The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Are you talking about person's mind? If yes, that's not a realm, it's like simulation processing the possibilities, based on observation.:soccer: It's the brain:clap

The Absolute is not subject to arising and subsiding, like the brain. The brain is just a temporal phenomena. The Absolute is the Infinite.

 

[Tiberius]

No, exactly the opposite. Again, my point was that the illusory phenomenal world cannot tell you about reality, in the same way that Plato's cave wall shadows cannot tell the prisoners about the Sun.

Then I suggest you phrase yourself more carefully, because you put a double negative in there which has you saying the exact opposite of what you meant!

And anyway, the light falling on the wall of the cave CAN tell them something about the sun!

But, you see, in the case of Plato's Cave prisoners, their heads are locked onto the cave walls and can only see what they are forced to see. They see a manufactured play of light and shadows which they are told represents reality, and which keeps their minds enslaved. Likewise, modern man has his consciousness locked onto the intellect as a means of attaining factual knowledge, but this provides him with no understanding of himself or his world. For all his scientific and technological knowledge, he is as ignorant about his true nature and the nature of reality as ever.

So how do you know that this "true nature" of reality exists? How have you determined anything about it? Please remember that if the method you have used is a method that can produce different results for different people, then it isn't a good method.

Yes, but until the bird actually flies, it knows nothing about flight or freedom, so thank you for making my point, which is that, until you go see for yourself, you will not know what spiritual freedom is. However, just like the bird and it's true nature, once you take the leap into your first flight, you will also know intuitively how to fly. After all, you did get to where you are now in the same way, but you don't remember.

My God, you're arrogant.

What makes you think I haven't already tried it?

As I stated before, there is no reason why what one person sees as reality should be different than that of another. The reason they see differently is because they are still attached to a personal view. Until personal views are dropped, they will not see the same reality. So 'seeing things as they are' cannot possibly be flawed, which is the 'process' I have described; it's simply that vision correction is in order. What that comes down to is that either the person involved is still carrying his old conceptual baggage with him, or he is still attached to the idea of a self, or both. To see things as they are means to have nothing in the way of your view, including science and religion.

So how then can you tell when you have dropped your personal views?

The 'water' your glass is filled with initially are your own ideas and opinions about reality, which are giving you a distorted view, when an undistorted view is available only when you fill your glass with reality itself.

Meaningless double talk.

Besides, my glass gives me useful information about the real world.

Let me say that again so you notice it.

My world view provides accurate information about the world.

And yet you are asking me to tip out this water and replace it with something else - something that you can't demonstrate provides anything useful.

NO system of thought, be it Logic, Reason, Analysis, or Religion, can render an unobstructed view of reality. Only reality itself can provide that for you. In other words, until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view.

So how are you to understand or even be aware of anything at all if thought distorts reality?

That's just logical, LOL.

Technically yes, but only in that your conclusion follows from your premises.

Your premises themselves are completely unsupported.

OK, if utility and prediction are what you are after, then science is what you need to pursue. But if understanding the true nature of reality is the goal, then you will need another approach. Science can verify facts, but the true nature of reality can only be verified by your direct insight.

In other words, you are just assuming that it is true because you really really feel it is, by golly!

It simply means that mere facts are not the entire story. The universe is not a mechanical apparatus that can be 'understood' via dissection and analysis of its 'parts' any more than Mozart's Piano Concerto #21 can be understood via dissection and analysis of the parts of a piano.

You have completely misunderstood my message if that is what you really think. I have never asked you to 'throw away' your precious science. I have only stated that it, as powerful a tool as it is, cannot tell you what the true nature of reality is. It's the wrong tool for that. Science utillizes dissection to gather knowledge, but understanding cannot come via studying the parts. For that you need a working whole, just as it is.

If they agree with me it is not because of any personal view I want them to agree with for ulterior motives, but because the true nature of reality is not different for me as it is for them. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. I am talking here about a UNIVERSAL view; not a personal one. So if they agree with me, fine; if not, that also is fine. "I" am not important in this process.

Then there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you are happy and content with your mind locked onto Holy Science, and if those impressive cave wall shadows provide complete fullfilment, then you need go no further. But if at some point you begin to itch and twitch, and your dead factual scientific 'knowledge' no longer gives you joy, then you will begin to make baby steps to higher ground. But if you carry your old baggage around with you, it will be nothing but a nuisance to you, and your progress will be slow. Then one day, you will simply and intuitively toss your captive bird up into the air and it will take flight, 'into the light of a dead dark night'.

Let me ask you a question...

What usefulness do you gain from this worldview?

