The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Well, you are making a concerted effort to deny it, which is rather ironic.

Plus all the gobbledegook.

That the "I" is real is one of those things humans accept without question. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that there is no such entity. So there is really nothing to deny. It is an important question since it is related to achieving a higher state of conscious awareness beyond the limited mind.

Zen says: 'I think I am, therefore I become'

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That the "I" is real is one of those things humans accept without question. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that there is no such entity. So there is really nothing to deny. It is an important question since it is related to achieving a higher state of conscious awareness beyond the limited mind.

Zen says: 'I think I am, therefore I become'

Well, it depends: are you still sadly arguing against the idea because you want there to be a solid physical object wherein the 'I' resides somewhere in the human mind, or something equally pedantic and pointless? Your changing made-up extra requirements do not need to be met by anyone.

Your 'important question' is basically self-defeating and banal. You switch positions mid-sentence.

The 'I' is an emergent result of the physical brain and a number of other stimuli as has been discussed ad nauseum. Get over it.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, it depends: are you still sadly arguing against the idea because you want there to be a solid physical object wherein the 'I' resides somewhere in the human mind, or something equally pedantic and pointless? Your changing made-up extra requirements do not need to be met by anyone.

Your 'important question' is basically self-defeating and banal. You switch positions mid-sentence.

The 'I' is an emergent result of the physical brain and a number of other stimuli as has been discussed ad nauseum. Get over it.

I'm simply trying to make it clear that what you refer to as 'an emergent result of blah blah blah' is nothing more than a self-created illusion. Get over it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Your self-created illusion is just a blah blah blah.

 

[apophenia]

Blah blah blah
Maha blah
Para maha blah
Svaha !

 

[godnotgod]

Your self-created illusion is just a blah blah blah.

Well in that case, I shall continue. Glad you find blah illuminating.

 

[godnotgod]

Blah blah blah
Maha blah
Para maha blah
Svaha !

Precisely!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Em Tee Blah

Blah blah, teleblah

 

[godnotgod]

Em Tee Blah

Blah blah, teleblah

Emptiness...that's it!

 

[PolyHedral]

But 'me' pointing to 'me' is subject/object, which makes two. Then, of course, there is the third 'me' who is noting the relationship of the first two

Those are three names for the same thing.

But for the sake of the discussion, let us assume there is but one "I": where is its location?

Distributed across the brain.

You seem to be suggesting that the brain creates human personalities, and therefore, is the author of the self called "I". But that is still conjecture on the part of many researchers.

There are many instances of physical and chemical changes to the brain affecting personality and memory. Feel free to offer another explanation, but it's got to match up with evidence.

A baby has a personality, but it does not yet exhibit a sense of "I-ness".

Have you asked it?

 

[Tiberius]

It merely indicates that you're not aware of the obvious, and that I don't want to discuss it.

If it really was obvious, you;d have everyone else in this thread grooving on about how right you are. That ain't happening.

That is the hype they use to get the other crap past you. The fact is that most of science is used for profit and exploitation. I don't give much credence to the claim that science experiments onboard spacecraft benefits mankind. The basic problem is that the motivation for scientific pursuits are not for mankind's benefit, but for corporate profit. The priorities are misplaced.

First of all, you need to support your ridiculous claim that it's crap.

Secondly, science isn't just about helping humanity. it's about increasing knowledge.

However, I won't argue that profit influences science far more than it should. I do agree with you there.

Until you let go of your dependence on facts, you won't see any validity in any other view. You refuse to look without the need of having facts in the way.

Yeah, who needs facts? They're just nasty trouble makers!

Growing out of, and emerging, are the same process. At any rate, the point is that you, an intelligent being, emerged from an intelligent universe.

Emerge suggests that it wll become separate. Oranges are "designed" (don't read into that to infer a designer!) to separate from the tree. Do you see the oranges at the greengrocer's shop as oranges, or do you think, "Oh, look at that pile of orange tree parts!"

Am I meant to become separate from the universe?

No, but all science uses a particular methodology, and that is the problem itself. If you are interested in a body of factual knowledge, then pursue science. If you are interested in understanding the nature of reality, then you must discard science and find another way. Science does'nt cut it.

Science has worked really well in the past.

It produces yet more confusion! What 'understandings' has QM produced? None! QM researchers admit they don't understand what it is they are observing. If they understood it, they could explain it, but they can't. They can tell you ABOUT it, but that is all, and no, telling you about it is not to reveal its nature.

Yeah, no one ever has benefited from quantum mechanics. It's not like we use it for lasers, transistors, microchips, scanning electron microscopes, MRI scans and semiconductors.

Read THIS and leave your ignorance behind.

Oh, look at this. Unable to understand a simple prompt.

And if you were talking to a computer, then you'd be fine. But I'm a person.

I just showed how.

No, you only think you did. I've not seen anything from you that makes any sense.

