Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[godnotgod]

A fiction.

Good! You're coming along just fine.

Now use your noggin, Lucky:

If there is no 'I' consciousness; if such a localized consciousness is a fiction, as you have stated, then what kind of consciousness is present by default?

Take your time, and don't rely on the jerk of the knee, now.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I said that self-view is a fiction. The nature of consciousness is another discussion.

 

[godnotgod]

I said that self-view is a fiction. The nature of consciousness is another discussion.

No, Lucky! I did not ask you for the nature of consciousness! Read!

If self-view, which is one form of consciousness, is a fiction, and if consciousness is still present, then what kind of consciousness must that be? There are only two choices: self-view and not-self-view. And not-self-view is....what?....C:\...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If self-view, which is one form of consciousness, is a fiction, and if consciousness is still present, then what kind of consciousness must that be?

Self-view is not a "form of consciousness", it is an assumption.

Anyway, it is emptiness all the way down, and your Precious is a fiction too.

 

[godnotgod]

Self-view is not a "form of consciousness", it is an assumption.

That self-view is real is the assumption*, but it is still a state of consciousness. You cannot have self-view without it.

Self-view is conditioned consciousness, otherwise known as 'mind'. Thinking is what conditioned mind does.

When all of the activities of the mind come to a complete halt, there is only unconditioned consciousness. Seeing is what unconditioned consciousness does.

Can you tell me what unconditioned consciousness is?

*Exemplified by Descartes' flawed cogito ergo sum: 'I think, therefore I am'

(Alternate question: 'If self-view is a fiction, as you claim, then what view is not-fiction'?)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can you tell me what unconditioned consciousness is?

In Buddhism it means not conditioned by craving, aversion and ignorance.

What is your new-age answer to the question? Something to do with "Cosmic Consciousness" or "Absolute Reality" I expect, a muddled variation on Hindu belief. Another DIY religion.

 

[godnotgod]

In Buddhism it means not conditioned by craving, aversion and ignorance.
.

...which is self-view. But what, then, is no-self-view? Are you understanding the question, or simply being evasive?

So are we now discussing Buddhism?

The questions are non-sectarian and simple. You started out by saying that 'I' is a fiction. Then whatever is not-I must be real. What is not-I?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You started out by saying that 'I' is a fiction. Then whatever is not-I must be real. What is not-I?[/COLOR]

No, I said that self-view is a fiction. You wouldn't understand that because you see everything through the narrow lens of your pseudo-Hindu belief system, and you are obsessed with trying to prove the existence of your Precious, "Cosmic Consciousness".

But a discussion about the nature of consciousness is off-topic here, and I am not going to help you hijack yet another thread.

If you want to do some more preaching, then start another thread.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not proof, but rather evidence.

Proof is based on evidence.

 

[Parsimony]

Proof is based on evidence.

You can't ever really get to proof in science just by building up evidence, though. There is always the possibility of a future discovery overturning existing evidence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You can't ever really get to proof in science just by building up evidence, though. There is always the possibility of a future discovery overturning existing evidence.

Most evidence is not "overturned" (although there are some observations that are later shown to be in error); most evidence is reinterpreted in the face of new evidence and a new model that better explains both the old and the new observations. Newton's observations about gravity were not overturned, for example, but they were reinterpreted when a model that better explained a broader range of observations--including all of his observations--came along.

 

[Parsimony]

Most evidence is not "overturned" (although there are some observations that are later shown to be in error); most evidence is reinterpreted in the face of new evidence and a new model that better explains both the old and the new observations. Newton's observations about gravity were not overturned, for example, but they were reinterpreted when a model that better explained a broader range of observations--including all of his observations--came along.

Yes, but overturning is still possible, even if it becomes increasingly unlikely as more evidence is gathered.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I said that self-view is a fiction.

No, you did not. Here is what you and I said in quotes from post #140:

godnotgod said: ↑
Is that so? Then tell me what is this 'I'?

Rick O'Shez:
A fiction.

But a discussion about the nature of consciousness is off-topic here....

This is not about the nature of consciousness, but about kind.

You're avoiding and evading the issue.

I will ask the question one more time, and then you forfeit your opportunity to answer, and I will provide an answer:

If 'I', which is responsible for 'self-view', is fiction, then by default, what must 'not-self-view' be?

The question is very simple, and I know you see the answer, but refuse to admit it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, it is simply that I don't agree with your odd ideas, and you can drop the silly word games.

I am not going to help you hijack yet another thread, and will not respond to you further in this one.

If you want to do some more preaching then start another thread. You could call it "My Precious."

 

[godnotgod]

No, it is simply that I don't agree with your odd ideas, and you can drop the childish word games.

Cop out!

How is knowing the difference between 'self-view', and 'not-self-view' a childish word game?

Since you have forfeited your opportunity to participate in a reasonable discussion, I will have to answer the question for you:

'Self -view', or 'I', is a fiction, as you have stated. If that is the case, then 'not-self-view' must, by default, be real. 'Self-view', or 'I', is specific to one individual; therefore, it is a limited, and non-universal view. 'Not-self-view' is non-specific to the individual, and therefore must, by default, be universal in nature. The consciousness involved is non-local and universal. IOW, the consciousness by which you see the world is the same consciousness that everyone else sees it by, even though each individual may have differing but fictional self-views.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, but overturning is still possible, even if it becomes increasingly unlikely as more evidence is gathered.

I don't think it's evidence which is "overturned", but the explanation for it.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't think it's evidence which is "overturned", but the explanation for it.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think it's evidence which is "overturned", but the explanation for it.

An excellent example of 'Self-View'.

Now can you show us an example of 'Universal View'? You know: the one the Buddha realized....yes..that's the one...it's called 'Sunyata'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'Sunyata'.

And of course that means it's emptiness all the way down, which negates your Precious, "Cosmic Consciousness" ( or whatever you are calling your God-substitute these days ).

But you really should start another thread if you want to do some more preaching about your Precious.

 

[godnotgod]

And of course that means it's emptiness all the way down, which negates ...."Cosmic Consciousness"

OMG! The answer is staring you in the face, and you just don't see it!

Yes, it's emptiness all the way down, but that does not negate Universal or Cosmic Consciousness, Mr. Lucky: It defines it! Emptiness, or Sunyata is none other than Universal Consciousness, which is the same as NO-SELF-VIEW.

It was via Universal Consciousness (ie 'Enlightenment') that the Buddha understood what Self-View and Sunyata were (ie the Emptiness of the Five Skandhas). Dig? Otherwise, he would still have been seeing things via Self-View, which is the illusion.