 

[cottage]

Poopycock! You're just iterating your silly religious doctrinal belief that 'consciousness means mind', when there is not a scrap of evidence to indicate such. Consciousness means nothing other than consciousness itself. Your insistence that mind is a reality is equivalent to the religious fundie who insists on the existence of a God.

Sorry for the delay in responding. With respect, isn’t it a wee bit rich to demand evidence for anything when you assert that the ‘mystical view cannot proved by hard evidence’? Horses for courses! And to say ‘consciousness means nothing but consciousness itself’ is to utter a nonsensical tautology – literally meaningless.

Religious fundamentalism is where dogma is asserted as if it were true, whereas I must accept that my reasoning may be wrong and that all things, except where I contradict myself in stating them, are logically possible. And religious fundamentalism is hardly consistent with my admitted ignorance of the world. Ultimately all arguments stand or fall, not according to the conviction in which they are held, but due to their truth or falsity, or because they are empty assertions held from faith that cannot be falsified.

Who said there cannot be thoughts without mind? You? More religious dogma! You are self-creating an agent of thought out of whole cloth.

'Who'? (!)

Thinking, mind, and consciousness are all reducible to the same thing, as I argue below.

Once again, you are still squirming around within the realm of duality and cannot seem to get off the ground. You make the dualistic distinction between the material and the non-material, when, in fact there is no such thing.

If that is the case then your argument is a reductio ad absurdum, for if there is no such thing as the material world then how can you plead to its non-existence? Who or what is this thing advocating its own non-existence in an absurd attempt to convince the self-same illusory thing of its non-being?

'Mind' is just a conceptual frozen reality the self-created mind names itself.

And what is this entity, this ‘self’, with mystical powers that doesn't exist but is able to create itself?

Your assertions exhibit all the hallmarks of religious fundamentalism.

We both know that isn’t at all true. And surely it is more an article of faith to state that there is no distinction to be made between the material and non-material (as well as being a self-contradiction), when everything is merely asserted as a belief or as passages quoted from gurus’ teaching (preaching)?

Your arrogant statement that:

"since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists"

If consciousness is a fundamental existent that obtains independent of the material or corporeal, then consciousness is immaterial and incorporeal. Thought is immaterial and incorporeal and it demonstrably exists. If nothing else immaterial or incorporeal is demonstrably existent then consciousness must be thinking.
Everything is seen or understood in terms of Mind. Mind isn’t an entity but merely the modes of thinking: reflection, doubting, conceiving, conceptualising etc, and self-evidently there cannot be thinking without something being thought. But if thoughts are illusory then so too must be the thoughts and words that deny them, which means the argument from illusion is self-refuting. Even if we say there is no mind and no consciousness there is nevertheless still thinking. And whilst we understand what is meant by the term ‘thinking’, in all its manifold forms, nothing intelligible is to be understood by the opaque and inexplicable term ‘pure consciousness’ independent of mind, which is to say thought. So to propose the ‘unthinking mind’ to argue beyond the realm of thought presupposes the rational mind, for in order to deny it we are obliged to use the tools of rationality, which on that account cannot be illusory unless we descend into sophistry or self-contradiction. For we cannot, without involving a contradiction, deny the existence of mind as a thinking, knowing subject even though every thought is far from being a necessary truth; and yet we can deny every mystical notion of reality, just as we can the existence of every scrap of matter, without incurring any logical error or rendering our denial absurd.

is exactly and precisely the same kind of religious tripe as the religious fundie's notion that:

"since there cannot be a world without God, and it cannot be denied that there is no world, God therefore exists"

And that very obviously would be a spurious argument, for it takes as its conclusion the opening premise that was given in advance. The theist must first establish God’s existence, as the cause of all subsequent causes and their effects, in order to establish that God is the cause of the world. ‘There is no God’ implies no contradiction.

That example is exactly of a piece with your arguments. You take an unfounded assertion as your first principle, in this case that the experiential world is illusory, and then build on that principle to concluded that there must be something certain that cannot be illusory, which is the ‘Absolute.’ As with the ‘God’ example, this specious style of reasoning opens with an invalid premise and leads to an unsound conclusion, which can in any case be denied outright without incurring any logical error.

Now go to your room!

Have I made you angry?

 

[cottage]

Now you're on to something! It is quite simple, but your rational mind can't seem to grasp it.

Amusingly, in order to acknowledge the phenomenal world, you must be doing it via of a reference, which is the not-phenomenal world, that is to say, what does'nt exist, and non-existence is within the realm of No-thing-ness, the Absolute.

But it is you who says there is a phenomenal/‘not-phenomenal world’ which acts as a filter preventing true reality being seen! So if it doesn’t exist then how can it be misconceived, what is misconceiving it, and how can there be a ‘filter’?
It has been crystal clear from the beginning of this discussion that you are unable to argue from the ‘Absolute’, and therefore it is only possible for you to argue to it, which is to say backwards, from effect to its supposed cause. Without the phenomenal world there is ironically no argument, period.

