The Watchmaker Revisited

[gnostic]

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'.

Hey!

You are the one who brought up conditioning the brain to perform some body functions that the brain normally do - automatically, unconsciously.

When I state that this done by the brain that yogi, athletes and martial artists can do these things (slow heart rate or breathing), now, you are moving the goalpost...again...with this phony-baloney "4th level of consciousness".

I am not denying that yoga masters can do amazing things with their body, but they have nothing to do with transcendent (pure, universal or cosmic) consciousness.

You put all these silly adjectives, like pure, universal, ultimate, absolute, etc, but they are just superlative descriptions that don't mean much. They are just desperate word game to make yourself special.

You really are full of craps.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

All of our senses are composed of matter. Our physical brain is composed of matter. In fact our total physical body is composed of matter. Therefore, matter exist both inside and outside of our bodies. Matter is not one dimensional. Matter occupies space and time, and have the properties of mass and inertia. Mind and consciousness are part of the functioning of a physical brain. They are only one-dimensional mental representations, that are non-local, occupy zero space, have no electric charge, and have zero mass and inertia. Therefore, they are not composed of matter of any kind, any more than dreaming, running or driving, are composed of matter. Can anyone name at least 4 logical fallacies being used here? But as usual, it is just another staged exhibition, to appear rational to the uninitiated and the want-to-believers.

Even if we falsely claimed that the mind was composed of matter, it would still not follow that matter is composed of mind. Another fallacy.

 

[Polymath257]

Now you're twisting again. I never said that consciousness is the self-created activity of the brain.

No, you didn't say that. I did. I showed how your analogy could be made to work and pointed out what actually happens.

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.

We know that molecules and electrical current can process information, right? What is consciousness other than a type of information processing?

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.

You are making an artificial distinction between two aspects of brain functioning. Thinking is one of the things the brain does. But so are emotions, and regulation of unconscious processes in the body. Consciousness is yet another aspect of how the brain processes information, in this case, awareness.

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

I strongly disagree. We can end consciousness by anesthetics. We can regain it through various means. We lose it during certain stages of dreamless sleep. It begins and ends all the time.

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.

First, there is a great deal of brain processing devoted to these things: they are NOT automatic. Even something as simple as breathing requires brain activity to accomplish. Now, I agre this seldom gets to the level of conscious control and that is part of the point: that consciousness is a bulky slow process that is ill suited to vital activities. But, even though that brain power isn't devoted to conscious thought, it is devoted to processing that information. It is at a much lower level than conscious thought. But it *is* at the level of unconscious thought.

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.

Again, I strongly disagree. Thought is a type of information processing. Not all thoughts are conscious. In fact, even quite complicated unconscious thoughts occur all the time: we see it in our processing of certain types of facial cues, for example. Many emotions are a type of unconscious thought at base. Consciousness certainly does NOT have to be 'up and running' for thought to occur. In fact, I would say exactly the opposite: thoughts and general information processing have to be up and running for consciousness to be possible at all.

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

Nouns are defined by how they interact: in other words, their verbs. We frequently give a noun to designate a process: in other words, a verb.

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

.

Consciousness is a 'state' of the mind, the brain. As such, it is a *process* in the brain.

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'.

Ultimately, I agree that the 'self' is mostly illusory. We are not a single 'conscious being', but rather a quilt work of separate processes that give an illusion of unity. Consciousness is just one piece of this quilt. it is the part that focuses attention. But many other aspects are going on simultaneously.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.



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.



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



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



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'.

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

"a variety that SELFS itself loses lots of vigour in the progeny", "Progeny were derived from SELFED crosses". "Self" certainly can be used as a verb as well. There are four defined levels of Consciousness(unconsciousness incomplete,unconsciousness complete, consciousness incomplete, and consciousness complete), that are used to describe the psychological stages that one must go through when learning any new skill. However, the 3 states of consciousness(awareness of self, events, and position in spacetime), are consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness. Most neuroscientists and psychologist agree that less that 10% of all of the brain's mental activities, is devoted to consciousness. I tend to agree. Being self-aware(consciousness), is certainly not essential for any species survival. Our self-awareness is the product of our over-evolved language abilities and other cultural influences(my own theory).

