The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Depends on what you mean by the term 'thoughts'. Are emotions thoughts? Are sensations thoughts? All are part of brain functioning. So, if you restrict thoughts to what happens in the frontal lobe, then consciousness can exist without them. But it cannot exist without thoughts, or emotions, or sensations, or self-perception.

No thoughts; no emotions; no sensations; no idea of self or anything else: just pure seeing, via consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

No thoughts; no emotions; no sensations; no idea of self or anything else: just pure seeing, via consciousness.

If there is no brain activity, you have no consciousness. Later you may have a false memory, though.

 

[godnotgod]

But i wasn't talking about any whirlpools to begin with, you were. So how am i making any claims there regarding the self? Why are you talking about whirlpools by the way? I asked you to show evidence for your claims, but you seem to be dodging that.

No, I was referring to whirlpool, as a metaphor to illustrate that no agent of the experience is necessary to the experience.

Consciousness can be defined as "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings." I think that pretty much requires an agent to count as consciousness. Another definition: "a person's awareness or perception of something." A person is an agent.

Why does consciousness require an agent of consciousness? Show me this agent.

That's not according to me at all, that's according to you. Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

You said:

"I'm saying mystical experiences are subjective....
Your mystical experience, is your subjective experience...
If there is no self, then there is no self to experience mystical experiences." ...

...or to experience anything else, if that is true. So what you are saying is that a self is necessary for experience. I am saying it not only is not, but that it does not even exist. "self" is an illusion. You say it is real, so just show me where it exists.

Yeah. Physics.

The other option is magic, but i'm fully willing to accept that it might be magical. But that's exactly why i'm asking for evidence.

What you are claiming is magic, ie; that molecules and electrical energy create consciousness. I asked how that is possible, and you fail to answer.

Yes, you keep stating it. But that's not enough.

You've presented no evidence in support of it. Therefore, i need no evidence to shoot it down. I can literally say "you are wrong" and it would be equally valid as your claim.

That's what the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the escaped prisoner who went outside to witness the Sun.

So... It's a bit like those guys who demand people to believe in their god?

Is seeing the Sun with your own eyes a belief?

That sounds a lot like proselytizing.

Describing the direct experience of sunshine is proselytizing?

Yeah, but that's what Christians say too. It's "right there." I just fail to see it. Totally my problem that it's not convincing at all.

Maybe your baggage is blocking the way.

"I have always stated that what I am talking about is right under your very nose, but because of your mental conditioning, you fail to see it. " This counts. You're "performing" a logical fallacy known as special pleading.

I shall rephrase: Your conditioned mind prevents you from seeing into the true nature of things, because it wants you to see them as your conditioning dictates how you see them, and not as they actually are. But you are not aware of your conditioning, which reinforces that how you are seeing things is the correct view.

MOST of your claims would count as that. So: Your argument, and your worldview is a logical fallacy, and this is a debate forum. So, you might be right or you might be wrong. That doesn't matter. What really matters is how convincing you are. And you're not very convincing. Because your argument is a logical fallacy.

Did I request an example of circular reasoning?

I am not trying to convince you of anything, nor that I am right. I'm just pointing to an experience you are now having that is larger than your conditioned mind, even though you are not aware of that larger experience. Think about a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea. His attention is immediately captured by one of two things: food and predator. The background to his existence, the sea, which is absolutely necessary to his being a fish, is unknown to him. Likewise, we soon lose touch with the background to our existence, which is undifferentiated consciousness, and instead are socially indoctrinated into a social being called 'I', which is taught to think in terms of subject and object. This subject/object split in the mind sees us as conscious observers of an unconscious universe.

 

[godnotgod]

If there is no brain activity, you have no consciousness. Later you may have a false memory, though.

I didn't ask you about brain activity; I asked you about whether you are conscious or not after you cease to think. Meditating monks do it all the time, and not only are they conscious, but their consciousness is expanded beyond that of the ordinary man. The brain continues its activity, such as autonomic functions, etc., and as a direct result of meditation, begins to output large amounts of alpha waves as well as the slowing down of heartbeat, breathing, etc. IOW, consciousness is directing the brain. On top of that, we now know that long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-mediators do. Consciousness grows brain tissue.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't ask you about brain activity; I asked you about whether you are conscious or not after you cease to think. Meditating monks do it all the time, and not only are they conscious, but their consciousness is expanded beyond that of the ordinary man. The brain continues its activity, such as autonomic functions, etc., and as a direct result of meditation, begins to output large amounts of alpha waves as well as the slowing down of heartbeat, breathing, etc. IOW, consciousness is directing the brain. On top of that, we now know that long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-mediators do. Consciousness grows brain tissue.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

 

[Darkstorn]

No, I was referring to whirlpool, as a metaphor to illustrate that no agent of the experience is necessary to the experience.