 

[godnotgod]

And anyway, the light falling on the wall of the cave CAN tell them something about the sun!

No, it cannot, because the play of light and shadow on the cave walls is not the result of the Sun's light, but of a highly manipulated source that is the result of the interplay of campfire and objects. In other words, the light and shadow in Plato's Cave are relative, whereas the light of the Sun, as used in this allegory, is absolute.

So how do you know that this "true nature" of reality exists? How have you determined anything about it? Please remember that if the method you have used is a method that can produce different results for different people, then it isn't a good method.

The same mind with which you see delusion is the same mind with which you see reality. The former results in different views, while the latter results in the same, universal view. Seeing things as they are is not a method. It's simply a matter of whether your vision is clear or obstructed.

My God, you're arrogant.

What makes you think I haven't already tried it?

Because you haven't yet emptied your cup.

So how then can you tell when you have dropped your personal views?

When you see that reality is not a collection of separate 'things'. To see it that way means there is an "I" with a personal view that is fragmenting reality into separate things.

Meaningless double talk.

Besides, my glass gives me useful information about the real world.

Let me say that again so you notice it.

My world view provides accurate information about the world.

And yet you are asking me to tip out this water and replace it with something else - something that you can't demonstrate provides anything useful.

OK. So what does your 'world view' tell you what the true nature of the world is?

So how are you to understand or even be aware of anything at all if thought distorts reality?

By seeing that it does.

Technically yes, but only in that your conclusion follows from your premises.

Your premises themselves are completely unsupported.

Now you're just being ridiculous! What I said was:

"...until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view."

Either you have a clear view or you do not. A clear view means there are no obstructions to distort your view. If you do not understand the simple logic in that, then you had best go back to the drawing board because all your Science is a distortion.

As Michio Kaku, the author of String Theory says: "...there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory...physics is having a nervous breakdown...it's the collapse of physics as we know it....nature is smarter than we are".

....here: [youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube

In other words, you are just assuming that it is true because you really really feel it is, by golly!

Straw Man. Thought and feelings have nothing to do with it. I see that it is true.

Let me ask you a question...

What usefulness do you gain from this worldview?

Maybe I assume too much, in that I assume the basis for all of this discussion is to see things as they are. You seem to want to continue seeing things as Science tells you they are, which is factual knowledge, but factual knowledge does not tell you what the true nature of reality actually IS. Specifically, if you do not see things as they actually are, you will be seeing things as they are not and therefore acting upon false information, which results in negative results. I am not saying that the data or facts are wrong perse, but how we interpret them and what we do with them results in going against our best interests, and that is because we do not understand the true nature of things. In choosing to pursue knowledge over understanding as a means of gaining 'understanding', we have put the cart before the horse, resulting in our Science being out of both perspective and context. It's current connection to military technology and warfare, use of pesticides, overconsumption, etc. are direct evidences of this mis-appropriation of Science, and our lack of basic understanding of our own human nature. We allow ignorance and greed to guide us with WMD's in our hands. Like my brother once said, we are like big monkeys fooling around with big toys. We live in a world where an elephant madness has covered the Sun, but propped up with Science and Religion to lend an air of authority to it. It stinks.

An enlightened society pursues a peaceful, sane path of existence, and if that alone is not worth the candle, then my 'world view' is indeed useless.

BTW, peace is not just the interlude between wars. It is an enlightened state of being.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it cannot, because the play of light and shadow on the cave walls is not the result of the Sun's light, but of a highly manipulated source that is the result of the interplay of campfire and objects. In other words, the light and shadow in Plato's Cave are relative, whereas the light of the Sun, as used in this allegory, is absolute.

Wait, where did the camp fire come from?

The same mind with which you see delusion is the same mind with which you see reality. The former results in different views, while the latter results in the same, universal view. Seeing things as they are is not a method. It's simply a matter of whether your vision is clear or obstructed.

This doesn't answer my question.

When your mind perceives something, how do you know if it is reality or delusion?

Because you haven't yet emptied your cup.

Like I said, you're very arrogant.

Maybe I did, and I tried filling it with what you suggest, but I found it to be crap so I filled it with science again.

When you see that reality is not a collection of separate 'things'. To see it that way means there is an "I" with a personal view that is fragmenting reality into separate things.

How do you know that this "I" with a personal view isn't responsible for seeing everything connected together?

OK. So what does your 'world view' tell you what the true nature of the world is?

The true nature of the world is that which can be observed by science, either in practice or in principle.

