The seer and and the seen

[Willamena]

But what if we have no thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas, etc, AT ALL? Does it make sense to say something is conscious if it has none of those?

We are neither conscious nor unconscious in death.

In the common parlance.

 

[stvdv]

But what if we have no thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas, etc, AT ALL? Does it make sense to say something is conscious if it has none of those?

Easy to prove.
Meditate till all thoughts stop
Then you know the answer to the question

 

[Bird123]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

All the secrets of the universe, physical as well as spiritual, stare us in the face. One can be a seeker or seer and yet Blind to so very much.

It doesn't matter what everyone else chooses to do. It's what you choose to do that counts. I have found the Hungry student advances far quicker. On the other hand, Ego gets in the way of so much learning.

 

[stvdv]

One can be a seeker or seer and yet Blind to so very much.

How you define seer?

 

[Bird123]

How you define seer?

A person with vision. Example: Leonardo da Vinci's view of flying machines when at the time, no one had a clue.

People with vision can often lead a society forward.

Yes, there will always be people who do not want to change. How long did it take for people to accept that the world was not flat?

 

[atanu]

But what if we have no thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas, etc, AT ALL? Does it make sense to say something is conscious if it has none of those?

If you experience lack of thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas — that would be your experience. It will be a discernment. Samadhi is characterised by such discernment.

But one need not wait for samadhi. We have experience of lack of ‘sensations, emotions, ideas’ in deep sleep. Lack of experience of sensation etc. is also an experience.

 

[Polymath257]

If you experience lack of thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas — that would be your experience. It will be a discernment. Samadhi is characterised by such discernment.

But that *is* a thought or a sensation.

But one need not wait for samadhi. We have experience of lack of ‘sensations, emotions, ideas’ in deep sleep. Lack of experience of sensation etc. is also an experience.

It isn't consciousness.

 

[atanu]

But that *is* a thought or a sensation.

Yes. “I am” awareness.

It isn't consciousness.

To undiscerning it is not. Correct.

 

[paarsurrey]

If the "seen" represents all things that are real, observable, measurable, practical, repeatable, falsifiable, predictable, and logical, then it represents ALL fields of science. We do not have a complete understanding of all things that are "seen", as demonstrated by our need to add constants to make all the pieces fit. But, we are still working on the problems everyday. Who is saying that they completely understand the "seen"? No rational person would ever make such a claim. It presupposes that our understanding has a limit. Can you describe some of the properties of the "seer"? Are you saying that the two categories of the Universe, are those physical properties of reality that can be demonstrated as the product of cause and effect(real), and those non-physical properties that can't be demonstrated as the product of cause and effect? If so, then I agree. However, labeling only two categories for the entire Universe, seems a bit of a false dichotomy to me. This would mean that you have excluded all other possible categories. I just don't think you have the absolute knowledge necessary to do this.

So why don't we just stick to what we do know, and build on that. So, either demonstrate your hypotheses, or abandon them.

"We do not have a complete understanding of all things that are "seen", as demonstrated by our need to add constants to make all the pieces fit. But, we are still working on the problems everyday. Who is saying that they completely understand the "seen"? No rational person would ever make such a claim."

I agree with one.
Science about "seen" and also for the "seer" is just "work in progress" and will remain as such for ever.
Believers realize it and remaining steadfast on their beliefs respect the real science, and they must do it.
The non-believers just for nothing laud science, even out of its defined domain, and think it is on their side while it has got nothing to do with Atheism and non-belief. Science is not a function of Atheism. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Why are the things we perceive through our senses not real? Our experiences also includes our studies and observations. Maybe you can give an example of anything that we've learned/know(other than instinctual or involuntary), that was learned without the use of our sense organs? Or, maybe you can explain just how our physical brain compartmentalize the information it receives? What we see is not a mental idea. It is the brain's best guess representation of our external environment, to the subjective mind. We can never see our 3 dimensional self from outside of self. There are no empathic neural interface or connections outside of self. Everything we observe at the macro level of reality is real, since our senses are also prisoners of cause and effect. How do you think we could have survived this long, if we believed that what is real was only a mirage?

Reality exists whether we exists or not. It doesn't matter whether we are asleep, awake, or dead, we still inhabit reality. We are subjective because our senses are connected only to ourselves. This means that our perspective will also be subjective. You are correct that we need to be awake and conscious, to be consciously aware of reality. But of course this would be just stating the obvious.

I think you are confusing knowledge with belief. You might want to believe that something exists outside of our physically(not thermodynamically) closed system, but the evidence disagrees with you. Maybe you can explain your doctrine of the mind, without drowning your explanations in a sea of disjointed word salad, and meaningless metaphors?

"knowledge"

I don't subscribe/visualize that Science is the only source of human knowledge, other sources are also there to understand all aspects of life, of the "seen" and the "seer". Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no way that the subject can be studied, except from a third party POV. And that is not what the subject is.

And there is no way that the object can be studied, except from a third party POV. And that is not what the object is.

Which one is correct? Are both correct, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, this being the thread it is in the forum it is, I
guess it is hardly surprising that someone would
see things in terms of mysticism.