But like i just demonstrated earlier, it's a poor metaphor because it's based on false equivocation.

Why does consciousness require an agent of consciousness? Show me this agent.

The very definitions for the word "consciousness" contain agents.

"the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings."

"a person's awareness or perception of something."

I mean, i'd be happy to hear your definition for consciousness but based on how this is going so far, i'm fully expecting you to mix up semantics issues with philosophical issues.

You said:

"I'm saying mystical experiences are subjective....
Your mystical experience, is your subjective experience...
If there is no self, then there is no self to experience mystical experiences." ...

...or to experience anything else, if that is true. So what you are saying is that a self is necessary for experience. I am saying it not only is not, but that it does not even exist. "self" is an illusion. You say it is real, so just show me where it exists.

First. It's considered poor taste to cherry pick and quote mine people. This is what i actually said:

"I'm saying mystical experiences are subjective. It's not that difficult to understand. You're treating them as "Real Things" (tm) but i'm only conveying this point: Your wishful thinking isn't actually verifiable in this instance. It's just your wishful thinking. Your mystical experience, is your subjective experience.

If there is no self, then there is no self to experience mystical experiences. I.E Mystical experiences come from "the self." You get to choose how real that self is now."

I'm talking entirely hypothetically. I made no claim to that end. I said "if" for that very reason. In plain speech: IF there is no self, then there is no mystical experience.

I never said it's real. It's not my burden to show that it exists. But it is your burden to show that your "mystical experience" isn't just you being delusional. That's the point i was trying to make.

I.E You keep making lots of statements of reality. With absolutely no evidence. ALL you have is special pleading and appealing to emotion. Just like i demonstrated earlier.

I'll tell it to you now so you won't get confused again: I make zero claims for any self.

What you are claiming is magic, ie; that molecules and electrical energy create consciousness.

That's an argument from incredulity, another kind of logical fallacy. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

Conversely, you get to also believe that i just can't understand what you're saying. But i do. You're not quite as deep as you seem to imply.

I asked how that is possible, and you fail to answer.

I did answer. I gave an answer just about equal to all your claims. I presented zero evidence. So we're totally even here.

I just made a statement comparable to yours and waited to see if you picked up on it. You didn't. You showed me your double standard.

(it is starting to look more and more like your entire argument is a logical fallacy.)

That's what the prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the escaped prisoner who went outside to witness the Sun.

I am aware. It's an appeal to emotion. Like i said.

Is seeing the Sun with your own eyes a belief?

No, but making claims regarding its nature? That's a different thing. I'm accusing you of doing this.

Describing the direct experience of sunshine is proselytizing?

If you describe it in ways that require certain precedents or prerequisites to make sense, then yes. You're essentially saying; "Open your eyes, so you can see!"

It is proselytizing. And it's also implying that you know more than me without having demonstrated that in any way.

Maybe your baggage is blocking the way.

That's special pleading. Like i said previously, you're employing a logical fallacy as the core element of your worldview and philosophy.

I shall rephrase:

our conditioned mind prevents you from seeing into the true nature of things, because it wants you to see them as your conditioning dictates how you see them, and not as they actually are. But you are not aware of your conditioning, which reinforces that how you are seeing things is the correct view.

If you make claims of bias, it's up to you to show such claims to be true. Because i could just turn this around and say your conditioned mind prevents you from seeing the quackery of your position. You want to see reality this way, so you most certainly do.

I mean, it's fine to accuse others of things they are doing. But you are clearly projecting here: You're accusing people of doing the same fatal mistake you did when you first started not-criticizing your position. You are showing bias.

Oh and it's still special pleading, even more so after your rephrasing. Maybe look up on fallacies so you won't be so committed to basing your arguments on them?

I mean, this looks a lot like you going around telling everyone how conditioned they are and how they're unable to "just see" your claims as true.

Did I request an example of circular reasoning?