By seeing that it does.

This is circular reasoning.

Now you're just being ridiculous! What I said was:

"...until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view."

Either you have a clear view or you do not. A clear view means there are no obstructions to distort your view. If you do not understand the simple logic in that, then you had best go back to the drawing board because all your Science is a distortion.

Did you even look at how what I said followed on from what you said?

You said that "NO system of thought, be it Logic, Reason, Analysis, or Religion, can render an unobstructed view of reality. Only reality itself can provide that for you. In other words, until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view."

Your argument depends entirely on the fact that reality is NOT what logic, reason, analysis shows us! Until you can show that, you are spouting nonsense.

As Michio Kaku, the author of String Theory says:

"...there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory...physics is having a nervous breakdown...it's the collapse of physics as we know it....nature is smarter than we are".

....here: [youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube

Way to take his quotes out of context and manipulate them to support a different position.

Straw Man. Thought and feelings have nothing to do with it. I see that it is true.

And how do you see that it is true?

Maybe I assume too much, in that I assume the basis for all of this discussion is to see things as they are. You seem to want to continue seeing things as Science tells you they are, which is factual knowledge, but factual knowledge does not tell you what the true nature of reality actually IS. Specifically, if you do not see things as they actually are, you will be seeing things as they are not and therefore acting upon false information, which results in negative results. I am not saying that the data or facts are wrong perse, but how we interpret them and what we do with them results in going against our best interests, and that is because we do not understand the true nature of things. In choosing to pursue knowledge over understanding as a means of gaining 'understanding', we have put the cart before the horse, resulting in our Science being out of both perspective and context. It's current connection to military technology and warfare, use of pesticides, overconsumption, etc. are direct evidences of this mis-appropriation of Science, and our lack of basic understanding of our own human nature. We allow ignorance and greed to guide us with WMD's in our hands. Like my brother once said, we are like big monkeys fooling around with big toys. We live in a world where an elephant madness has covered the Sun, but propped up with Science and Religion to lend an air of authority to it. It stinks.

An enlightened society pursues a peaceful, sane path of existence, and if that alone is not worth the candle, then my 'world view' is indeed useless.

BTW, peace is not just the interlude between wars. It is an enlightened state of being.

Very nice. Now, could you answer my question? What does your world view provide you that is useful?

My world view provides electronics, GPS, medecine, television and a whole bunch of other things that are useful. What about yours?

 

[godnotgod]

Wait, where did the camp fire come from?

The fire light is what is used to cast the shadows on the walls.

In Plato's fictional dialogue, Socrates begins by describing a scenario in which what people take to be real would in fact be an illusion. He asks Glaucon to imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their arms and legs held in place, but their heads are also fixed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.
Socrates suggests the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever, whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall.


Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't answer my question.

When your mind perceives something, how do you know if it is reality or delusion?

Depends on which level of consciousness you are looking at it from. From the point of view of the Third Level, that of Identification, in which one is still asleep, the phenomenal world is 'real'. This would be roughly equivalent to the level of awareness of the prisoners in Plato's Cave, who see only shadows of objects they think are real. They do not see what is producing the shadows. Most of mankind thinks the phenomenal world to represent reality, but most of mankind has been conditioned from birth via social indoctrination to see it that way, just as Plato's Cave prisoners have been mentally enslaved from birth to think the shadows cast on the walls to represent reality.

From the standpoint of the Fourth Level (Self-Transcendence) and beyond, the phenomenal world is illusory, because it is observed and understood that all forms arise and subside, and are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance. Logically speaking, the source of awareness that sees and understands this illusory condition of the world is the only true reality. If it were not, the illusory world would not be detected as being illusory, just as a rope moving in the wind is detected as not being a snake.

Like I said, you're very arrogant.

Maybe I did, and I tried filling it with what you suggest, but I found it to be crap so I filled it with science again.

The problem is that YOU did the filling, when you still are unaware of what being filled from a higher state is like. Of course you found it to be crap, because that is what is was! All you had to do the filling with was your conceptual notions of what reality is, and not reality itself. The YOU who is busy filling the cup must die first (empty cup) before true reality can come into play. Whether it is Science or Religion or any other conceptual system of thought about reality, you will still end up with a cup full of your own opinions and ideas.

How do you know that this "I" with a personal view isn't responsible for seeing everything connected together?

Because by definition, "I" is a separate entity apart from all other "I"'s and from the world of what it sees as separate 'things'. Just the fact that it has a 'personal view' indicates separation from 'universal view'.

The true nature of the world is that which can be observed by science, either in practice or in principle.

So are you saying that the true nature of the world can be understood when it is seen as an object of observation? That is to say, when there is an observer and the observed?