In either case, consciousness is only a small product of the brain's mental functioning. Without a functioning physical brain, there is no consciousness or mind. There would be no state of being at all. Think of it this way. Our senses are the film(physical), the brain is the projector(physical), and the screen being our conscious mind(non-physical). There is no separation between what is on the screen, and our consciousness. You cannot consciously choose not to see the computer screen in front of you. Consciousness is the brain's best guess, incomplete representation of our physical reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Hey!

You are the one who brought up conditioning the brain to perform some body functions that the brain normally do - automatically, unconsciously.

When I state that this done by the brain that yogi, athletes and martial artists can do these things (slow heart rate or breathing), now, you are moving the goalpost...again...with this phony-baloney "4th level of consciousness".

I am not denying that yoga masters can do amazing things with their body, but they have nothing to do with transcendent (pure, universal or cosmic) consciousness.

You put all these silly adjectives, like pure, universal, ultimate, absolute, etc, but they are just superlative descriptions that don't mean much. They are just desperate word game to make yourself special.

You really are full of craps.

Again, you don't comprehend what I've actually said to you.

Read:

Those brain and bodily changes are a BY-PRODUCT of meditation and breath control, not the goal, at least not for the spiritual adept who wishes to realize the 4th level and beyond. In the case of the yogi specifically, the goal IS to achieve a transformation of consciousness*. 'Yoga' means 'divine union'. There are many yogic paths, some of which only have the goal of well-being. Other disciplines, like the martial artists, or self-improvement programs, have varying degrees of intent when effecting these changes.


*Yoga
/ˈjoʊɡə/ - योग

“Yogas chitta vritti nirodha” (“Yoga is the neutralization of the vortices of feeling.”)

—Patanjali

Yoga literally means “union”. This union can be understood on different levels: philosophically, as that of the relative, limited self with the absolute Self; religiously, as that of the individual soul with the Infinite Spirit; psychologically, as the integration of the personality – a state wherein a person no longer lives at cross-purposes with himself; emotionally, as the stilling of the waves of likes and dislikes, permitting one to remain in all circumstances complete in himself. (1)

According to the ancient sage Patanjali, yoga is the neutralization of ego-directed feelings, because once these become stilled, the yogi realizes that he is, and that he has always been, one with the Infinite – that his awareness of this reality was limited only by his infatuation with limitation. (1)

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/yoga/

 

[godnotgod]

All of our senses are composed of matter. Our physical brain is composed of matter. In fact our total physical body is composed of matter. Therefore, matter exist both inside and outside of our bodies. Matter is not one dimensional. Matter occupies space and time, and have the properties of mass and inertia. Mind and consciousness are part of the functioning of a physical brain. They are only one-dimensional mental representations, that are non-local, occupy zero space, have no electric charge, and have zero mass and inertia. Therefore, they are not composed of matter of any kind, any more than dreaming, running or driving, are composed of matter. Can anyone name at least 4 logical fallacies being used here? But as usual, it is just another staged exhibition, to appear rational to the uninitiated and the want-to-believers.

Even if we falsely claimed that the mind was composed of matter, it would still not follow that matter is composed of mind. Another fallacy.

If matter is composed of matter instead of mind, or rather, consciousness, we are now back to square one in trying to explain the origin of original matter.

We have been saying that matter is composed of particles, but some Quantum field theorists are now saying that what we only call 'particles' are actually 'bundles of energy, within the surrounding energy field, and that the field exists in the Quantum vacuum, which is, in the words of one theorist, 'absolutely nothing'. IOW, there is no such 'matter'.

 

[godnotgod]

"a variety that SELFS itself loses lots of vigour in the progeny", "Progeny were derived from SELFED crosses". "Self" certainly can be used as a verb as well. There are four defined levels of Consciousness(unconsciousness incomplete,unconsciousness complete, consciousness incomplete, and consciousness complete), that are used to describe the psychological stages that one must go through when learning any new skill. However, the 3 states of consciousness(awareness of self, events, and position in spacetime), are consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness. Most neuroscientists and psychologist agree that less that 10% of all of the brain's mental activities, is devoted to consciousness. I tend to agree. Being self-aware(consciousness), is certainly not essential for any species survival. Our self-awareness is the product of our over-evolved language abilities and other cultural influences(my own theory).