I didn't give you "circular reasoning." I literally gave you evidence. You are guilty of special pleading. It's a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Here's the link so you don't get confused once more and accuse me of circular reasoning.

I am not trying to convince you of anything, nor that I am right.

I disagree on your assessment of your own actions here. The rest of your post will demonstrate my claim:

I'm just pointing to an experience you are now having that is larger than your conditioned mind, even though you are not aware of that larger experience. Think about a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea. His attention is immediately captured by one of two things: food and predator. The background to his existence, the sea, which is absolutely necessary to his being a fish, is unknown to him. Likewise, we soon lose touch with the background to our existence, which is undifferentiated consciousness, and instead are socially indoctrinated into a social being called 'I', which is taught to think in terms of subject and object. This subject/object split in the mind sees us as conscious observers of an unconscious universe.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with this paragraph? I'm literally using it as an example for you making a mistake. I care not to argue its contents, but i am pointing this out:

It's you telling people what is and what is not. You say you're not trying to convince me of anything. So, then why are you doing it?

You just keep on special pleadin' if you think it makes you feel happy. But it won't convince me.

/E: Damn the quotes, they seem to have a mind of their own.

/E2: Have you ever thought about making your own threads instead of stealing other peoples'? I read this entire thing and you started peddling your snakeoil before the halfway point. It's been ALL about you ever since then. It has nothing to do with the original topic.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't ask you about brain activity; I asked you about whether you are conscious or not after you cease to think. Meditating monks do it all the time, and not only are they conscious, but their consciousness is expanded beyond that of the ordinary man. The brain continues its activity, such as autonomic functions, etc., and as a direct result of meditation, begins to output large amounts of alpha waves as well as the slowing down of heartbeat, breathing, etc. IOW, consciousness is directing the brain. On top of that, we now know that long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-mediators do. Consciousness grows brain tissue.

If there is brain activity, there is thought. If there isn't brain activity, there isn't consciousness. So I would say those monks *are* thinking, just at a different level. There is no consciousness without thought in the general sense (including emotions and sensation, etc).

 

[Polymath257]

There is no 'whirler' of the whirling water in a whirlpool, and yet, we have whirling water.

In this analogy, the brain is the water and consciousness is the whirling.

Show me this 'self' that must be present for experience to take place.

The 'self' is a process, not an entity. And it is a brain process. Just like consciousness.

You see what I am saying? There is no 'experiencer of the experience' of consciousness: there is only the experience of consciousness itself, and we are that experience.

Get it?

Yes, it is an experience and *you* perceive it to be real. So *you* are the experiencer. That seems quite clear. You are having an experience that you *interpret* as 'pure experience'. But it is just another experience that *you* have. You interpret it one way and ask others to accept your interpretation. We see no evidence that your interpretation of your experience is the correct interpretation.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Yes, on the way...

 

[godnotgod]

In this analogy, the brain is the water and consciousness is the whirling.

No. You've got it all screwed up and twisted to fit your framework.

Just as there is no such thing as a 'whirler of whirling water' in a 'whirlpool', there is no such entity as a 'thinker of thoughts'; or an 'experiencer of the experience' IOW, no agent of the action; there is only the action itself. the notion of an agent is a self-created principle; an illusion.

The 'self' is a process, not an entity. And it is a brain process. Just like consciousness.

That's an even more ridiculous definition than the standard one. How is a noun a verb, and of what use is it to the brain functions of, say, digestion, heart beat, and breathing? How is it necessary to consciousness?

Yes, it is an experience and *you* perceive it to be real. So *you* are the experiencer. That seems quite clear. You are having an experience that you *interpret* as 'pure experience'. But it is just another experience that *you* have. You interpret it one way and ask others to accept your interpretation. We see no evidence that your interpretation of your experience is the correct interpretation.

You just finished saying that the self is a process; now you say it is the experiencer of the process. That's fine if you want to be illogical, but I just want you to show me where you see this 'self'; this 'experiencer of the experience'. You're adding something to the experience that is simply not there. Who is this 'you'?

 

[godnotgod]

If there is brain activity, there is thought.

If there is the brain activity of digestion, breathing, and heart beat, there is thought?

If there isn't brain activity, there isn't consciousness.

There isn't local consciousness.

If the TV set goes on the blink, the signal is still present.

So I would say those monks *are* thinking, just at a different level.

