via consciousness is operative, then neither time nor space exist. The linear measurement we call 'time' dissolves away and the realization that we are immersed in this eternal present moment, where there is no time, comes into play. Likewise, the notion of 'space' as something we can observe in the manner of subject and object, also dissolves, and we realize that the consciousness involved in apprehending 'space', is none other than space itself, true to the Hindu dictum that 'Thou Art That'.

One can stare into the void, or even become the void on a subjective level. This does not negate the reality of space-time, however. The subjective experience still has a beginning and an end.

Sure, the phenomenal world has its attractions and the capacity to captivate the mind. So does the void. In that respect they are the same--the common factor is the mind being captivated or enchanted. The mind also has the capacity to become disenchanted by either or both.

'Void' has several meanings, but in general, means an absolute nothingness. If that is the case, then 'mind' would also be included. In void, there is no time nor space, no mind, no observer of the void, so where is this 'subjective' observer? You are describing the void in terms of a subject/object split.

Mu

The knower of moving mind also has a knower, and so on, ad infinitum. When the mind is completely stilled in meditation, where is there any movement, or any mind that moves, or any knower or experiencer of moving mind?

 

[crossfire]

No, not necessarily illusory. But even science is careful to define 'space-time' as a concept. So both of these concepts exist only as a function of the conceptual mind. IOW, they are descriptions as in 'measurement'. But once the mind is silenced, and only seeing via consciousness is operative, then neither time nor space exist. The linear measurement we call 'time' dissolves away and the realization that we are immersed in this eternal present moment, where there is no time, comes into play. Likewise, the notion of 'space' as something we can observe in the manner of subject and object, also dissolves, and we realize that the consciousness involved in apprehending 'space', is none other than space itself, true to the Hindu dictum that 'Thou Art That'.

"no space-time" is also a concept, as well as "here & now." As I said, it is relativistic--measurements taken relative to itself. I used to be captivated by the void. Now I'm not. With the dissolution of time, the captivation returns, such in the same manner that a junkie never totally overcomes addiction.

'Void' has several meanings, but in general, means an absolute nothingness. If that is the case, then 'mind' would also be included. In void, there is no time nor space, no mind, no observer of the void, so where is this 'subjective' observer? You are describing the void in terms of a subject/object split.

I did say, " or one could become the Void on a subjective level." Did you miss that part?

The knower of moving mind also has a knower, and so on, ad infinitum. When the mind is completely stilled in meditation, where is there any movement, or any mind that moves, or any knower or experiencer of moving mind?

If you are asking the question, are you really there?

 

[godnotgod]

"no space-time" is also a concept, as well as "here & now." As I said, it is relativistic--measurements taken relative to itself. I used to be captivated by the void. Now I'm not. With the dissolution of time, the captivation returns, such in the same manner that a junkie never totally overcomes addiction.

Right, I mean after all, it's 'just the void'; Nothing Special.

I did say, " or one could become the Void on a subjective level." Did you miss that part?

No, but 'subjective' still implies a subject/object split. If 'you' become the Void, then there is no more 'you', as in 'subjective'. You can't limit the void to a descriptor such as 'subjective'. If one dissolves into the void, it is like the drop of water dissolving into the vast ocean. There is no longer any subjective 'you' to 'become' anything.

If you are asking the question, are you really there?

Only if there is such a 'you' that asks the question. There can be the asking of the question, without an asker of the question. There is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water, without a 'whirler of water' we call 'whirlpool'.

 

[crossfire]

Right, I mean after all, it's 'just the void'; Nothing Special.



No, but 'subjective' still implies a subject/object split. If 'you' become the Void, then there is no more 'you', as in 'subjective'. You can't limit the void to a descriptor such as 'subjective'. If one dissolves into the void, it is like the drop of water dissolving into the vast ocean. There is no longer any subjective 'you' to 'become' anything.

Well, nothing really can be said about it until afterwards. (That pesky illusory time thing again!)

Only if there is such a 'you' that asks the question. There can be the asking of the question, without an asker of the question. There is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water, without a 'whirler of water' we call 'whirlpool'.

Like I said, "mu."

 

[atanu]

"no space-time" is also a concept, as well as "here & now." .

IMO, this is all that is required.

There is in upanishads a teaching: Purusha in the eye is same as the purusha in the sun. Many will literally translate 'Purusha' as 'Person' and miss the point.

Purusha is the reality and space-time is the after-effect.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, nothing really can be said about it until afterwards. (That pesky illusory time thing again!)

Oh, you mean when consciousness returns to its conditioned state of Time, Space, and Causation, and hence of Identification, the fiction it thinks is reality. Ah, so easy to fall into maya; so warm; so comfy....sooooo sleepy. yawn.