In either case, consciousness is only a small product of the brain's mental functioning. Without a functioning physical brain, there is no consciousness or mind. There would be no state of being at all. Think of it this way. Our senses are the film(physical), the brain is the projector(physical), and the screen being our conscious mind(non-physical). There is no separation between what is on the screen, and our consciousness. You cannot consciously choose not to see the computer screen in front of you. Consciousness is the brain's best guess, incomplete representation of our physical reality.

The common use and meaning of 'self' is to indicate an individual agent or entity, and not a process or activity.

That 'small product' may still be an aspect of non-local consciousness programming the brain. So I would say that without consciousness, there is no brain, consciousness being the fundamental reality, and not 'matter', whatever that is.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Here are links which can answer part of your inquiry:

Meditation Associated With Increased Grey Matter In The Brain

Neuroplasticity: 9 Key Brain Regions Rewired By Meditation – EOC Institute

 

[gnostic]

Again, you don't comprehend what I've actually said to you.

Read:

Those brain and bodily changes are a BY-PRODUCT of meditation and breath control, not the goal, at least not for the spiritual adept who wishes to realize the 4th level and beyond. In the case of the yogi specifically, the goal IS to achieve a transformation of consciousness*. 'Yoga' means 'divine union'. There are many yogic paths, some of which only have the goal of well-being. Other disciplines, like the martial artists, or self-improvement programs, have varying degrees of intent when effecting these changes.


*Yoga
/ˈjoʊɡə/ - योग

“Yogas chitta vritti nirodha” (“Yoga is the neutralization of the vortices of feeling.”)

—Patanjali

Yoga literally means “union”. This union can be understood on different levels: philosophically, as that of the relative, limited self with the absolute Self; religiously, as that of the individual soul with the Infinite Spirit; psychologically, as the integration of the personality – a state wherein a person no longer lives at cross-purposes with himself; emotionally, as the stilling of the waves of likes and dislikes, permitting one to remain in all circumstances complete in himself. (1)

According to the ancient sage Patanjali, yoga is the neutralization of ego-directed feelings, because once these become stilled, the yogi realizes that he is, and that he has always been, one with the Infinite – that his awareness of this reality was limited only by his infatuation with limitation. (1)

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/yoga/

There you go again. Using words like “absolute”, “ultimate” or “pure” or capitalising words, eg “Self” cf “self” is just disingenuous talk and nothing more than baseless sophistry.

You have only provided word games, faulty analogies and false equivalence.

I understand that people who have mastered yoga, can do amazing things, but none of them show the “transcendence” you have talk about, especially that of the consciousness being independent of the brain.

Please don’t repeat the crap analogies of tv signals, of Plato’s prisoners, or this new one about the whirlpool.

You have shown no evidences about the Pure Consciousness, and you quoting Patanjali is not evidence; it is just you trying to justify your wishful mysticism.

Your example about controlling breath, heart rate, as well as others that didn’t mention (such as controlling pain), only demonstrates “mind over matter”, in which the brain is doing the actual controlling conscious actions, and not consciousness independent of the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

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

It would be false only if there is a self, an 'experiencer of the experience'. But you have not demonstrated the reality of any 'self'. 'Experiencer of the experience' is fully equivalent to 'whirler of whirling water'. Prove otherwise.

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."

Ha ha....completely ridiculous! 'One's' and 'person's' are merely conventions of speech. You missed that. Most people, including those who write such definitions, are indoctrinated to believe that a 'self' called 'one', and 'person' actually exist in reality. Everyone employs such conventions, even those who know that the self is an illusion, simply because it facilitates social interaction.

There is no one who is aware of his surroundings; there is only awareness of the surroundings, just as there is only 'whirling water' in a 'whirlpool'. In fact, there is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'.

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.