No. The thinking mind has been transcended. The whole point of meditation is to enter not just a different level, but a different state of consciousness, one that is unconditioned. It is conditioned consciousness that thinks. Unconditioned consciousness just sees what is, without thought. Why do you need thought? All it does is to create conceptual frameworks about reality. It does not reflect reality as it actually is.

There is no consciousness without thought in the general sense (including emotions and sensation, etc).

What? Consciousness is dependent upon thinking? That's plain nuts.

 

[Darkstorn]

If there is the brain activity of digestion, breathing, and heart beat, there is thought?

Yes.

If you get to say "no" to things, i get to say yes with equal footing.

There isn't

local consciousness.

There isn't non-local consciousness either unless you can actually show it to be anything but your wishful thinking.

If the TV set goes on the blink, the signal is still present.

Bad analogy. Since you can't know that until you verify that it's broken, and that it's not a signal issue. And you've verified nothing here. You just made a claim.

No. The thinking mind has been transcended.The whole point of meditation is to enter not just a different level, but a different state of consciousness, one that is unconditioned. It is conditioned consciousness that thinks. Unconditioned consciousness just sees what is, without thought. Why do you need thought? All it does is to create conceptual frameworks about reality. It does not reflect reality as it actually is.

Your understanding of reality seems like a conceptual framework. Just a very ill-defined one. You keep making statements. You keep talking about different concepts. The very idea of "universal consciousness" is a concept.

If it weren't a concept you wouldn't be calling it a consciousness.

I don't believe you when you make claims that you can switch off your thoughts. You might wish it was so, but it seems to not be so unless you can show yourself to be infallible.

And that'd be delusional. Like your claims that you've transcended anything.

What? Consciousness is dependent upon thinking? That's plain nuts.

Yes. It takes an entity that must be aware of itself. Awareness implies thinking. Just because you can't detect thoughts when you observe things, doesn't mean you aren't thinking: You would not understand a single aspect of anything without forming thoughts about it.

I think it requires thought to experience your universal consciousness. You even gave it a name. I feel you're suffering from confirmation bias, and that's the worst form of conditioning. You've led yourself to believe that you aren't suffering from it.

/E: These forums really don't like your use of quote mining and color; It keeps messing up the quotes.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes.
If you get to say "no" to things, i get to say yes with equal footing.

Except that I don't just say 'no'; I tell you why I say 'no'.

Where is the thought in digestion, breathing, and heart beat?

There isn't non-local consciousness either unless you can actually show it to be anything but your wishful thinking.

Watch the video at post #765.

Bad analogy. Since you can't know that until you verify that it's broken, and that it's not a signal issue. And you've verified nothing here. You just made a claim.

You're missing the point. I was not referring to the cause of the breakdown, but to the source of the signal. The signal is always non-local.

Your understanding of reality seems like a conceptual framework. Just a very ill-defined one. You keep making statements. You keep talking about different concepts. The very idea of "universal consciousness" is a concept.

It is. But I am not referring to it as concept, but as direct experience. This is available to anyone, just as the Sun is available to the prisoners in Plato's Cave.

If it weren't a concept you wouldn't be calling it a consciousness.

Faulty logic. I call it consciousness because I experience it as such. So do you. Consciousness is an experience we all are having. More accurately, it is the experience The Universe is having called 'godnotgod' and 'darkstorn', and everything else.

I don't believe you when you make claims that you can switch off your thoughts. You might wish it was so, but it seems to not be so unless you can show yourself to be infallible.

Actually, you are correct. No one can willfully switch off thoughts, partly because there is no "I" that can do so. The more you try to switch them off, the more incessant they will become. Thoughts need a self to function. When attention is shifted away from thoughts as 'my thoughts', and they are just watched, without being personally attached to them, they soon begin to diminish in strength until they stop entirely, all of their own accord. You can prove this to yourself. Just sit quietly and just watch your thoughts as they go in and out of consciousness without willfully trying to control them in any way. It may take some time, or several sessions for you to see how this occurs.

And that'd be delusional. Like your claims that you've transcended anything.

Delusion is based upon thought. When thoughts cease to appear in consciousness, where is the delusion?

Yes. It takes an entity that must be aware of itself. Awareness implies thinking. Just because you can't detect thoughts when you observe things, doesn't mean you aren't thinking: You would not understand a single aspect of anything without forming thoughts about it.

Show me the self-aware entity called "I". It's just an illusion; a self-created principle.

