Every object we observe is reaching us as information, c, or at lightspeed. To think is not to know. To think is to assume. The mind is one consciousness, never individualized or divided. We are a single mind/spirit. We are God consciousness, and that consciousness is indivisible.

Limitless being is therefore what permits our ability to create meaning to that God consciousness and to embrace that Holy Spirit fully and completely.

There is no proof that anything exists outside of us. Therefore, it cannot exist because we percieve things according to "Yes/No" binary thingies. Reality is therefore 1 (when pervieved BY and only by us) or 0 (when self is percieved AS reality no other, because the I AM THAT = 0, the only non-bias truth). A concept cannot exist because if it did, it would be an object, which is not real. Only the mind contains the reality not the reality contains the mind. MIND - REALITY = 0! No difference can be real, and therefore Mind would be contained as UNREAL by reality because "NO" (containee) - "YES" (container) = 0 = MIND (container) Reality (containee) = 0. So as mind consitently contains reality, reality says "Yes" and that is how we maintain the illusion of a mutual respect between reality and self. But self does not exist because it would be a concept only and would therefore become DUAL. The concept would cause the false belief that reality contained the mind when it is the opposite. If reality contained the mind it would result in the background God (information/assumption/perception of the external world) negating awareness God (cognition/ Mind) and therefore resulting in the concept of the assumption instead of what is real, the immediacy of the mind. The mind is what is actual and prior to the supposed external concept of reality. Therefore, in order for the mind to become equal to the reality, it must be recognized as containing only a supposition/assumption of reality, otherwise mind would be the supposition/assumption or concept, which is subject to "Yes/No" contradictions, assumptions, etc.

http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php



"The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all
questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact
you are sure of is that you are. The "I am" is certain. The
"I am this" is not. Struggle to find out what you are in
reality. To know what you are, you must first investigate
and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not --
body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that --
nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be
you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what
you perceive. The clearer you understand on the level of
mind you can be described in negative terms only, the
quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise
that you are the limitless being". - Sri Nisargadatta
Maharaj

Appearance/assumption/concept/belief/thought/objectification/object are not reality, they are apparition, which can be manipulated by what is real and therefore appear as unreal. This is why we say mind is the container of reality, otherwise it would not be equal to reality and thus be virtually "real". Notice I said "virtually", as virtual reality is the "reality" (able to fit connectively and self-confirgure and respond with "Yes" (immanent mind) or "No" (easily incorrectly percieved reality, which is strictly (assumption/perception, unlike mind which is the absolute and only thing that can be real, God consciousness is connected consciousness that is needed for perception to operate))

hi, welcome
my name is gustav
currently 40 times removed from the words you read right now
who are you?

/cackle

a minefield, baby. a semantical nightmare! think not?


Appearance/assumption/concept/belief/thought/objectification/object are not reality, they are apparition,


take "thought" out of there or i'll have you removed as a bot
you have been warned ;)

hi, welcome
my name is gustav

That's rather spooky. :D

Cortex,

Nice post. Great example of wonderful gibberish splattered with logical fallacies.


To think is not to know. But knowledge comes through thinking.


To think is to assume. And assumptions might be right or wrong. It is through the practice of rational thought that we can acquire knowledge.


The mind is one consciousness, never individualized or divided. Each mind/consciousness is unique to each individual having developed from conception.


We are a single mind/spirit.Each person has their own unique and separate mind. “Spirit” is undefined and meaningless in this context.


We are God consciousness, God is undefined and meaningless in this context.


and that consciousness is indivisible.Once again we observe that each individual has their own unique identity (consciousness). Identity of any object is a necessary axiom. Every object has unique characteristics that define its identity. The universe is comprised of separateness and hence is necessarily divisible. If this were not so then you would not be able to say “I am” and have that make sense.


Limitless being is therefore what permits our ability to create meaning to that God consciousness and to embrace that Holy Spirit fully and completely.Undefined and unsupported assertions.


There is no proof that anything exists outside of us. If nothing existed outside of you then you could not exist since you cannot exist without a supporting environment and you could not have been conceived without an outside environment. If you can say “I am” then you exist and if you exist then there is a necessary outside that supports you.


