How do you define "physical?"

[apophenia]

Do you believe there is anything that is not subject to change?

Not a thing.

Possibly the currently unexplained ( and I'm guessing unexplainable) basis of observation itself, whatever we call that - and all the terms are loaded. Words like being, sentience, knowing, witnessing and so forth.

But even there, whether or not this mysterious ~~~~~ , without which there is nothing, or at least nothing known by anyone, and which seems to have no movement or change (from a meditation perspective, to give some sense of what I mean), I could not possibly say if this began or will end - which is the only change possible to that-with-no-apparent-movement-or-attribute, as far as I can see.

Please, please,please, anyone reading this ...

These ideas are not actually in the camp of materialism or mysticism. I am attempting to talk directly from experience, about that ongoing experience without affirming or denying any of those other ideas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe you're attempting to say that change is the only constant.

Thanks. That explains it better.

No, he didn't.

Well, he began it. Planck completely dismantled it.

 

[Gambit]

Not a thing.

Possibly the currently unexplained ( and I'm guessing unexplainable) basis of observation itself, whatever we call that - and all the terms are loaded. Words like being, sentience, knowing, witnessing and so forth..

The contents of consciousness may be subject to change, but not awareness itself?

 

[apophenia]

The contents of consciousness may be subject to change, but not awareness itself?

This is where language fails us. Or I am just not sufficiently masterful of language.

In a discussion about this with a Tibetan lama, he said "awareness is not in itself the final stage. awareness is like a portal to the transcendent reality". That was Traleg Rinpoche, discussing the differentiation of sem and rigpa - conceptual mind and awareness.

At some point, when one ceases effort in the mindfulness practice where one takes awareness itself as the object of meditation, awareness is clearly recognised as an attribute of being, or a being, or the being , or my being... words fail me here. It is too close to see. Not conceptual. No moving parts. Beyond observation. Empty. No discernable qualities.

Physical ? That just doesn't apply. Not in any sense I have ever heard the word used.

An emergent property of complexity ? No.

 

[Gambit]

In a discussion about this with a Tibetan lama, he said "awareness is not in itself the final stage. awareness is like a portal to the transcendent reality". That was Traleg Rinpoche, discussing the differentiation of sem and rigpa - conceptual mind and awareness.

At some point, when one ceases effort in the mindfulness practice where one takes awareness itself as the object of meditation, awareness is clearly recognised as an attribute of being, or a being, or the being , or my being... words fail me here. It is too close to see. Not conceptual. No moving parts. Beyond observation. Empty. No discernable qualities.

What you're describing is a subject matter I broached in my thread entitled "Do you believe it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness?".

 

[nazz]

That which is physical is that which can be directly measured and quantified by scientific methodology and whose metrics do not rest upon subjective constructs. Put another way, it is that which objectively exists regardless of human assessment and observation.

Quantum mechanics seem to dispute this

 

[Nakosis]

Physical is something that can be perceived using one or more of the five senses. Or it affects something we can perceive.

 

[Quintessence]

Quantum mechanics seem to dispute this

Not really. That observers have an affect on physical reality at a (IMHO meaningless) subatomic level doesn't mean physical reality wouldn't exist without observers. If you're going to get into that (pardon) zany New Age misappropriation of QM, I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole. Sorry.

 

[psychoslice]

How do you define "physical?".....by hitting your head against the wall lol.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

The BEST things in this life are non-physical -

Laughter & curiosity & wonder & awe & imagination & inspiration & compassion & forgiveness & gratitude & love & kindness & happiness.

Have a good one!

 

[nazz]

Not really. That observers have an affect on physical reality at a (IMHO meaningless) subatomic level doesn't mean physical reality wouldn't exist without observers. If you're going to get into that (pardon) zany New Age misappropriation of QM, I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole. Sorry.

You're misreading me. I was simply pointing out that QM indicates that observation has an effect on reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Drawing upon Spiny Norman's post above, this means intelligence is not physical; it has no objective existence and cannot be measured without deciding an an idea for what it means. On the contrary, you can measure the length of something with no idea or concept of length as it has objective status.

By that measure, the rules for Hungry Hungry Hippos are "non-physical".

 

[outhouse]

How do you define "physical?"

If you walk out in a busy Hwy, one will soon find out what physical is.

 

[Bunyip]

'Physical' distinguishes between what is conceptual/abstract and what is real/existent/actual.

Physical refers to that which has a material, real, actual material presence.

Synonyms for physical include; real, material, substantial, concrete, tangible, actual.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

substantial, concrete, tangible

Is light substantial, concrete, or tangible?

 

[Bunyip]

Is light substantial, concrete, or tangible?

Light is composed of elementary particles called 'photons', photons are physical.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Light is composed of elementary particles called 'photons', photons are physical.

That's not what I asked. But let me rephrase: are photons "substantial, concrete, or tangible"?

 

[Gambit]

Light is composed of elementary particles called 'photons', photons are physical.

Photons are actually immaterial in the sense that they have no mass.

 

[Bunyip]

Photons are actually immaterial in the sense that they have no mass.

And in the sense that they have direction, spin and charge they are material.

 

[Bunyip]

That's not what I asked. But let me rephrase: are photons "substantial, concrete, or tangible"?

If you are using thise words as synonyms for physical, then yes.