This is circular reasoning.

Your question was:

'So how are you to understand or even be aware of anything at all if thought distorts reality?'

When distorting thoughts are no longer an obstruction, where then is the distortion?

Did you even look at how what I said followed on from what you said?

You said that "NO system of thought, be it Logic, Reason, Analysis, or Religion, can render an unobstructed view of reality. Only reality itself can provide that for you. In other words, until nothing is between you and reality, you will not have a perfect view."

Your argument depends entirely on the fact that reality is NOT what logic, reason, analysis shows us! Until you can show that, you are spouting nonsense.

All of these approaches involve some form of conceptual thought about what reality is. They are models of reality, not reality itself. Where no such thought is involved, there is then only seeing, without the filter of concept-creating thought.

I don't have to show you 'that reality is NOT what logic, reason, analysis shows us'; Your own Quantum Mechanics has already shown you!

Way to take his quotes out of context and manipulate them to support a different position.

Why do you suppose I included the video itself for you to qualify those quotes? If my intention were to deceive, I would not have linked to the source itself.

There is no 'different position'. The video speaks for itself.

And how do you see that it is true?

Because there is no difference between what is true and your true nature.

Very nice. Now, could you answer my question? What does your world view provide you that is useful?

My world view provides electronics, GPS, medecine, television and a whole bunch of other things that are useful. What about yours?

Utility is not the question here; the nature of reality is. Higher Consciousness answers both questions. Science cannot, however, science has become a tool of those wanting to manipulate the human spirit via warfare and greed, while operating under the facade of 'learning'. All of the toys science and technology feed people just keeps them hypnotized and asleep, their consciousness glutted and dimmed with techno-crap.

Electronics, GPS, medicine, television, etc. are useless without an enlightened view about the true nature of reality and how these things work with reality. Without it, you only live a life of temporary convenience. Knowing what the true nature of reality is brings peace, harmony, and real happiness without most of those attachments, but even medicine is a highly controlled and manipulated arena, where large corporations call the shots. What turns out to be 'useful' is the consumer himself who is manipulated by powerful marketing forces into buying what he thinks he has made the decision to buy. Oh, yes, the corporate fat cats spend a lot of time and money figuring out your usefulness, but without the money to buy them, you are soon discarded as 'useless', and "Next!". Then you find yourself without these attachments as well as without happiness. Better to get your happiness first so that you are in a position to determine the desirability of these attachments.

So it seems that all your Science provides you with are glitter and a false sense of security, but still cannot tell us what the true nature of the universe is. We go to the grave filled with fluff, but no more enlightened than when we began. Oh, well, round and round we go in the cosmic game of hide and seek until we discover our true nature. After all, the universe has forever.

Some latch onto the Religion Game for 'Salvation'. Others latch onto the Science Game, for what they think is 'knowledge'. Others attach to the Art Game to get 'beauty'. Others go for the Family Game whose goal is, well, to raise a family. Some have no game and therefore have no aim at all. Then there are the low games: there's the Hog In Trough Game, played by the greedy, whose goal is wealth, usually at the expense of others. Then we have CockOnDunghill Game, the goal here being fame, as played by the Hollywood celebrities. Ah, such need for recognition and adulation! Oooh! Then there's the deadliest game of all, the Moloch Game, whose goal is glory or victory, played by the generals, in which tens of thousands of youth are sacrificed in bloody wars for some glittering slogan such as 'democracy' or 'freedom' or 'brotherhood' etc.

All of these life games involve attachment of one sort or another for some inner feeling of insecurity. Either we want Power, Sensation, or Security in order to feel OK about who and what we are, without ever really knowing who or what we are. These are addictions to temporal gratifications.

And then there is the hardest game of all to play, the Master Game, whose goal is authentic spiritual awakening and the realization of one's own enlightened state, and requires not attachment, but the shedding of all attachments. Only those who are ready can see the value of this game, in that all other pursuits are now seen and understood as ultimately unfulfilling.

 

[godnotgod]

With respect, isn’t it a wee bit rich to demand evidence for anything when you assert that the ‘mystical view cannot proved by hard evidence’?

Well, no, because I am simply turning your arguments based on Reason and Logic back onto you, who claims evidence for such claims. So anything you claim you should be able to provide evidence for, unlike myself, who has told you repeatedly that what I claim cannot be proven via evidence. Specifically, you made the claim that:

"Consciousness simply means mind without reference to any material substance, and since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists."

but have provided zero evidence for them, along with the fact that these claims are no better than a religious fundie's claims. You claim the following:

> Consciousness means mind;
> Consciousness is not connected to 'material substance';
> Thoughts cannot exist independent of 'mind';
> Because thoughts exist, the mind therefore exists.

all of which is sheer poppycock!