Therefore, it cannot exist because we perceive things according to "Yes/No" binary thingies. False. We can also perceive that we often do not know; the third option.


Reality is …….. and self. Large set of gibberish deleted since no rational comment seemed possible.


But self does not exist because it would be a concept When you say “I am” then you have recognized self and your unique identity and hence admitted you are a separate object and as such must exist in reality.


only,…….. etc.http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.phpUnable to respond meaningfully to that gibberish as well.


“ "The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all
questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact
you are sure of is that you are. The "I am" is certain.OK.


To know what you are, you must first investigate
and know what you are not.No that does not follow and is a logical fallacy. You cannot be defined by a negative. You cannot be defined by what you are not. All that you can conclude from examining others things is that you are not those things. To discover what you are you must examine yourself.


Discover all that you are not --
body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that --
nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be
you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what
you perceive. The clearer you understand on the level of
mind you can be described in negative terms only, the
quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise
that you are the limitless being". - Sri Nisargadatta
Maharaj ” Wonderful nonsense.


Appearance/assumption/concept/belief/thought/objectification/object are not reality”There is only one reality, which is the one we perceive. Reality, he said, exists as an objective absolute and it is the task of our consciousness to perceive reality” – Aristotle.


, they are apparition, which can be manipulated by what is real and therefore appear as unreal. This is why we say mind is the container of reality, otherwise it would not be equal to reality and thus be virtually "real". Notice I said "virtually", as virtual reality is the "reality" (able to fit connectively and self-confirgure and respond with "Yes" (immanent mind) or "No" (easily incorrectly percieved reality, which is strictly (assumption/perception, unlike mind which is the absolute and only thing that can be real, This feels very much like a variation on the nonsense espoused by Plato.

“Reality, he said, exists as an objective absolute and it is the task of our consciousness to perceive reality, not to create it. Abstractions are man’s means of integrating what is perceived. We perceive what is. A is A, he said — a thing is itself independent of what we may want it to be.” – Aristotle.

IOWs your mind/consciousness does not create reality which is what is being implied, but mind/consciousness can only be used to perceive and to know reality.


God consciousness is connected consciousness that is needed for perception to operate))God is undefined and meaningless in this context.

Listen to the opening of what Langan is asking, "are you seeing me?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

I am not sure this is actual proof of consciousness, but I agree with your notion that the world has no independant existence of rhe mind...ofcourse there are innumerable realities/universes that exists, we each exist in our own personal universe/reality/space-time

But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans.

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm

given that only consciousness is capable of proving things in the first place (ever tried to convince an assembly of microphone stands on some essential truth?) its not clear where the difficulty lies.

Cortex,


Listen to the opening of what Langan is asking, "are you seeing me?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0So the issue becomes one of defining the question before it can be answered with yes or no. E.g. is seeing a recorded image of someone actually seeing them? One could argue for yes or no. I'd consider the question sufficiently ambiguous that I would not be able answer with yes or no until the conditions were clarified.

As with the case with many things in life there is often no need to reach a decision or make a choice. The idea that one must either believe that a god exists or believe that a god does not exist denies the option that there is no way to tell and hence conclude the question cannot be rationally answered with a yes or no.

Perhaps the real issue is understanding the question is the paramount concern.

I believe the Kung Fu TV series began - I seek not to know the answers but to understand the questions.

“Physics give rise to observer-participant, observer-participant gives rise to information, information gives rise to physics.” Thus the universe explains observers, and observers explain the universe. Wheeler thereby rejected the notion of the universe as a machine subject to fixed a priori laws and replaced it with a self-synthesizing world he called “the participatory universe.”

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=wheeler+participatory+universe&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


Are We Passive Observers Or Powerful Creators?

What Does It Mean to “Participate” in the Universe?