Why must there be a 'self' in order to experience mystical experiences? I mean, there's no 'whirler' of 'whirling water', or 'rainer of the rain', is there? For reasons that I understand, and of which you are not aware, you think an agent of the activity must be necessary to that particular activity. When thought about, one sees that it is an utterly ridiculous and archaic scenario. There is no 'thinker of thoughts' called 'I'; there are only thoughts, arising and subsiding in consciousness. Why attach an 'I' to the activity?

BTW, 'subjective' and 'objective' are simply conceptual frameworks created by the mind. In reality, there are no such states. The authentic mystical experience is transcendent of both. This experience is non-dual. As Deepak Chopra has said: 'the spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'.

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.

de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

We used to think the earth to be flat, and geocentric. We were deluded, but that belief was generally accepted as reality. Today, we still think a material world to be reality, but at last, Quantum Physics is slowly lifting the veil in the world of science to demonstrate otherwise. Mystics have known this for centuries.

Once again, the authentic mystical experience is not a belief, therefore it cannot be delusional. Having said that, there are students in Zen centers around the world who undergo a period of hallucinatory experiences called makyo, well understood by the Zen community. These students are carefully guided through this period by their teachers and finally come to realize the delusional aspect of these experiences.

When you awaken from a dream, you know it to be a dream just by the very act of awakening. The mystical experience is an awakening of a much higher nature.

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.

You can always leave your fixation on those delusional dancing cave wall shadows called Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and go outside the cave to see the Sun for yourself.

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

Fine, but you make the error of claiming that the self is necessary to the mystical experience. Why do you think that?

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.

But YOU don't understand it. If you do, tell me how molecules and electrical energy create consciousness.

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

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.

You seem not to get the difference. Proselytizing involves belief in a doctrine that cannot be demonstrated to be true. I am telling you that you can demonstrate the authenticity of the mystical experience by experiencing it directly yourself. Belief is not a part of the experience.

I don't know any more than you do in terms of the mystical experience, because it is not an experience involving knowledge. It is the experience of realizing your oneness with the Universe. Yes, you can intellectually understand your being at one with the Universe, but experiencing it is not the same thing.

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

I am suggesting that you don't see the mystical experience as valid simply because your mental conditioning prevents you from doing so. It's baggage that you only see the world in terms of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, which serve to reinforce that very baggage as being the correct view. They are judge, jury and hangman. Basically your vision is distorted and in need of correction, but you don't know it, so accustomed to the distortion you have become.

More later....

cheers

 

[godnotgod]

There you go again. Using words like “absolute”, “ultimate” or “pure” or capitalising words, eg “Self” cf “self” is just disingenuous talk and nothing more than baseless sophistry.

You have only provided word games, faulty analogies and false equivalence.

gnostic, when will you learn to read and comprehend?

I did not write those words; I quoted an article which did. Read again, and stop jumping to conclusions!

I understand that people who have mastered yoga, can do amazing things, but none of them show the “transcendence” you have talk about, especially that of the consciousness being independent of the brain.

"A Yogi, therefore, instead of making futile attempts to form a perfect logical conception of the nature of the Absolute in the lower empirical planes of his consciousness, directs his attention and energy to the progressive purification, refinement and concentration of his empirical consciousness* and its elevation to higher and higher spiritual planes, until the supreme transcendent plane is reached, in which the veil between the Ultimate Truth and the consciousness vanishes altogether and the [empirical] consciousness is absolutely united with the Truth."

https://ocoy.org/original-yoga/a-yogi-and-a-philosopher/

The brain is immersed in a sea of consciousness.

Your example about controlling breath, heart rate, as well as others that didn’t mention (such as controlling pain), only demonstrates “mind over matter”, in which the brain is doing the actual controlling conscious actions, and not consciousness independent of the brain.

That's not what I said, gnostic.

I said that such changes were BY-PRODUCTS of meditation.

What you are saying is that the brain is controlling consciousness that is controlling the brain that is controlling consciousness that is controlling......... Utterly ridiculous! C'mon! Use your head!

*ie; 'personal mind' as compared to 'universal mind'.

 

[gnostic]

That's not what I said, gnostic.