There is none. The guy in Plato's Cave Allegory who went aloft and saw the Sun for the first time found that out when he tried to tell the others, who tenaciously clung to their precious cave wall shadows as the only true reality. You will have to go see the Sun on your own, but first you'll have to let go of your scientific baggage. It will still be there when you get back.

You claim I am hanging on to the shadows as reality. Yet another one of your tedious unsupported claims.

No. It is already clear enough.

No it isn't. Nothing you say makes any sense.

That should be easy for a science-oriented person like yourself. Firstly, we know we are conscious beings, and secondly we know that everything going on in our bodies is a flow of processes that involve energy. Both of these conditions are verifiable. Together, I am referring to them as 'energy-consciousness'. If there is any entity called "I" in any of those processes, then show it to me. Otherwise, your claim that an "I" exists is nothing more than metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and unsupported claims.

[/QUOTE]

But you are assuming that the electrical activity that is found in a person's brain and is lost when they die is somehow magical, somehow special. it is not.

 

[godnotgod]

...science isn't just about helping humanity. it's about increasing knowledge.

...sure, 'knowledge' that's used to gain military superiority on Earth and in space. Same old reptilian-brain driven agendas all dressed up and shiny in their new and highly impressive techno-outfits.

Are you so naive as to fall for that hypnotizing bait? Guess so!

Yeah, who needs facts? They're just nasty trouble makers!

Facts are very useful, but they won't provide you with what you need to understand what the true nature of reality is.

Emerge suggests that it wll become separate. Oranges are "designed" (don't read into that to infer a designer!) to separate from the tree. Do you see the oranges at the greengrocer's shop as oranges, or do you think, "Oh, look at that pile of orange tree parts!"

Am I meant to become separate from the universe?

Man, you sure don't know how to use the brain you so highly tout, do you? The metaphor pertains to the fact that both oranges and humans come out of that which grows them. That oranges separate from their immediate source is another question. But since you brought it up, and using your illustration, humans are also 'designed' to 'separate' from their mothers, but in both cases, oranges and humans still remain 100% part of the universe. Do you think you can figure that out?

Science has worked really well in the past.

When? I keep asking you to show me how it has revealed the true nature of reality, but you fail to provide an answer. All science is doing is leading us into more questions, even though we have a greater abundance of facts.

Yeah, no one ever has benefited from quantum mechanics. It's not like we use it for lasers, transistors, microchips, scanning electron microscopes, MRI scans and semiconductors.

I have no issue with its utility, but none of that shows us anything about the nature of reality.

Read THIS and leave your ignorance behind.

...later in this eternal Now.

And if you were talking to a computer, then you'd be fine. But I'm a person.

Do you possess no intuition at all? A prompt is a prompt, dig?

But you are assuming that the electrical activity that is found in a person's brain and is lost when they die is somehow magical, somehow special. it is not.

I never assumed any such thing. I am simply responding to you referring to my use of the phrase 'energy-consciousness' as mumbo jumbo. I have shown how we are both, and both are verifiable, but the existence of a resident "I" is not.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Emptiness...that's it!

Those were the words, in toto, of one of the first Mtv commercials.

About as empty of worthy content as your assertions

 

[cottage]

The insight into the true nature of reality does not lie in experience, but in accurate vision, one that is transcendent of the distortions of sensory perception.

That which is responsible for the manifestation of the illusory world cannot be doubted even though the world itself can be doubted. As I stated, it is doubted because of the presence of the higher state of consciousness, and it is this higher state that is without thought, and therefore, without doubt. It simply sees the world for what it actually is.

You are only taking the foreground into account, while dismissing the all-important background from which it emerges. It is like those cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave Allegory where only they are seen and known, but the fire and objects used to create those shadows are not seen. And so, the shadows are falsely understood to be reality.

The original (Latin) definition of conscious was ‘to know’, whereas ‘awareness’ or ‘perception’ are more commonly used today, but it is in its original form that both you and I are using the term here. The world is all that is the case (Wittgenstein). Thus when I speak of ‘the world’ and ‘experience’ I’m not just talking about a physical universe and matters of fact, but anything and everything that supposedly counts as knowledge, as in what is it of the world that can be known as true? Therefore please provide instances or examples of new information about the world, derived from enlightenment or a ‘higher state of consciousness’, that cannot be known from facts or self-evident demonstration. What is this world of facts, devoid of those same facts, that can be seen as ‘true’, and by what criterion of truth do you ‘know’ it to be such? And Plato’s Cave is easily dealt with, for: ‘There is no Cave, no shadows – and no Plato’ – is not contradictory, and by the same argument can we reject ‘The Absolute’, ‘true nature’ or a ‘higher state of consciousness.’ With respect they are just easy platitudes, and we’ve not seen anything of the least substance to show that your claim is even notionally possible; and thus far it all appears to bear the hallmark of just one more belief system among belief systems.

 

[Tiberius]

...sure, 'knowledge' that's used to gain military superiority on Earth and in space. Same old reptilian-brain driven agendas all dressed up and shiny in their new and highly impressive techno-outfits.