And to say ‘consciousness means nothing but consciousness itself’ is to utter a nonsensical tautology – literally meaningless.

Well, let's see: we know consciousness is a reality, as it is self-evident. That is all we really know. To add the idea of 'mind' to this reality is pure conjecture. So your statement that 'consciousness MEANS mind' is far, far more meaningless and nonsensical than to say that consciousness means nothing more than consciousness itself, because in actuality, consciousness has no meaning whatsoever.

Who or what is it that is adding the idea of mind to consciousness, if not mind itself, further proof that mind is a self-created principle.

Religious fundamentalism is where dogma is asserted as if it were true, whereas I must accept that my reasoning may be wrong and that all things, except where I contradict myself in stating them, are logically possible. And religious fundamentalism is hardly consistent with my admitted ignorance of the world. Ultimately all arguments stand or fall, not according to the conviction in which they are held, but due to their truth or falsity, or because they are empty assertions held from faith that cannot be falsified.

and yet, you just finished making several empty assertions based on your faulty reasoning that amount to nothing more than Western philosophical dogma!

The problem with Western philosophy is that its goal is not to uncover the truth or falsity of an argument, but to perpetuate the argument itself by never arriving, and then to applaud the fact that it is open to question as being a noble attribute of Western philosophy.

Reality itself cannot be falsified if it is indeed reality simply because reality is non-dual, and therefore not subject to concepts of 'right and wrong'. Either you see things as they are, or you do not. Religious dogma is based on belief and makes claims about reality based on belief. Western philosophy's sphere of activity is the bantering about of some concept about reality. But to see things as they are involves neither. There is no doctrine that can become dogma here, and philosophy becomes a feather in one's cap. To see things as they are is neither dogma nor philosophy. It is to see things as they are.

...more later, as time allows...:beach:


[/quote]

 

[F0uad]

There can also be total lack of purpose within the perpetual consciousness model of reality as well. Granted, eternal void is the pinnacle of no meaning, but it is also the pinnacle of absurdity. What real difference if there between a rock and I if I am not perpetual? Nothing really. In that model of consciousness, organisms fool themselves into morality by social modes that enslave their flesh to the flesh of others. What relevance is this dust to my dust? Mind is a fatty glitch???

 

[godnotgod]

There can also be total lack of purpose within the perpetual consciousness model of reality as well. Granted, eternal void is the pinnacle of no meaning, but it is also the pinnacle of absurdity.

Or neither, and that is why it is called 'the void'.

It seems a paradox that 'perpetual consciousness' dwells within this eternal timeless Present Moment.

What real difference if there between a rock and I if I am not perpetual? Nothing really. In that model of consciousness, organisms fool themselves into morality by social modes that enslave their flesh to the flesh of others. What relevance is this dust to my dust? Mind is a fatty glitch???

....an ego dragging around a corpse, no less.

 

[godnotgod]

What relevance is this dust to my dust?

Right...let's make sure moral dust stays on it's side of the line....Security!

 

[cottage]

Well, no, because I am simply turning your arguments based on Reason and Logic back onto you, who claims evidence for such claims. So anything you claim you should be able to provide evidence for, unlike myself, who has told you repeatedly that what I claim cannot be proven via evidence.

But you are claiming evidence! You claim to see things as they really are, but in all those many thousands of words you have yet to inform us of what it is that can be seen (or specifically what you claim you have seen). And crucially how you know what is seen is true? So for the umpteenth time, what is ‘true reality’?
There is either a complete failure to produces what is asserted, or, as we have good reason to suspect, it is a false claim.

Specifically, you made the claim that:

"Consciousness simply means mind without reference to any material substance, and since there cannot be thoughts without mind, and it cannot be denied that there are no thoughts, the conscious mind therefore exists."

but have provided zero evidence for them, along with the fact that these claims are no better than a religious fundie's claims. You claim the following:

> Consciousness means mind;
> Consciousness is not connected to 'material substance';
> Thoughts cannot exist independent of 'mind';
> Because thoughts exist, the mind therefore exists.

all of which is sheer poppycock!

Then, with respect, I would say you’ve not read or properly understood what I wrote. And the second sentence is not a statement made by me. (I’ll state the argument from self-evidence more explicitly for you further down the page.)

Well, let's see: we know consciousness is a reality, as it is self-evident. That is all we really know. To add the idea of 'mind' to this reality is pure conjecture. So your statement that 'consciousness MEANS mind' is far, far more meaningless and nonsensical than to say that consciousness means nothing more than consciousness itself, because in actuality, consciousness has no meaning whatsoever.