I said that such changes were BY-PRODUCTS of meditation.

What you are saying is that the brain is controlling consciousness that is controlling the brain that is controlling consciousness that is controlling.........

That’s not what I am saying.

The brain controls everything - the consciousness, the mind, and every other bodily functions.

I am saying that the brain can control the body’s action, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. It is the brain that’s in control.

I didn’t say anything about consciousness controlling the brain. That’s your unsubstantiated wishful fantasy, not mine.

 

[godnotgod]

That’s not what I am saying.

The brain controls everything - the consciousness, the mind, and every other bodily functions.

I am saying that the brain can control the body’s action, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. It is the brain that’s in control.

I didn’t say anything about consciousness controlling the brain. That’s your unsubstantiated wishful fantasy, not mine.

So you are saying that, when someone makes the decision to meditate, it is the brain that is actually making that decision, and that the changes that occur to the brain, respiratory system, heart rate, pain, digestion, etc. are also controlled by the brain. If that is the case, why does the brain need consciousness in the form of a self to make that decision, or any decision? Does the brain decide to go biking, or have a martini after work, or go have a pizza on the spur of the moment? How does the brain learn to lie, or crack a joke, or create a scenario to put the make on a woman or a man, and then to top it all off, to sit back and reflect on all those decisions or experiences once it decides to go ahead with them? All via chemicals and electricity? Is it all electro-chemical when the brain decides to become a murderer or a nun? What determines that difference? The brain creates a persona and then creates scenarios for that persona to follow? If that is the case, then every brain is different, as each human is different.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

My brain does not control who I am. When I make the decision to strive for higher spiritual ground, that is to say, greater joy in my life, it is not the brain doing that. There's some other presence in my life that is subtlety prompting me to do so, and I know for certain it is not the brain. I do not experience consciousness only in my cranial area; I experience it throughout my body in different centers. These are called chakras, the most prominent ones being the heart chakra and the hara, just below the navel, unmistakable centers of conscious awareness. In fact, in the East, the center of consciousness is NOT in the cranium, but in the hara. It is the hara that is closely watched in martial arts to determine the next move the opponent will make. When I focus on the hara, there is a powerful sense of peace and balance that develops. There is something alive and conscious in the hara, nothing like the experience in my head. It is not intellectual at all, and feels like the seat of power, but not in the egotistic sense at all, but just power that is conscious, and that knows far more than my mind can possibly know, as if it is always far ahead of what the brain can come up with.

If it is the brain making the decision to gain higher ground, then why does it not just do that and stay in that state? Why is its default state that of ordinary life, with all its pitfalls and misery? If what you say is true, then the brain is a faulty piece of hardware, as the history of the world is testament to, the brain having made all those horrible decisions for war and greed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying that, when someone makes the decision to meditate, it is the brain that is actually making that decision, and that the changes that occur to the brain, respiratory system, heart rate, pain, digestion, etc. are also controlled by the brain. If that is the case, why does the brain need consciousness in the form of a self to make that decision, or any decision? Does the brain decide to go biking, or have a martini after work, or go have a pizza on the spur of the moment? How does the brain learn to lie, or crack a joke, or create a scenario to put the make on a woman or a man, and then to top it all off, to sit back and reflect on all those decisions or experiences once it decides to go ahead with them? All via chemicals and electricity? Is it all electro-chemical when the brain decides to become a murderer or a nun? What determines that difference? The brain creates a persona and then creates scenarios for that persona to follow? If that is the case, then every brain is different, as each human is different.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

My brain does not control who I am. When I make the decision to strive for higher spiritual ground, that is to say, greater joy in my life, it is not the brain doing that. There's some other presence in my life that is subtlety prompting me to do so, and I know for certain it is not the brain. I do not experience consciousness only in my cranial area; I experience it throughout my body in different centers. These are called chakras, the most prominent ones being the heart chakra and the hara, just below the navel, unmistakable centers of conscious awareness. In fact, in the East, the center of consciousness is NOT in the cranium, but in the hara. It is the hara that is closely watched in martial arts to determine the next move the opponent will make. When I focus on the hara, there is a powerful sense of peace and balance that develops. There is something alive and conscious in the hara, nothing like the experience in my head. It is not intellectual at all, and feels like the seat of power, but not in the egotistic sense at all, but just power that is conscious, and that knows far more than my mind can possibly know, as if it is always far ahead of what the brain can come up with.