Awareness is not thinking. It's just that thinking about what one is aware of occurs immediately after the awareness. The process is so fast that you think them to be one and the same experience. You burn your finger on a hot stove. There is no thought except for the instantaneous reaction 'Ouch!'. You then immediately think: 'Oh, I burned my finger!'.

You are confusing knowledge with understanding. You acquire factual knowledge about something via thought, but you understand something via seeing into the nature of things.

I think it requires thought to experience your universal consciousness. You even gave it a name. I feel you're suffering from confirmation bias, and that's the worst form of conditioning. You've led yourself to believe that you aren't suffering from it.

Why does anyone need thought for experience to occur, unless it is a planned experience, like skiing, for example? Again, burning your finger on a hot stove occurs entirely without thought. The thought that you in fact have burned your finger occurs AFTER the experience. But even in planned experiences, they never match the idea of the experience exactly.

What I am describing to you is the process of preparing yourself for the experience of higher consciousness by creating a state of no-thought, against which the experience can occur, like figure and ground, as in the following image:

The field, or background, is without form; without concept. This formless background represents consciousness. It is itself without thought; without concept; without image, though thought, concept, and imagery appear within it, and is absolutely necessary for them to exist.

These forums really don't like your use of quote mining and color; It keeps messing up the quotes.

I never mess them up. It's those who don't take the time to learn how to use them who do. I use color to differentiate my input from that of other sources.

 

[gnostic]

The Buddha realized Oneness with Everything.

Hinduism teaches the yoga (ie; divine union) with Brahman, which is Pure Consciousness.

So this is OK with you?

All of which had nothing to do with quantum fields, any of the energies, or the quantum emptiness, that Tong mentioned.

If nothing in Tong’s lecture, related to consciousness, then why bring up consciousness at all?

This “bundles of energy” that you keep quoting Tong, clearly has nothing to do with your transcendent consciousness, and yet you keeping brining it up.

I am not questioning Tong’s current knowledge regarding to quantum physics, but your interpretations, and your frequently uses of stupid faulty analogies and uses of false equivalence.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You've got it all screwed up and twisted to fit your framework.

Just as there is no such thing as a 'whirler of whirling water' in a 'whirlpool', there is no such entity as a 'thinker of thoughts'; or an 'experiencer of the experience' IOW, no agent of the action; there is only the action itself. the notion of an agent is a self-created principle; an illusion.

Exactly. Just as consciousness is the self-created activity of the brain. There is no actor that whilrs the water, but the water itself whirls. There is no outside influence that produces consciousness: it is the brain itself that 'does the consciousness'.

That's an even more ridiculous definition than the standard one. How is a noun a verb, and of what use is it to the brain functions of, say, digestion, heart beat, and breathing? How is it necessary to consciousness?

The brain is an organ that processes information. That processing is called 'thought'. Some thoughts are unconscious, like those that control the heartbeat and aspets of digestion. Other thoughts are conscious. But you cannot have consciousness without thoughts.

And MOST nouns are actually verbs: they are processes, not entities. For example, pressure is usually thought of as a noun, but it is actually a very high degree of lower level activity.

You just finished saying that the self is a process; now you say it is the experiencer of the process. That's fine if you want to be illogical, but I just want you to show me where you see this 'self'; this 'experiencer of the experience'. You're adding something to the experience that is simply not there. Who is this 'you'?

No, the process is what experiences. it is the brain that interprets sensory information and some of the results of that processing are fed into the process of consciousness. Those are the ones we experience.

What have I added to the experience that isn't there? The 'you' or 'me' is the process. No single entity is the 'self', but rather the whole series of interactions.

 

[godnotgod]

All of which had nothing to do with quantum fields, any of the energies, or the quantum emptiness, that Tong mentioned.

If nothing in Tong’s lecture, related to consciousness, then why bring up consciousness at all?

This “bundles of energy” that you keep quoting Tong, clearly has nothing to do with your transcendent consciousness, and yet you keeping brining it up.

I am not questioning Tong’s current knowledge regarding to quantum physics, but your interpretations, and your frequently uses of stupid faulty analogies and uses of false equivalence.

You said:

"I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism are craps.."

So I then said:

"The Buddha realized Oneness with Everything.
Hinduism teaches the yoga (ie; divine union) with Brahman, which is Pure Consciousness."

and then I asked you:

So this is OK with you?

