The seer and and the seen

[Truly Enlightened]

You find the claim that reality is Love, Light, and Life, that it can be experienced that way by an ordinary person, to be an "extraordinary claim"? Are you sure you are talking with me, and not a fundamentalist Christian claiming God created the world is six literal days? What I am claiming is easy enough to verify. Have the experience.

How do I experience anything that you experience? We are different. Your conception, and experience with love(emotion), life(state of existence), and light(electromagnetic wave), may certainly not be mine. Are you somehow implying that your experiences are objective? I certainly don't confuse you with religious fundamentalism. Their words are used to support their beliefs, yours are used to support your ideas. Their faith is defined by their God, yours fate is defined by how well your terms are undefined or obscured.

If your claims are easy enough to verify, then do so. Or, is "Have the experience", just another self-serving idiom for, "find out for yourself". I thought as much.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is your perspective and not a lamp post's.



What evidence you require as proof that you exist as the subject?

Please lets avoid any more intellectual embarrassment for the both of us. Clearly you don't know what a perspective is. Otherwise, you would not deposit such a nonsense response. Anything can have a perspective, or a frame of reference. This is just common sense. I really think that you should take your own advice. It is my senses that make me aware of my existence, not the subject.

 

[Windwalker]

How do I experience anything that you experience? We are different.

Yes, we are different. But we are also the same. Are you not a human being too? What we describe, other human beings describe as well. So clearly, we are the same as well.

If your claims are easy enough to verify, then do so.

What are these "claims" exactly that you hear me making? Am I claiming God is a person hiding up in the Rockies somewhere? I am offering descriptions of what lived experience can be. I am describing my own experience.

You can't "prove" the taste of water. That is what you are asking, and claiming we are "obscuring" things. In reality, it's yourself doing that. Taste it yourself, then share with me and others what you experienced. If we all nod our heads hearing what you describe, then there you go.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Since it's not an "extraordinary claim," then "extraordinary evidence", as they saying goes, is not required. Simple evidence will do. Experience it. That's enough. That'll do.

If it doesn't fit, just change it. Since your claims are NOT extraordinary, then you don't have to provide any extraordinary evidence. Of course, this is not conveniently self-serving is it? Maybe for those of us without your experiences, could you provide any objectively simple evidence? Maybe just a logical argument without so many equivocation fallacies?

 

[atanu]

Please lets avoid any more intellectual embarrassment for the both of us. Clearly you don't know what a perspective is. Otherwise, you would not deposit such a nonsense response. Anything can have a perspective, or a frame of reference. This is just common sense. I really think that you should take your own advice. It is my senses that make me aware of my existence, not the subject.

You are speaking nonsense and you do not know it. Frame of reference is to a conscious subject. It has to be like this. There is no other way. No reference will ever be known without a cognising subject.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes, we are different. But we are also the same. Are you not a human being too? What we describe, other human beings describe as well. So clearly, we are the same as well.


What are these "claims" exactly that you hear me making? Am I claiming God is a person hiding up in the Rockies somewhere? I am offering descriptions of what lived experience can be. I am describing my own experience.

You can't "prove" the taste of water. That is what you are asking, and claiming we are "obscuring" things. In reality, it's yourself doing that. Taste it yourself, then share with me and others what you experienced. If we all nod our heads hearing what you describe, then there you go.

So, because we are human beings, and because some can describe their experiences in the same way that you do, this must mean that all humans are the same? Is this the fallacy-free logic that you use to argue with? We are different because we have different senses, and a different perceptive of reality. We are different because or perspective, genes, concepts, emotions, psyche, nature, biochemistry, and a whole host of other reasons, CLEARLY make us different from each other.

Do you really want me to go back to all your posts, and quote all the extraordinary claims you have made? Or, was this just a token request in the heat of exposure. Creating a straw man around never-made claims is just desperate. You are offering NOTHING unless you can DESCRIBE what you are offering. You are just telling anyone that challenges you, to find out for themselves. And, for those that believe without evidence, you simply install a self-sustaining confirmation bias.

Of course we can prove, with a high degree of certainty, how water taste. Just ask the professional taster employed by the various beverage industries. I guess it is easier to stoop to this level of sarcasm, than accept the idea that you simply can't define the terms that you use. To do so would mean you could no longer change the meaning of the words, or the context of their usage anymore.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are speaking nonsense and you do not know it. Frame of reference is to a conscious subject. It has to be like this. There is no other way. No reference will ever be known without a cognising subject.