If it is the brain making the decision to gain higher ground, then why does it not just do that and stay in that state? Why is its default state that of ordinary life, with all its pitfalls and misery? If what you say is true, then the brain is a faulty piece of hardware, as the history of the world is testament to, the brain having made all those horrible decisions for war and greed.

Have you take martial arts? There is a reason that one focuses on the hara when one wants to move. It has very little to do where your thoughts come form. Many followers of martial arts can be deceived by some of the "woo" that accompanies it. The woo woo is merely a learning tool and should not be taken too seriously.

 

[godnotgod]

Have you take martial arts? There is a reason that one focuses on the hara when one wants to move. It has very little to do where your thoughts come form. Many followers of martial arts can be deceived by some of the "woo" that accompanies it. The woo woo is merely a learning tool and should not be taken too seriously.

I spoke with a man who was a savate (foot) figher, and he told me he was trained to watch the hara of his opponent to see where his first move would come from. But whether or not that is true, the hara is also important to the martial arts in terms of breathing. Anyway, it is just secondary to my main point, that the center of consciousness is not necessarily the cranium, as most Westerners seem to think. Of course, it is the brain that reinforces that notion, and perhaps why the West is so out of balance with nature.

I practiced Aikido for a short while years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I spoke with a man who was a savate (foot) figher, and he told me he was trained to watch the hara of his opponent to see where his first move would come from. But whether or not that is true, the hara is also important to the martial arts in terms of breathing. Anyway, it is just secondary to my main point, that the center of consciousness is not necessarily the cranium, as most Westerners seem to think. Of course, it is the brain that reinforces that notion, and perhaps why the West is so out of balance with nature.

I practiced Aikido for a short while years ago.

So no real martial arts experience. Savate is a kicking art, at least mainly. One has to be aware of the center of balance. That is going to be in the hara. Movement often starts from there but no thought comes from that area. And yes, you think with your brain. Like it or not. Damaging your brain damages your thought process. That can't be said of any other part of the human body.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If matter is composed of matter instead of mind, or rather, consciousness, we are now back to square one in trying to explain the origin of original matter.

We have been saying that matter is composed of particles, but some Quantum field theorists are now saying that what we only call 'particles' are actually 'bundles of energy, within the surrounding energy field, and that the field exists in the Quantum vacuum, which is, in the words of one theorist, 'absolutely nothing'. IOW, there is no such 'matter'.

The common use and meaning of 'self' is to indicate an individual agent or entity, and not a process or activity.

That 'small product' may still be an aspect of non-local consciousness programming the brain. So I would say that without consciousness, there is no brain, consciousness being the fundamental reality, and not 'matter', whatever that is.

Let me respond to both your post, since you seem dismissive in your responses. Arguing about whether "self" is a verb, when confronted with the evidence Self Verb Past Tense: Conjugation in Present, Past & Past Participle Tense, self Verb Forms | English , seems literally futile, and says more about you than the truth of the matter. We haven't even included the conjugate forms of the verb "self" either. I see admitting mistakes is not one of your strong suits.

Creating your own logic to support your own conclusion, or re-defining your own facts to support your own narrative, may seem intellectually honest to you, but not to me. Matter is not composed of matter. Matter is composed of atoms. Matter has mass(how many atom), and occupies space. There are basically 3 states of matter(liquid, solid, and gas). The mind is merely the term used to describe the select composite of mental compartmentalization. It is only the representative framework of a functioning brain, period. It is NOT composed of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, quantum waves, or even fairy-floss. The mind, or consciousness, has no mass(rest mass), occupies no space(dimensionless), is completely subjective, has no charge, and is not essential for survival. When people say "use your mind and think for yourself", they do not mean that literally. They are talking about using the mind's compartmentalized data.

