Truth-Knowledge-Infinity

[Left Coast]

I tend to agree. But why is almost EVERY philosophical thread, pondering the abstracts of the universe, flooded with hordes of angry atheists, demanding 'proof!'? I started the 'proof of God!', thread with tongue in cheek irony.. i even stated it in the OP.

But no matter what thread you go to, the same belligerant, hostile, dogmatic posters are there, with their juvenile demands, as though the mysteries of the universe can be answered with bumper sticker slogans..

So, accommodating as i am, i provided a thread with that very topic, so perhaps we don't have to see the same demands in every philosophical thread that comes up. Delusional, or what?

Asking you to support your beliefs with (good) evidence is not angry, or hostile, or belligerent, or dogmatic. When your answers to all life's philosophical conundrums end with "God did it," guess what? People are gonna want you to substantiate your reasons for believing in that God. If you don't want people to ask you about it, stop bringing it up.

 

[Left Coast]

Actually, nothing exists apart from consciousness. If an object was apart from consciousness then such an object would not be known.

Does the fact that something is not known mean it doesn't exist?

Again I will seek help from the experience of deep sleep. Subjectively, it is a not a space-time state. Yet actually the being, the self, obviously exists. So, it is not that something needs to exist only in space-time.

But objectively, we understand that what we perceive in dreams is not real. When we wake, we realise that objectively time has passed while we dreamt. This to me seems like obvious evidence that consciousness is not fundamental. Our conscious experience fools us into thinking something is real that in fact is not. From my reply to you in the proof of God thread:

It's difficult to accept that consciousness could be the fundamental nature of reality because we have a ton of evidence to the contrary. All the evidence of neuroscience indicates that our consciousness is a function of our brain. We can literally cause changes to consciousness, in predictable ways, by altering the brain - up to and including stopping consciousness altogether. We can also look at studies of non-human animal intelligence, to observe and measure more primitive forms of intelligence, which become progressively more sophisticated in accordance with the size and complexity of the species' brain structure. We can observe inorganic material and observe that it shows none of the same signs of intelligence/consciousness. All this evidence leans strongly against the idea that consciousness is "fundamental" to reality.

Space-time is an epiphenomenon of subject-object division arising in non dual consciousness in dream state and then in waking state.

I realize you believe that, but what evidence do we have that it's true?

If you believe all of life is like a dream, I don't know of a way to refute that like I don't know of a way to refute the idea that we're in the Matrix. They're unfalsifiable beliefs.

I know that you and many others will not accept the explanations provided by me. But that is a good thing. In this regard I will like to link a very short video explaining what consciousness actually is. We intuitively think 'consciousness of' as consciousness. But actually something that you can point as 'this' cannot be the consciousness. The video is in the next post.

Noooooooooo! I sat through 2 hours. Just explain yourself.

 

[Martin]

Vedanta reminds us of our deep sleep and transition to dream and to waking.

Deep sleep is called dense consciousness, unpartitioned. There is no subject and object division and no second color or sound or taste. Due to lack of contrast, the deep sleep appears a state of unknowing.

The same consciousness sprouts a subject and a world in dream and lo, it seems that we are conscious.

It is somewhat like, a car light going to empty space is not known until the light is reflected by some object.

So, as per Vedanta, we are pure consciousness only. Objectification is mAyA - magic.

So with your view, is consciousness the fundamental force in the universe? The thing that everything else depends on? The underlying reality?

And what's the relationship between Brahman and consciousness? Does Brahman include consciousness, or is it the same thing?

 

[atanu]

Does the fact that something is not known mean it doesn't exist?

No. We are rather saying that if mind seems unconscious it does not mean that consciousness is absent -- as in deep sleep wherein the identity data is maintained. The self is equal to awareness that links the states the of deep sleep, dream, and waking.

But objectively, we understand that what we perceive in dreams is not real.

Can we say this in dream?

From my reply to you in the proof of God thread:

Yeah. But as no observation, no evidence, no logic can be available in absence of consciousness, for mind to infer absence consciousness at some point of time in past and future is actually a joke or at best an imagination aided by consciousness. Mind is powered by consciousness even as an electric bulb is powered by electricity. Mind imagines absence of consciousness using the consciousness.

Actually this point of 'material versus consciousness' cannot be solved by debate alone. Contemplation of the subjective experiences of deep sleep, dream, and waking can indicate that it is consciousness that is the substantive common thread through the states and not the physical brain. Self experience in meditation can prove it to self. Or one may have respect and faith for religious-spiritual teachers/scriptures. Arguments cannot solve it. Nevertheless, I note the following for the record.

The materialist's view that body is awareness stem from the following three evidences:

1. When the body is present, consciousness is present (‘co-presence’ statement).
2. When the body is absent, consciousness is absent (‘co-absence’ statement).
3. Therefore the body is the same as consciousness.

Below, I present the refutation.

1. When death occurs, we see the body but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Obviously, therefore, consciousness must be something other than the body.
2. The materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could itself burn the fire.
3. Materialist proposes that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.
4. If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.
5. In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.
6. The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.

if the intelligence is borne of mechanism, has it the freedom of discernment? If the chemicals are frenetically interacting among themselves giving rise to human intellect, is it competent to determine truth value of propositions? We may say that Evolution did it (just as people say God did it). Even then the question remains: did Evolution do it to make us competent to discern truth? How does one know?​

I realize you believe that, but what evidence do we have that it's true?

Two points you must consider. If intelligence is a property of brain or an epiphenomenon of its activities, then how can intelligence ever control the brain and its state?

OTOH, we know that we can alter brain states. We can make brain emit desirable waves. We know of brain plasticity. All these indicate that consciousness-will-intellect is different from the machine.

If you believe all of life is like a dream, I don't know of a way to refute that like I don't know of a way to refute the idea that we're in the Matrix. They're unfalsifiable beliefs.

If the understanding is practical for you, then go for it. Else forget or wait. There is no doubt that mediations etc. can offer positive benefits.

Noooooooooo! I sat through 2 hours. Just explain yourself.

Ha. Ha. Actually when a teacher-guru explains it is much more effective.

 

[atanu]

So with your view, is consciousness the fundamental force in the universe? The thing that everything else depends on? The underlying reality?

And what's the relationship between Brahman and consciousness? Does Brahman include consciousness, or is it the same thing?

Yes. I believe that consciousness is the primary aspect of existence. In Upanishad it is said : prajnanam brahma. It means consciousness is brahman.

 

[dybmh]

Yes. I believe that consciousness is the primary aspect of existence. In Upanishad it is said : prajnanam brahma. It means consciousness is brahman.

Is this what you believe? Consciousness is primary?

If so, is the material ancillary? Or is it an illusion?

 

[atanu]

Is this what you believe? Consciousness is primary?

If so, is the material ancillary? Or is it an illusion?

According to Vedanta, “Truth-Intelligence-Infinity” is. That is the thread about.

 

[dybmh]

In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.

"The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed."

This isn't always true, right? The gross body can and does contribute to our experiences in the dream?

How does Vedanta reconcile this?