As mentioned, physicist John Wheeler suggests that not only do we play a role in what he calls a “participatory universe,” but we fulfill the primary role. The key to Wheeler’s proposition is the word participatory. In this type of universe, you and I are part of the equation. We’re both catalysts for the events of our lives, as well as the “experiencers” of what we create…these things are happening at the same time! We’re “part of a universe that is a work in progress.” In this unfinished creation, “we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself—and building itself.”

http://www.inlightimes.com/archives/2007/01/greg-braden.htm

i wish wes was here. he'll show you all you jokers how to think
you too, chris

I am not sure this is actual proof of consciousness, but I agree with your notion that the world has no independant existence of rhe mind...ofcourse there are innumerable realities/universes that exists, we each exist in our own personal universe/reality/space-time


the proof of my conciousness are in these words. the proof of yours, in your words. a shared reality is proved by this discussion.

your own personal reality/universe however is best shared b/w you and your shrink. that is unless you wanna keep it all bottled up and whatnot

the proof of my conciousness are in these words. the proof of yours, in your words. a shared reality is proved by this discussion.

your own personal reality/universe however is best shared b/w you and your shrink. that is unless you wanna keep it all bottled up and whatnot
Well it proves consciousness, but not any true consciousness or awareness existing independently of the brain

The materialist will say it's just chemical reactions, that matter = consciousness

Once again we observe that each individual has their own unique identity (consciousness). Identity of any object is a necessary axiom. Every object has unique characteristics that define its identity. The universe is comprised of separateness and hence is necessarily divisible. If this were not so then you would not be able to say “I am” and have that make sense.


I will be sure to respond to this further this weekend.
Reality can be but one as we know, otherwise it would be perceived as disjoint. But the disjointedness is an illusion because of syndiffeonesis (diference in sameness).

Some definitions;


Disjoint: If sets A and B have no elements in common, i.e. if no element of A is in B and no element of B is in A, then we say that A and B are disjoint. (Lipschutz, 5)

Holistic identity: the proposition that the external area of a thing, A, is inclusive in its identity if its identity is a result of its difference from not-A. So its identity is this whole difference relation.

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/langan.htm


Syndiffeonesis - The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality..

http://www.ctmu.org/ (see CTMU Primer)

The bold highlight explains why we are able to perceive each other as "individual" identities (difference), when in fact we are a holistic identity (sameness/oneness/monic/holistic).

Each mind/consciousness is unique to each individual having developed from conception.

everyone has a unique personality because everyone has unique thoughts. but consciousness is not a thought, it's the same feeling that everyone has... the feeling that I AM.

everyone is the same I AM (god, existence). that's why i can never cease to be, because I AM everything.

it doesn't matter if i lose my memory and my thoughts (when my body dies). my thoughts are not me because they're my thoughts, my creations... they are not me, the creator.

were you not you when you were 1 years old? your personality, thoughts and memories change all the time, so you're a new person every day, but you are always you...

if you are not you in your next life (when you've lost all your current memory and thoughts), then you are not you in this life because you don't remember your past life.

Well it proves consciousness, but not any true consciousness or awareness existing indpendently of the brain

The materialist will say it's just chemical reactions, that matter = consciousness


it has been proved. what it is, where it is, its nature, is unknown. anyone who claims otherwise better come up with a damn good explanation. current status of consciousness? its there. independent of what it apprehends. thats what i know. thats all i know. and that, bugs the shit out of me.

imagine not knowing who and what you are? how the fuck did this happen. its goddamn cruel joke! if i find the shit that is responsible for this state of affairs, why i am gonna get real metaphysical on his ass.

as for the materialists, do not argue with them. just treat them with contempt and disdain. or perhaps if you are a gentle sort, indulge as were a child.

i personally like to slip into my steel caps and stomp them into the sidewalk
lottsa fun to be had

everyone has a unique personality because everyone has unique thoughts. but consciousness is not a thought, it's the same feeling that everyone has... the feeling that I AM.

you cannot nail it down. i am currently a million times removed from the consciousness that produces the words you are reading. regression however, is a matter of choice. you can remain within the initial dynamic of the experience/ experiencer or regress infinitely. dont (latter). it is a futile and boring exercise


everyone is the same I AM (god, existence). that's why i can never cease to be, because I AM everything.