Let me repeat. Our sense organs(film), our brain(the projector), our mind/motherboard(the screen), and what is on the screen our consciousness. There are no disconnects. Garbage in, will produce garbage out. As we age, this becomes painfully obvious. This also allows us to have a brain and not have a consciousness, like most other species on the planet. But to have a consciousness without a brain, is rationally and intuitively absurd, no matter what convoluted logical gymnastics you employ to support it. Please remember this analogy. Although many contend that brain and mind are interchangeable. I disagree.

All quantum particles(standard model) produce waves. All quantum particles represents point disturbances on the wave(field). None of the quantum particles is matter. It is how these point disturbances and fields interact with each other, that determines their eventual nature. It is only the scale of our existence that gives us the illusion of our world being solid and predictable. However, at the quantum level things are a lot more chaotic and unpredictable. Also, since everything in the Universe came from a quantum vacuum, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. Trying to avoid a composition fallacy, all matter, virtual matter, fields, particles, and atoms are the product of quantum vacuum fluctuations. Quantum vacuum is the source of all energy in the Universe.

 

[godnotgod]

So no real martial arts experience. Savate is a kicking art, at least mainly. One has to be aware of the center of balance. That is going to be in the hara. Movement often starts from there but no thought comes from that area. And yes, you think with your brain. Like it or not. Damaging your brain damages your thought process. That can't be said of any other part of the human body.

I don't recall saying that thinking comes from the hara. I said it was a center of consciousness. If the hara is not in balance, it will affect your thought process.

If movement starts from the hara, then it must be conscious.

 

[godnotgod]

All quantum particles(standard model) produce waves. All quantum particles represents point disturbances on the wave(field). None of the quantum particles is matter. It is how these point disturbances and fields interact with each other, that determines their eventual nature. It is only the scale of our existence that gives us the illusion of our world being solid and predictable. However, at the quantum level things are a lot more chaotic and unpredictable. Also, since everything in the Universe came from a quantum vacuum, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. Trying to avoid a composition fallacy, all matter, virtual matter, fields, particles, and atoms are the product of quantum vacuum fluctuations. Quantum vacuum is the source of all energy in the Universe.

"None of the quantum particles is matter"

"...everything in the Universe came from a quantum vacuum..."

"the scale of our existence...gives us the illusion of our world being solid"

So bottom line: there is matter or there is no matter?

 

[Darkstorn]

It would be false only if there is a self, an 'experiencer of the experience'. But you have not demonstrated the reality of any 'self'. 'Experiencer of the experience' is fully equivalent to 'whirler of whirling water'. Prove otherwise.

I said false equivocation. Do you not know what that means? You're literally mixing up philosophical issues, with issues you're having with language.

Ha ha....completely ridiculous! 'One's' and 'person's' are merely conventions of speech.

Word definitions are "conventions of speech." If you try to use them as evidence of something else, then you're doing it wrong, like i said. We have a word "consciousness" and its definition because of language conventions.

You missed that. Most people, including those who write such definitions, are indoctrinated to believe that a 'self' called 'one', and 'person' actually exist in reality. Everyone employs such conventions, even those who know that the self is an illusion, simply because it facilitates social interaction.

I think you're indoctrinated to mix up semantic issues with philosophical issues and making the grave error of thinking that they're the same thing.

Equivocation - Wikipedia

Plus you are making claims of other people there without evidence. Everyone else is conveniently indoctrinated. Well, you haven't shown that you aren't suffering from the very same things you accuse others of.

There is no one who is aware of his surroundings; there is only awareness of the surroundings, just as there is only 'whirling water' in a 'whirlpool'.

So, how do you define the word "awareness?" Like i keep saying, you seem to be having issues with language. And i can't know your private definition of it if you refuse to actually show it. Earlier i showed that you go around telling "no" to people, and you said you don't do that. But you're doing it. You keep using extreme statements like "there is no one..." or "there is only..."

So it still looks like you're doing the things i accused you of.

In fact, there is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'.

This is starting to seem really unhealthy, but you're still mixing up philosophical issues with issues you are having with semantics. But they are not the same thing to begin with.