So if ‘we know consciousness is a reality and self-evident’ then that is because mind, ie reason, tells us it is so, for otherwise ‘We’ are not conscious is a contradiction!
To say ‘consciousness means nothing more than consciousness itself’ is to say nothing whatever about consciousness; and on that account it is just a word without any meaning, which is patent nonsense and does little for your argument other than making it sound incoherent. And to say ‘because in actuality’ is just another instance of an empty assertion, a groundless claim with nothing offered to back it up.

Who or what is it that is adding the idea of mind to consciousness, if not mind itself, further proof that mind is a self-created principle.

There is no necessary ‘who’ or ‘what’! Mind and consciousness is the same thing as I argue shortly, both are just terms reducible to awareness and reason – or any/all of the general definitions.

and yet, you just finished making several empty assertions based on your faulty reasoning that amount to nothing more than Western philosophical dogma!

You are merely parroting terms that I’ve used, but in an incorrect sense. An empty assertion is a statement or proposition from which nothing follows as an inductive or deductive truth.

The problem with Western philosophy is that its goal is not to uncover the truth or falsity of an argument, but to perpetuate the argument itself by never arriving, and then to applaud the fact that it is open to question as being a noble attribute of Western philosophy.

Philosophy in the Anglo/American tradition is concerned with analysis, not speculative metaphysics in the way of continental European Existential philosophy. And indeed that is my own view; it’s all about the arguments and not about trying to establish a pet theory of ultimate reality.

Reality itself cannot be falsified if it is indeed reality simply because reality is non-dual, and therefore not subject to concepts of 'right and wrong'. Either you see things as they are, or you do not. Religious dogma is based on belief and makes claims about reality based on belief.

And, with respect, so do your extravagant and unsupported claims. You assert that reality is ‘non-dual’ and ‘not subject to concepts of right and wrong’. Well, ‘non-duality’ is itself a concept, and therefore your arguments are subject to what is right or wrong, true or false. And if your claims aren’t falsifiable then they are worthless as an argument.
I accept there is an emotional dependency in many cases, but I’m afraid that as with all faith systems it still comes down to a question of personal credibility in the end.

Western philosophy's sphere of activity is the bantering about of some concept about reality. But to see things as they are involves neither. There is no doctrine that can become dogma here, and philosophy becomes a feather in one's cap. To see things as they are is neither dogma nor philosophy. It is to see things as they are.

And Eastern religions promote speculative faith systems. It is dogma, certainly in the fashion presented here, where nothing is permitted to count against what is asserted (whereas, in fact, I believe Buddhism doesn’t deny reason and actually encourages truth-seeking?). And ‘to see things as they are’ is a meaningless cliché, especially when nothing ever comes from it.

Anyway, now back to the main point. ‘Consciousness’ is just a collective term for mind, as thinking, reasoning, ideas and awareness and as non-spatial, intensional, etc, etc.
We’ll begin from a conditional proposition. 1) If consciousness is a fundamental existent that obtains independent of the material and corporeal, then consciousness is immaterial and incorporeal. (This I believe corresponds with your own argument where consciousness has no dependency upon material things?) 2) The world is explicable in terms of mind and matter, and unlike mind, matter can be postulated as non-existent without involving any contradiction, and thus mind can be stated without inference to the external world. 3) Mind is immaterial, incorporeal and it demonstrably exists. 4) If nothing further is demonstrably immaterial or incorporeal then consciousness is mind. 5) Nothing further is demonstrably immaterial or incorporeal, and therefore consciousness and mind are one and the same.

 

[cottage]

Maybe I assume too much, in that I assume the basis for all of this discussion is to see things as they are. You seem to want to continue seeing things as Science tells you they are, which is factual knowledge, but factual knowledge does not tell you what the true nature of reality actually IS. Specifically, if you do not see things as they actually are, you will be seeing things as they are not and therefore acting upon false information, which results in negative results. I am not saying that the data or facts are wrong perse, but how we interpret them and what we do with them results in going against our best interests, and that is because we do not understand the true nature of things. In choosing to pursue knowledge over understanding as a means of gaining 'understanding', we have put the cart before the horse, resulting in our Science being out of both perspective and context. It's current connection to military technology and warfare, use of pesticides, overconsumption, etc. are direct evidences of this mis-appropriation of Science, and our lack of basic understanding of our own human nature. We allow ignorance and greed to guide us with WMD's in our hands. Like my brother once said, we are like big monkeys fooling around with big toys. We live in a world where an elephant madness has covered the Sun, but propped up with Science and Religion to lend an air of authority to it. It stinks.

An enlightened society pursues a peaceful, sane path of existence, and if that alone is not worth the candle, then my 'world view' is indeed useless.