the "AM" is not necessary. i used to stop at "I", but realized that it was produced by something that experiences the notion of "I" thru a process that takes place within our physical selves (brain).

something still doesnt sound quite right there. needs more refining. maybe even junk


it doesn't matter if i lose my memory and my thoughts (when my body dies). my thoughts are not me because they're my thoughts, my creations... they are not me, the creator.

crap


were you not you when you were 1 years old? your personality, thoughts and memories change all the time, so you're a new person every day, but you are always you...

the hebrews have a real cool way expressing that. "who are you now?"
just a soundbite really, semantical bullshit. a distinction of unimport. related to the fields of medicine not metaphysics


if you are not you in your next life (when you've lost all your current memory and thoughts), then you are not you in this life because you don't remember your past life.

crap

you cannot nail it down. i am currently a million times removed from the consciousness that produces the words you are reading.

i'm not sure what you're talking about, but when you become more conscious, you can move your consciousness to other bodies. you can see the world through their eyes.

consciousness exhibits by default, a duality. a distinction b/w the experiencer and the experience itself. until it has been conclusively proven to be wrong, and a viable alternative offered up to replace it. i will accept at face value

law of parsimony and whatnot

i'm not sure what you're talking about, but when you become more conscious, you can move your consciousness to other bodies. you can see the world through their eyes.

i outta slap you around with a live fish

consciousness exhibits by default, a duality. a distinction b/w the experiencer and the experience itself.

you are not separate from the universe because you are a part of the universe. the separation is a mental illusion... the same illusion as in a dream... there is nothing but thoughts in a dream, so you can't be separate from anything in the dream, but you are because you think you are...

consciousness (thoughts) separates everything in the universe... it created male and female, day and night, magnetism, every duality..


i outta slap you around with a live fish

you can even see through the eye of a fish... if you hack yourself inside its mind.

Yorda,


everyone has a unique personality because everyone has unique thoughts. but consciousness is not a thought, it's the same feeling that everyone has... the feeling that I AM.And each “I” is different. Your consciousness is an emergent property of your unique brain and mind. What you call “personality” is a result of that unique consciousness that is totally and wholly dependent on your physical brain.


everyone is the same I AM (god, existence). I am clearly quite different to you, so you are clearly wrong.


that's why i can never cease to be, because I AM everything.Your consciousness (the you in you) will cease to exist as soon as your brain dies. Have no doubt.


it doesn't matter if i lose my memory and my thoughts (when my body dies). my thoughts are not me because they're my thoughts, my creations... they are not me, the creator.Your consciousness is entirely dependent on your brain. Show me a consciousness that exists independent of a brain if you think otherwise. Your ability to think, your memory, your mind, and your consciousness are all intertwined and dependent on each other. Each affects the other and all are entirely dependent on normal brain function, and all cease to function if the brain dies.


were you not you when you were 1 years old? I was not self aware at 1 year old. My consciousness was still developing at that time since my brain was still creating neurons and synapses at a colossal rate. In most animals that necessary complexity of neurology never reaches the level that causes self awareness to the point that that lifeform can express “I am”. In the same way a child also starts at a point where its consciousness is primitive and unaware.


your personality, thoughts and memories change all the time, so you're a new person every day, but you are always you...If I lose my memory then I will lose my identity and I will not know who I am. My consciousness and personality is dependent on a normal functioning brain. Consciousness is merely an attribute of brain function that allows perception. If my brain becomes severely damaged such that the complexity of neural networks drop below the level needed to sustain consciousness and self awareness then I will become little more than a vegetable as has been observed in many such unfortunate cases. The “I” that was would be lost forever.


if you are not you in your next life (when you've lost all your current memory and thoughts), then you are not you in this life because you don't remember your past life.There is only one life that we can determine from current evidence, to speculate about something beyond has no merit.

Yorda,

And each “I” is different. Your consciousness is an emergent property of your unique brain and mind.

provide citation

Cortex,


“ But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans. ” Observations made in ignorance of neurology and how minds are possible through brain funtion.


http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htmA wonderfully classic and well know logical fallacy.