Maybe you can explain what an objective frame of reference is? Unless you can be in two places at the same time, there must be different frames of references. Can you be cognizant of all frames of reference, other than your own subjective frame(perspective)? Does this mean that all other frames of references are voided because you are not cognizant of them? Think about it. We are talking about their existence. Maybe you should also understand inductive and deductive reasoning. You don't need to be cognizant of something for it to still exist. Would using the word "position", or "point in space" be more helpful?

 

[Windwalker]

So, because we are human beings, and because some can describe their experiences in the same way that you do, this must mean that all humans are the same?

You remember recently I made a point to call out black and white thinking? This is an example of that. I did not suggest humans are all identical, at that's that. Yet that is how you hear this, when I say we are all human and there are certain universal realities that are inherent in that. To you, this universal reality about humans, somehow should be seen as me claiming this wipes away differentiation.

You don't seem to be able to allow for sameness and differences to exist within the same body. This is black and white thinking on your part. It's either all the same, or all different, and no overlap or gradation between same and different. That is a clear example of the blinders of our thought-worlds we box things into categories of this vs that, a constructed unreality of pairs of opposites. Reality is not like this.

We are different because we have different senses, and a different perceptive of reality.

This is true. Yet, we are also all the same because we have senses and perceptions - all of us do.

We are different because or perspective, genes, concepts, emotions, psyche, nature, biochemistry, and a whole host of other reasons, CLEARLY make us different from each other.

This is true. It is also true that we all have all of these in common with one another. We are all the same this way too. Both are equally true.

Do you really want me to go back to all your posts, and quote all the extraordinary claims you have made?

No need for such an effort. Just produce one, that should be enough to look at with you to see what it is you think I'm saying. Remember, you are usually wrong about that, the vast majority of the times? That's why I am asking for a specific instance to see if that in fact is, a) what I am actually saying, and b), if it could be conceived of as sounding "extraordinary".

Of course we can prove, with a high degree of certainty, how water taste. Just ask the professional taster employed by the various beverage industries. I guess it is easier to stoop to this level of sarcasm, than accept the idea that you simply can't define the terms that you use.

Does a child need a professional water taster to tell them what water tastes like? Yet, isn't this what you are asking science to do, to tell you what reality is? You don't know without them?

 

[atanu]

Maybe you can explain what an objective frame of reference is? Unless you can be in two places at the same time, there must be different frames of references. Can you be cognizant of all frames of reference, other than your own subjective frame(perspective)? Does this mean that all other frames of references are voided because you are not cognizant of them? Think about it. We are talking about their existence. Maybe you should also understand inductive and deductive reasoning. You don't need to be cognizant of something for it to still exist. Would using the word "position", or "point in space" be more helpful?

You can build as many mathematical frames as you wish. But the 'YOU' will still be there.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You remember recently I made a point to call out black and white thinking? This is an example of that. I did not suggest humans are all identical, at that's that. Yet that is how you hear this, when I say we are all human and there are certain universal realities that are inherent in that. To you, this universal reality about humans, somehow should be seen as me claiming this wipes away differentiation.

You don't seem to be able to allow for sameness and differences to exist within the same body. This is black and white thinking on your part. It's either all the same, or all different, and no overlap or gradation between same and different. That is a clear example of the blinders of our thought-worlds we box things into categories of this vs that, a constructed unreality of pairs of opposites. Reality is not like this.


This is true. Yet, we are also all the same because we have senses and perceptions - all of us do.


This is true. It is also true that we all have all of these in common with one another. We are all the same this way too. Both are equally true.


No need for such an effort. Just produce one, that should be enough to look at with you to see what it is you think I'm saying. Remember, you are usually wrong about that, the vast majority of the times? That's why I am asking for a specific instance to see if that in fact is, a) what I am actually saying, and b), if it could be conceived of as sounding "extraordinary".


Does a child need a professional water taster to tell them what water tastes like? Yet, isn't this what you are asking science to do, to tell you what reality is? You don't know without them?

Are you not a human being too? What we describe, other human beings describe as well. So clearly, we are the same as well.

My conclusion was that if you are human, and if the things you describe is the same as what other humans describe as well, then CLEARLY you concluded that we are all the same. Now unless I am NOT HUMAN, then your statement would not apply to me. But I am human. Why can't you understand, that we are talking about a biological system, where the conception of black and white thinking does not exist. Life exists only in shades of reality. Nothing is in either black or white. Stop mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my statements. When you use the word "same", do you really mean "identical, similar or alike"? Why did you add, "Clearly and as well"? I am a simple person, if you did not mean identical, why does it just sound like you are saying that other humans believe what you do, and that you are human like them? This is the reason why I keep demanding that you define your terms, before you make these belief claims, or at least keep it simple. It is frustrating responding to what I think you clearly meant, and for you to simply deny it, and start more obfuscations. It is truly frustrating, and I truly understand why any sceptic or rationalist would simply give your ideas a very wide birth.