I dont think the author in any way meant he had, or
ever possibly could, know all there is to know about a
drop of water.

What is to know there is of course, hugely mathematical,
and if to someone that is "mystic", then, to them it is.

To say that one "can" know all via the eyes of a child
is a bit of a stretch. Nobody can do that.

I've my opinions about the idea of somehow receiving
direct knowledge, no study needed, but never mind.

"mathematical"

Isn't it an illusion?
Universe/s existed before the Mathematics, it is just by which we humans are trying to understand that what G-d had created "something" from "nothings", and he needed no that we understand to be "Mathematics". Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. “I am” awareness.

And you can't have that awareness without some sensation.

To undiscerning it is not. Correct.

Let me put it this way. If you consider deep sleep to be a form of consciousness, then we clearly have *very* different views of what the word 'conscious' means.

For me, deep sleep is *unconsciousness*.

Yes, I am still alive when in deep sleep. But I am not conscious.

 

[cladking]

And you can't have that awareness without some sensation.



Let me put it this way. If you consider deep sleep to be a form of consciousness, then we clearly have *very* different views of what the word 'conscious' means.

For me, deep sleep is *unconsciousness*.

Yes, I am still alive when in deep sleep. But I am not conscious.

Time passes in even the deepest sleep.

I stayed up all night once as a child and the next night went to bed early at dusk. As "soon" as I laid down I realized I needed to go to the bathroom
and then came back to bed. I felt completely rested. What I couldn't tell from the basement room in which I was sleeping was that it was now dawn
and I had slept straight through over 12 hours without experiencing the passage of time. It still feels just like I lost 12 hours.

 

[Polymath257]

Time passes in even the deepest sleep.

Yes. And time passes whether or not there are consciousnesses to witness it.

I stayed up all night once as a child and the next night went to bed early at dusk. As "soon" as I laid down I realized I needed to go to the bathroom
and then came back to bed. I felt completely rested. What I couldn't tell from the basement room in which I was sleeping was that it was now dawn
and I had slept straight through over 12 hours without experiencing the passage of time. It still feels just like I lost 12 hours.

Sort of my point. You weren't conscious during that time.

 

[paarsurrey]

And you can't have that awareness without some sensation.



Let me put it this way. If you consider deep sleep to be a form of consciousness, then we clearly have *very* different views of what the word 'conscious' means.

For me, deep sleep is *unconsciousness*.

Yes, I am still alive when in deep sleep. But I am not conscious.

Even when one is in the deep sleep if something unusual happens one wakes up. Why is that?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Even when one is in the deep sleep if something unusual happens one wakes up. Why is that?

Yes. Indeed. Thank you.

Every other morning of my life it feels like about 8 hours had passed since I had gone to sleep.

 

[cladking]

Sort of my point. You weren't conscious during that time.

I do understand but my point was that there are simply levels of what you are calling "consciousness".

I was apparently in an extremely deep sleep and never entered normal dream states and the other levels of sleep. None of
the parts of my brain that experience time passage had been awake all night. But I still woke up when my bladder was full.

 

[Polymath257]

I do understand but my point was that there are simply levels of what you are calling "consciousness".

I was apparently in an extremely deep sleep and never entered normal dream states and the other levels of sleep. None of
the parts of my brain that experience time passage had been awake all night. But I still woke up when my bladder was full.

Yes, your brain was still monitoring your bladder as well as your heart rate, and many other *unconscious* aspects of the working of the body.

As far as I can see, we don't even have a working definition of what it means to be conscious. And this applies even to ourselves, internally. If one person can claim consciousness during deep sleep and another says there is no consciousness there, we need to spend more time defining exactly what we mean (and maybe realizing there may be more than one process going on).

 

[cladking]

Yes, your brain was still monitoring your bladder as well as your heart rate, and many other *unconscious* aspects of the working of the body.

As far as I can see, we don't even have a working definition of what it means to be conscious. And this applies even to ourselves, internally. If one person can claim consciousness during deep sleep and another says there is no consciousness there, we need to spend more time defining exactly what we mean (and maybe realizing there may be more than one process going on).

My definition of the word would hardly be believable and would satisfy no one, but it seems apparent that unless
we want to reserve the word "conscious" for human thought that we must allow the term to apply to the cause of
all behavior that isn't reflexive or instinctive (which may be the same thing).

I believe the simplest explanation (and definitions) for all observation is that individuals (especially very complex
individuals like humans) contain multiple consciousnesses! Humans are aware only of their higher brain functions
and when awake most of the brain acts as an integrated whole most of the time anyway. The individual is the brain/
body and even human consciousness(es) can not be split nor experienced in their totality. To maintain life is life it-
self and this is the function of consciousness (brain/ body). We exist therefore we are conscious therefore we exist
therefore we are conscious...

Apropos of nothing in particular I saw butterfly use the heat rising from my fire the other day as an elevator to the
tree tops. He was obviously migrating a little early this year (I don't blame him). This is not instinctive behavior in
all probability since using fires like this in nature is probably quite dangerous due to the nature of fires in nature to
get out of control and to be large. He saw an opportunity and took it. Just a couple strong beats of his wings and
he was above the treetops and China will get a typhoon next week.