The moment you started using language in an internet forum in an effort to make people understand you(heh,) you chose to use language conventions. If you keep changing what words means, it's up to you to make us understand what you mean.

But you don't explain anything. You just make statements. Statements are not explanations. Earlier i accused you of saying "no" to things. You just did it here again.

Why must there be a 'self' in order to experience mystical experiences?

There must not in a physical sense. But you implied that "mystical experiences" are something non-local and "beyond normal experiences" or something. But here's what a mystical experience is, to people who AREN'T the one who's experiencing said mystical experience: It looks like they are observing a person who claims to be having a mystical experience. That's all they get to see.

I.E From another perspective it sure looks like mystical experiences are in the heads of those claiming to be having the experience, and that their claims of their experiences' non-locality look delusional.

This is the reason people ask for evidence, and not special pleading or appealing to emotion like you're doing. Are you actually trying to use reason and rationalization to make people abandon reasoning and rationalizing? How does that work?

I mean, there's no 'whirler' of 'whirling water', or 'rainer of the rain', is there?

There is if you make them into existence by typing them into a post and using them in a manner that makes sense. Me merely understanding what you say here implies that you have made those things into real concepts people can talk about.

I.E "whirler" literally exists in the sense that you wrote "whirler" and i understand what you mean by it. That's a form of existence.

For reasons that I understand, and of which you are not aware, you think an agent of the activity must be necessary to that particular activity.

Big NO.

So that means for reasons you don't understand.

I was talking about logic, not the activities words reference to. I did use the word "hypothetically" there and i said that i make no claims regarding the self. You misunderstood this. It shouldn't be this difficult to get.

According to you the self doesn't exist. My logic is simply this; Word definitions for things like "awareness" and "consciousness" have agents. So, in a language sense, there is definitely self; There is the difference between you, your environment and indeed, there's a practical difference between our perspectives here.

I'm saying if what you're saying is true, then there's no such thing as "experience." Which means any kind of discussion using language is pointless. So why are you still using words?

When thought about, one sees that it is an utterly ridiculous and archaic scenario. There is no 'thinker of thoughts' called 'I'; there are only thoughts, arising and subsiding in consciousness. Why attach an 'I' to the activity?

I haven't attached anything to anything. I'm using language conventions so people can easily understand me. If you have your own private definitions for the things you're arguing for, please do demonstrate them somehow.

I mean, if you definition for things like "consciousness, awareness, experience" etc are different than other peoples', then they will never understand what you actually mean.

BTW, 'subjective' and 'objective' are simply conceptual frameworks created by the mind. In reality, there are no such states. The authentic mystical experience is transcendent of both. This experience is non-dual. As Deepak Chopra has said:

'the spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'.

First, i used the word "subjective" there like it's intended. You don't get to conveniently tell me which aspects of reality are "simply conceptual frameworks created by the mind" and which are not. That's a blanked obfuscation.

And with a heavy dose of special pleading.

And Chopra is a charlatan.

de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: delusion; plural noun: delusions
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

We used to think the earth to be flat, and geocentric. We were deluded, but that belief was generally accepted as reality. Today, we still think a material world to be reality, but at last, Quantum Physics is slowly lifting the veil in the world of science to demonstrate otherwise. Mystics have known this for centuries.

So, you agree that my usage of the word "delusional" was apt and correct?

Once again, the authentic mystical experience is not a belief, therefore it cannot be delusional.

Until you show this statement to be true, it does look delusional though. It might not be, but appearances matter.

You're just stating things and asking people to believe you "pretty please" just because. That's the level of your persuasive abilities so far. Making statements doesn't demonstrate said statements.

There's a "roving" quote going around attributed to a bunch of different people, from Einstein to Franklin, so no idea who actually said it. But according to said quote, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” So maybe you should try to change some tactics.

So far all you've done is keep repeating the same statements over and over. Statements are not explanations.

Having said that, there are students in Zen centers around the world who undergo a period of hallucinatory experiences called

makyo, well understood by the Zen community. These students are carefully guided through this period by their teachers and finally come to realize the delusional aspect of these experiences.

So?