My God, you are selective, aren't you? Still, I suppose that's the only way you can convince yourself that you're right. By selectively ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.

Are you so naive as to fall for that hypnotizing bait? Guess so!

Ah, and once again you say science is bad without showing WHY science is bad.

Facts are very useful, but they won't provide you with what you need to understand what the true nature of reality is.

Yes they do.

Man, you sure don't know how to use the brain you so highly tout, do you? The metaphor pertains to the fact that both oranges and humans come out of something that grows them. That oranges separate from their immediate source is another question. But since you brought it up, and using your illustration, humans are also 'designed' to 'separate' from their mothers, but in both cases, oranges and humans still are 100% part of the universe. Do you think you can figure that out?

Are there statements that you can make about an orange that do not also apply to the orange tree?

When? I keep asking you to show me how it has revealed the true nature reality, but you fail to provide an answer. All science is doing is leading us into more questions, even though we have a greater abundance of facts.

Do you not read my posts? Haven't I told you about quantum mechanics?

I have no issue with its utility, but none of that shows us anything about the nature of reality.

It tells us how subatomic particles behave - which are the foundation of everything we see around us.

...later in this eternal Now.

Ah, so you don't even bother to pay attention and learn? You aren't interested in a discussion. All you want to do is come in here and spout your nonsense as fact.

Do you possess no intuition at all? A prompt is a prompt, dig?

lol, trust me, you have no idea how much I want to whip you. As a prompt, of course.

I never assumed any such thing. I am simply responding to you referring to my use of the phrase 'energy-consciousness' as mumbo jumbo. I have shown how we are both, and both are verifiable, but the existence of a resident "I" is not.

Yes, you have. The fact that you don't even realise you have is very sad.

 

[godnotgod]

Read THIS and leave your ignorance behind.

I guess that was supposed to silence me, but what does any of it have to do with the nature of reality? Zilch! You seem to be confusing knowledge with understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

The original (Latin) definition of conscious was ‘to know’, whereas ‘awareness’ or ‘perception’ are more commonly used today, but it is in its original form that both you and I are using the term here. The world is all that is the case (Wittgenstein). Thus when I speak of ‘the world’ and ‘experience’ I’m not just talking about a physical universe and matters of fact, but anything and everything that supposedly counts as knowledge, as in what is it of the world that can be known as true? Therefore please provide instances or examples of new information about the world, derived from enlightenment or a ‘higher state of consciousness’, that cannot be known from facts or self-evident demonstration. What is this world of facts, devoid of those same facts, that can be seen as ‘true’, and by what criterion of truth do you ‘know’ it to be such? And Plato’s Cave is easily dealt with, for: ‘There is no Cave, no shadows – and no Plato’ – is not contradictory, and by the same argument can we reject ‘The Absolute’, ‘true nature’ or a ‘higher state of consciousness.’ With respect they are just easy platitudes, and we’ve not seen anything of the least substance to show that your claim is even notionally possible; and thus far it all appears to bear the hallmark of just one more belief system among belief systems.

Does Reality itself reflect a doctrine, or is it doctrineless? Belief requires both thought and doctrine. True nature and the Absolute have nothing to do with thought, belief, or doctrine.

What is there prior to learning, doctrine, belief, or thought?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you can head off your foes with a balanced attack.

You must be like the wolf pack, not the six-pack.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes they do.

You keep saying so, but you haven't shown how. I don't believe you because there is no answer.

Are there statements that you can make about an orange that do not also apply to the orange tree?

That has nothing to do with the issue: that you are an intelligent being which emerged from an intelligent universe.

Do you not read my posts? Haven't I told you about quantum mechanics?

Yes, but so what? QM does not show us what the true nature of reality is.

It tells us how subatomic particles behave - which are the foundation of everything we see around us.

Yes, it tells us about how things behave. We can predict behavior. We can put QM to use in practical applications. But we neither understand what we are dealing with, nor does it tell us what the true nature of reality is. It never will, because factual knowledge is not understanding. Oh, we can say: "I 'understand' how that works", but that is in reference to its mechanistic functions. That is not a true understanding; it is just more knowledge. It is more accurate to say: "I know how that works."

Ah, so you don't even bother to pay attention and learn? You aren't interested in a discussion. All you want to do is come in here and spout your nonsense as fact.

I was merely saying that I would have a look at it later, which I did.

lol, trust me, you have no idea how much I want to whip you. As a prompt, of course.

You want to whip me because you cannot defeat me.

Yes, you have. The fact that you don't even realise you have is very sad.

The fact that you don't see my simple point after two explanations is what is very sad. I think you do see it, but refuse to admit it. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? Show me the location of this "I" you say exists.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

How is repeating a thoroughly-dismissed nonsense koan, 'cutting to the chase'?

lol

Related to something you said above, please to describe how you would ever understand something that did not have at least one fact attached?