BTW, peace is not just the interlude between wars. It is an enlightened state of being.

I’m sorry but much of this directly contradicts what you’ve been saying, which is that the world of facts is illusory, and yet here you are condemning the factual world for its faults! I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed, but they are out of kilter with your argument because as I’ve noted throughout the discussion it is impossible for you not to acknowledge those things you mention here. They are a reality and they are necessary to your argument. This demonstrates the logical impossibility of expounding any metaphysical system independent of the world it seeks to transcend. And if the world of facts were indeed illusory then there would be no need to fret over wars and question the sanity of society, we would simply ignore the phenomena safe in our knowledge that it was merely illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

But you are claiming evidence! You claim to see things as they really are, but in all those many thousands of words you have yet to inform us of what it is that can be seen (or specifically what you claim you have seen). And crucially how you know what is seen is true? So for the umpteenth time, what is ‘true reality’?
There is either a complete failure to produces what is asserted, or, as we have good reason to suspect, it is a false claim.

Show me the so-called 'evidence' I claim. I have claimed no such thing. You are calling the claim itself 'evidence', but the claim I am making can only be verified by direct experience of the one demanding the evidence. There is no factual evidence of the validity of the experience simply because the evidence you and others demand is that of the phenomenal world. I cannot show you something that is testable via reason because the experience is beyond the grasp of reason. But you keep using reason to demand evidence!

To see things as they are is to see that the phenomenal world is not made up of separate things via a separate observer called "I". It is to see that all dualities are complimentary and one. It is to see that the phenomenal world we call 'reality' is an illusion, and at the same time, is none other than the Absolute itself, just as the snake is an illusion and is none other than the rope itself. It is to see that the universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

True reality is evident when things are seen as they are, without a see-er, without mind, without concepts about reality born of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. It is pure consciousness itself that is always present, that is unborn, ungrown, and deathless, that just sees, without thought, without judgment about what it sees. This seeing without judgement is called the mind of innocency. It is the mind free of social indoctrination. It is not about any object of seeing, but about seeing itself.

True reality is simply thus.

I know. Your mind is squirming like a toad with its Logic, Reason, and Analysis.

Can you just see, and nothing more? Anything else, and you are clouding your vision.

BTW, mind and consciousness are NOT the same: mind is seen as a local entity that seeks to encapsulate reality; consciousness is non-local and cannot be encapsulated by 'mind', concept, or thought.

 

[Thief]

Show me the so-called 'evidence' I claim. I have claimed no such thing. You are calling the claim itself 'evidence', but the claim I am making can only be verified by direct experience of the one demanding the evidence. There is no factual evidence of the validity of the experience simply because the evidence you and others demand is that of the phenomenal world. I cannot show you something that is testable via reason because the experience is beyond the grasp of reason. But you keep using reason to demand evidence!

To see things as they are is to see that the phenomenal world is not made up of separate things via a separate observer called "I". It is to see that all dualities are complimentary and one. It is to see that the phenomenal world we call 'reality' is an illusion, and at the same time, is none other than the Absolute itself, just as the snake is an illusion and is none other than the rope itself. It is to see that the universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

True reality is evident when things are seen as they are, without a see-er, without mind, without concepts about reality born of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. It is pure consciousness itself that is always present, that is unborn, ungrown, and deathless, that just sees, without thought, without judgment about what it sees. This seeing without judgement is called the mind of innocency. It is the mind free of social indoctrination. It is not about any object of seeing, but about seeing itself.

True reality is simply thus.

I know. Your mind is squirming like a toad with its Logic, Reason, and Analysis.

Can you just see, and nothing more? Anything else, and you are clouding your vision.

BTW, mind and consciousness are NOT the same: mind is seen as a local entity that seeks to encapsulate reality; consciousness is non-local and cannot be encapsulated by 'mind', concept, or thought.

Misconceptions.
Logic and reason require you to be awake.
What goes on in your head IS localized.
If you are awake....you are local.

Now if you would like to step up to a spiritual discussion?....
Awareness beyond death?

 

[waitasec]

Misconceptions.
Logic and reason require you to be awake.
What goes on in your head IS localized.
If you are awake....you are local.

Now if you would like to step up to a spiritual discussion?....
Awareness beyond death?

what validates this awareness as something to be considered...being awake?

 

[Thief]

what validates this awareness as something to be considered...being awake?

Now really....if this much needs an explanation.....

 

[waitasec]

Now really....if this much needs an explanation.....

spell it out for me

only if you can.

 

[Thief]

spell it out for me

only if you can.

It's like chasing a goose around a burning bush.

 

[waitasec]

It's like chasing a goose around a burning bush.

what, your logic?