So....is what Buddhism and Hinduism say OK with you, in light of your statement that they are not "craps"? Hmmmm?

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly. Just as consciousness is the self-created activity of the brain. There is no actor that whilrs the water, but the water itself whirls. There is no outside influence that produces consciousness: it is the brain itself that 'does the consciousness'.

Now you're twisting again. I never said that consciousness is the self-created activity of the brain. That's what you want to believe, but you have not answered the question I have posed in this regard: how do molecules and electrical current create consciousness? You just assume that it does. You're making things up.

What I said was that the mind is a self-created principle. Note that I make the distinction between mind and consciousness. Mind thinks; consciousness sees.

Consciousness is not produced. It does not come into being, nor does it come to an end. Show me where this occurs.

The brain is an organ that processes information. That processing is called 'thought'. Some thoughts are unconscious, like those that control the heartbeat and aspets of digestion. Other thoughts are conscious. But you cannot have consciousness without thoughts.

Digestion, respiration, and heart beat are not regulated by thoughts. They are programmed into the brain by consciousness. Thought is no longer required for these functions. They are autonomic, which means involuntary or unconscious. Think about it: If the brain had to continually think about regulating the body's functions up front, we would not be able to handle the unexpected in everyday life, nor live a social life as social beings. We would be constantly giving attention to body functions. So consciousness programmed them to work automatically. Now, when we meditate, we can influence how these work. We can actually voluntarily slow respiration, heart beat, and breath rate and rhythm, while causing the brain to output large amounts of alpha waves. All because of consciousness without having to think about it.

You must have consciousness with boots already on the ground for any thought to occur. Even then, mind must first be created by consciousness for thought to come into play.

And MOST nouns are actually verbs: they are processes, not entities. For example, pressure is usually thought of as a noun, but it is actually a very high degree of lower level activity.

Doesn't work, Poly. 'self' cannot be both a verb and a noun. It is only a noun.

No, the process is what experiences. it is the brain that interprets sensory information and some of the results of that processing are fed into the process of consciousness. Those are the ones we experience.

Except that consciousness is not a process at all. It is a state. Mind moves; consciousness never moves.

What have I added to the experience that isn't there? The 'you' or 'me' is the process. No single entity is the 'self', but rather the whole series of interactions.

So you agree that there is no 'thinker of thoughts', or 'experiencer of the experience', right? That there is only thinking and experiencing themselves, without an agent of thinking or experiencing, right, in exactly the same way that there is no such 'whirler of whirling water' in a 'whirlpool'.

 

[gnostic]

Digestion, respiration, and heart beat are not regulated by thoughts. They are programmed into the brain by consciousness. Thought is no longer required for these functions. They are autonomic, which means involuntary or unconscious. Think about it: If the brain had to continually think about regulating the body's functions up front, we would not be able to handle the unexpected in everyday life, nor live a social life as social beings. We would be constantly giving attention to body functions. So consciousness programmed them to work automatically. Now, when we meditate, we can influence how these work. We can actually voluntarily slow respiration, heart beat, and breath rate and rhythm, while causing the brain to output large amounts of alpha waves. All because of consciousness without having to think about it.

You must have thought with boots already on the ground for any thought to occur. Even then, mind must first be created by consciousness for thought to come into play.

None of which have anything to do with this nonsense about “Pure Consciousness”, nor to do with Brahman.

You are simply training your own brain to control these bodily functions. Athletes to this to certain extent. Yogi and martial artists do similar trainings in such controls.

But there are nothing “transcendence” about these actions, and nothing at all about your frickin Brahman, quantum fields or anything relating to quantum physics.

It required training the brain, but these are activities of the brains, not some disembodied consciousness controlling the body.

 

[godnotgod]

None of which have anything to do with this nonsense about “Pure Consciousness”, nor to do with Brahman.

You are simply training your own brain to control these bodily functions. Athletes to this to certain extent. Yogi and martial artists do similar trainings in such controls.

But there are nothing “transcendence” about these actions, and nothing at all about your frickin Brahman, quantum fields or anything relating to quantum physics.

It required training the brain, but these are activities of the brains, not some disembodied consciousness controlling the body.

These are just preliminaries. Some stop there in order to gain their health benefits. IOW, it is a process in stages. These are preparatory for the experience of transcendence, which is to awaken to the 4th level of consciousness, that of The Observer, aka 'Self Remembering'.