A subject studies objects. But the subject knows itself through letting go of seeking itself outside itself by turning itself into an object of the mind.

What is seen is a mirage.

You think your true subjective Self is rubbish? On the contrary, the rest of what we imagine to be true, is rubbish by comparison, a play full of actors imagining they are actually the characters they are portraying on stage.
Can this be supported? Yes. Of course. Wake up to the true Self, and it becomes perfectly obvious. It doesn't need explanation. It explains itself.

Exactly! Then how is it you propose science can tell us anything ultimately true about reality, as opposed to functional models that when taken as "fact", actually limit reality?

These unsupported counterintuitive claims are just from page 1. Since the truth of these assertions lay outside the bounds of any scientific inquiry, they are extraordinary claims. I really don't expect someone that is neck-deep in this kind of pseudo-sophistry, to admit that their claims are extraordinary. Maybe if I continue listing, even you will have to admit that your claims are not normal interpretations of reality, or how scientists describes how the brain functions.

Our subjective reality and perspective, is unique to the subject only. You cannot feel, think, or do exactly the same as me. My conception of reality is unique to me alone. Since you haven't defined "sameness", it could mean all metabolic needs, languages, customs, etc., that all humans have in common. Also, I never asked whether a child needed the assistance of a taster, so spare me another straw man. I simply responded to your assertion about describing the taste of water. I should have known better of the deflecting door I would be opening.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You can build as many mathematical frames as you wish. But the 'YOU' will still be there.

Since motion is the change in position, relative to a frame of reference(traffic lights), are you suggesting that "YOU" are both in the objective perspective(traffic lights), and the subjective perspective(in the car stopping)? Matter can't occupy the same space at the same time. So, we must be talking about some concept that is undefined and extraordinary. Something that doesn't fit into the standard model of reality and existence.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story. Especially if the only evidence you need, is the fact that you say so.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I might suggest you both look at this video on consciousness. It presents a much clearer understanding of consciousness, without all the woo-woo.

The illusion of consciousness
How do you explain consciousness?

 

[Windwalker]

My conclusion was that if you are human, and if the things you describe is the same as what other humans describe as well, then CLEARLY you concluded that we are all the same.

As is typical with your assumptions about what I believe, you are one more time wrong. There is at least a consistency in your misperceptions that one can predict, perhaps even map out the thought patterns themselves with some degree of analysis to reflect where that mental blockage resides. (I actually pretty much know already).

Not that this response will be be any more effective to find its way past that blockage, but for sake of clarification, once again, we share a common reality; being human. We are not the same individual human, nor are we clones of each other. We all have blood, for instance. This means, in this context we all share this in common with one another. We are all the same, in this regard. We can in fact be "all the same" and "all different from one another" at the same time.

This is not a hard concept to understand, once you move beyond black and white, literalist thinking.

Why can't you understand, that we are talking about a biological system, where the conception of black and white thinking does not exist. Life exists only in shades of reality. Nothing is in either black or white.

You have engaged in either/or, this/that conclusions about what you think I am saying, demonstrating you are unable to see nuance or shades of anything, which you accuse others like me as "obscuring". I'm just calling out what you are doing to me, assuming because I say we share things in common, that there are no differences between us. That is absurd, of course. But to you, that is how what we are saying appears to your mind.

This all is telling, and underscores the truth of what we have been saying from the OP onward. The source of that obscurity resides in yourself, in your own eyes looking out at the world, making it impossible to "get" what is actually there, what others actually are seeing and talking about. Your consistently wrong assessments of what is being said, is substantial evidence supporting what we are saying.

Stop mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my statements.

You first.

 

[Windwalker]

I might suggest you both look at this video on consciousness. It presents a much clearer understanding of consciousness, without all the woo-woo.

The illusion of consciousness
How do you explain consciousness?

Do you believe this actually "answers" what consciousness is, that this has solved the "big question"?

Everybody sing now. At the chorus, "Science said it. And I believe it. And that settles it for me!".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

As is typical with your assumptions about what I believe, you are one more time wrong. There is at least a consistency in your misperceptions that one can predict, perhaps even map out the thought patterns themselves with some degree of analysis to reflect where that mental blockage resides. (I actually pretty much know already).

