If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is interaction.

Oh? Previously you said it was an illusion. Make up your....mind...heh..heh..

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is responding to my posts....interaction.

You like to think so.

Probably a security issue.

 

[godnotgod]

It wasn't self-created.

No? Then from whence did it arise?

Where did the rope seen as a 'snake' come from?

(please don't give me that hogwash about 'emergent theory')

 

[Runewolf1973]

No? Then from whence did it arise?

(please don't give me that hogwash about 'emergent theory')

Emergent Theory would have been my response. I don't consider it to be hogwash.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You like to think so.

Probably a security issue.

Interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

Emergent Theory would have been my response. I don't consider it to be hogwash.

'Theory' is a misnomer; it hardly qualifies as a hypothesis. You are aware that 'theory' as used in science is pretty much fact, such as 'the theory of evolution'?

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction.

The illusion of talking heads, when the reality is that there is only a single universal consciousness, pretending to be many such individual conscious entities, all 'interacting' one with the other. Fun.

Focus on the background and you may catch a glimpse. The foreground is all about 'many things' interacting with each other. The background is about Nothing, pretending to be Everything.

This is the single most compelling thing you will ever know.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The illusion of talking heads, when the reality is that there is only a single universal consciousness, pretending to be many such individual conscious entities, all 'interacting' one with the other. Fun.

Focus on the background and you may catch a glimpse. The foreground is all about 'many things' interacting with each other.

Background...foreground....same thing.

 

[godnotgod]

"Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed."

Tao te Ching, Ch 56

 

[godnotgod]

Background...foreground....same thing.

If you only focus on the foreground, (ie 'interaction') which comes and goes, you will not see it in the correct context of the background. When seen in its proper context, foreground becomes completely transformed.

'first there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then, there is'

 

[Runewolf1973]

The illusion of talking heads, when the reality is that there is only a single universal consciousness, pretending to be many such individual conscious entities, all 'interacting' one with the other. Fun.

Focus on the background and you may catch a glimpse. The foreground is all about 'many things' interacting with each other. The background is about Nothing, pretending to be Everything.

This is the single most compelling thing you will ever know.

Pretending is interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If you only focus on the foreground, (ie 'interaction') which comes and goes, you will not see it in the correct context of the background. When seen in its proper context, foreground becomes completely transformed.

'first there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then, there is'

I don't see it as making any difference. See it as you wish. Interaction does not come and go, it only seems to come and go.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Mmmm, I love stout Guinness, i also make my own, its a good way to use my energy lol.

Yes, very worthwhile. And much better for you than the snake-oil being purveyed by some people on this thread.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is that which changes?

Everything in my experience. Is there anything you have observed which doesn't change? Anything which exists independently, not dependent on conditions?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Background...foreground....same thing.

Yes, it's merely a question of perspective and focus. The other stuff is pseudo-spiritual twaddle.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My question was 'What is the entity which changes?' Change has to happen in something. Something changes, e.g., ice changed into water.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My question was 'What is the entity which changes?' Change has to happen in something. Something changes.

Why do you assume "entities"? All I see are dependently arising phenomena. No things, only processes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There has to be an 'entity' or 'entities', otherwise 'dependent' becomes meaningless. Dependent on what? No 'dependent' without anything to depend on. That is why Brahman. Or you mean 'independent origination'?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There has to be an 'entity' or 'entities', otherwise 'dependent' becomes meaningless. Dependent on what? No 'dependent' without anything to depend on. That is why Brahman.

Dependent on transient conditions.

But you're an atheist, so what is your personal definition of "Brahman" here?
If by "Brahman" you actually mean "universe" then it would be clearer if you just said "universe", instead of bringing in misleading religious terminology. This thread has repeatedly been plagued by ill-defined new-age jargon, it would be good to see a clearer approach to language.

It puzzles me that you still use Hindu terminology, despite not actually subscribing to Hindu beliefs as far as I can tell. Isn't it about time you came out properly as an atheist?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see it as making any difference. See it as you wish. Interaction does not come and go, it only seems to come and go.

Are you saying there is no difference between seeing only the foreground, and seeing background and foreground as one?