Not that this response will be be any more effective to find its way past that blockage, but for sake of clarification, once again, we share a common reality; being human. We are not the same individual human, nor are we clones of each other. We all have blood, for instance. This means, in this context we all share this in common with one another. We are all the same, in this regard. We can in fact be "all the same" and "all different from one another" at the same time.

This is not a hard concept to understand, once you move beyond black and white, literalist thinking.


You have engaged in either/or, this/that conclusions about what you think I am saying, demonstrating you are unable to see nuance or shades of anything, which you accuse others like me as "obscuring". I'm just calling out what you are doing to me, assuming because I say we share things in common, that there are no differences between us. That is absurd, of course. But to you, that is how what we are saying appears to your mind.

This all is telling, and underscores the truth of what we have been saying from the OP onward. The source of that obscurity resides in yourself, in your own eyes looking out at the world, making it impossible to "get" what is actually there, what others actually are seeing and talking about. Your consistently wrong assessments of what is being said, is substantial evidence supporting what we are saying.


You first.

I guess you WOULD describe anyone asking you to clearly define your terms before making assertions, as having a "mental blockage". I suppose that NOT defining your terms, would be of no benefit to you, would it? As you have stated, I am consistent. Which should indicate something inconsistent about your comments. That is, denying and avoiding my questions, or making new excuses. I don't care if your profound metaphysical insight comes from seers, sages, or soothsayers, it is still just woo-woo without evidence, or at least one clearly defined term. What is it that you want? If you want only those that can expand their conception of reality to dialogue with, then just say so. Otherwise, you actually have to defend your claims, not your position(beliefs).

It is truly sad, since I am looking for my own answers. I sincerely believe that the subjective perspective must be maintained, even after death. That the objective reality is totally dependent on a subjective perspective to exist. I believe that when we die, we change from one perspective to another. I believe that a universal perspective must always be maintained. Unfortunately, since each perspective is subjective, we can never be aware of any of our past perspectives. But these are only belief claims. I have no idea if they are true or not.

Why can't you understand that I accept that words can have different meanings. The problem is, if you don't define your terms and their context, how can I possibly understand what you mean? After you consistently telling me "that's not what I mean", when would you suggest I start asking for consistent definitions to avoid expressing my apparent ignorance. I have continued to ask questions, and you have continued to deflect, ignore, accuse, and obfuscate. If you don't have the answers, just say "I don't know", and move on.

I would have phrased it, "that we are all humans, with a different perspective of the same reality". This is a truth claim, since we are all humans and share the same reality, and from different perspectives. The differences or similarities in our cognition, has nothing to do with us all being human. This avoids any straw man fallacy, and clearly states the point. There is NO communicating by being insulting.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Do you believe this actually "answers" what consciousness is, that this has solved the "big question"?

Everybody sing now. At the chorus, "Science said it. And I believe it. And that settles it for me!".

Although I enjoy the Heritage Singers, even without my shades when they're smiling, I'm still more an Andrea Bocelli/ Céline Dion kind of guy.

 

[atanu]

I might suggest you both look at this video on consciousness. It presents a much clearer understanding of consciousness, without all the woo-woo.
The illusion of consciousness

Even to declare consciousness an illusion, consciousness is required.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Even to declare consciousness an illusion, consciousness is required.

You are one of the few sciolists, that use tautologies to support their particular brand of sophistry. All conscious thoughts, including mental declarations, are illusionary. These thoughts have zero dimensions, occupy zero space, and only exist in our conscious state of awareness. So YEAH, they are by definition an illusion. Since we are not aware of our unconscious and subconscious thoughts, they are not illusions. They simply don't exist in our conscious state of awareness. Please take another look at the videos I deposited. Hopefully, you won't be so obstinate, and may gain a different perspective.

 

[atanu]

... All conscious thoughts, including mental declarations, are illusionary. ....

That is the point. Dennet and You believe that your thoughts are the only truth, .....

I know that you will not see the irony.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is the point. Dennet and You believe that your thoughts are the only truth, .....

I know that you will not see the irony.

I stated that, "All conscious thoughts, including mental declarations, are illusionary". You responded with, "That is the point. Dennet and You believe that your thoughts are the only truth". So what exactly does an illusion have to do with truth? The irony is that you need to twist the meanings of truth and illusion to both mean "real". Our mental thoughts are all conceptual illusions, not truths. Do you mean truth as in real, correct, or physical? Do you disagree with my comments? Or, are you just trying to imply that I am wrong? What exactly is the point?