The universe is so finely tuned to life because it was the cause of life. Had the universe been different then either life would not have arisen or life would have been consequently different. Life is the result not the cause.

Gustav,


provide citationAww gee the web is full of references to consciousness as an emergent property. Pick one.

Crick, Francis (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Touchstone, p.11.

Edit: here's a few more:

Sperry, R.W. (1980), Mind–brain interaction: Mentalism yes; Dualism no, Neuroscience, 5, pp. 195–206.

Byrne, A. (1993). The Emergent Mind. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Chalmers, David (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory . Oxford University Press.

Cortex,


http://www.ctmu.org/ (see CTMU Primer)This reference and the concept has been quoted many times in the past here and discussed briefly before it is universally declared utter gibberish. Nothing has changed.


The bold highlight explains why we are able to perceive each other as "individual" identities (difference), when in fact we are a holistic identity (sameness/oneness/monic/holistic).No this is nonsense. You are clearly different to me. We each have different and unique identities. That difference is real and can be clearly perceived by each of us. No two objects can be the same. Even two identical copies of something are different in that their geographical locations must be different.

huge mistake, you two
however i think its best if we reach some kind of a middle ground so try not to get far out into the fringe, ja?

oh
chalmers is my ally, not yours
these woo woo's could be handled without dragging out any of that crap. those hypotheses! its unproven overkill and thats why you will lose

:D

/naptime

Heh.. I'm not establishing "allies," merely providing the citations you requested. All I know of Chalmer's work is that he discusses the emergent quality of the mind. I have the text above, but haven't actually read it yet (so many stacks of texts, so little time).

ahhh
much ado about nothing then
nipped right smartly in the bud
defanged so to speak
whatnot

Everything is not relative to me, I am relative to everything, since there is no way of prooving that anything exists outside of one's observational realm. To think is to assume that things outside of oneself exists. To know is to grant that mind is all that one can know, therefore, reality is not real outside of the mind, yet there is only one indivisible reality, therefore, the one reality is not a human mind, but the divine mind of God's.



If I lose my memory then I will lose my identity and I will not know who I am. My consciousness and personality is dependent on a normal functioning brain. Consciousness is merely an attribute of brain function that allows perception. If my brain becomes severely damaged such that the complexity of neural networks drop below the level needed to sustain consciousness and self awareness then I will become little more than a vegetable as has been observed in many such unfortunate cases. The “I” that was would be lost forever.

What is the reality of the one who is brain damaged? They can create a reality with the mind and give meaning, this would result in the creation of reality by their wills, thus mind would house meaningful reality. The ability to function is a matter of will, and will creates things in the mind, these things become reality. The one will is found through God.


“By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators.”

Also see these few quotes regarding the Word of God (http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/TCOTCC.html#word), which is a reality generative 'utterance' or projection that manifests and sustains every aspect of manifest existence.

http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/TCOTCC.html#word


4. What are polar, or dual, pairs of concepts?

a. Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
b. Reality is apparently split into polar (dual) pairs by conceptualization. However, no concept is real since Reality cannot be split.
c. The result of apparently splitting Reality into polar pairs of concepts is called duality.
d. The two concepts of a pair are always inseparable because the merger of the opposites will cancel the pair.
e. Example: "I"/not-"I" is a polar pair of concepts. If the "I" and not-"I" merge, neither concept remains.

8. What is the "I"-object?

a. The "I"-object is an assumed entity that results from identification of Awareness, which is real, with the "I"-concept, which is unreal. The "I"-object seems to exist, but clear seeing shows that it does not.
b. You are not an object and You do not exist--You are Reality (Awareness).

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Gustav,

Aww gee the web is full of references to consciousness as an emergent property. Pick one.

i did
it says "chris is one of us"

:)

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Reality cannot be split.

in the absence of data, one can establish an axiom by concurrence
since i do not concur, it remains, an opinion

unless...
$20
deal?

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/images/self-aware%20universe.gif

The universe creates itself by observing itself


7.4. The quantum-classical brain

None of the traditional idealist philosophies explains how the personal "I" experience arises. This is such a persistent and compelling experience that it must be explained.

Goswami proposes a model of the brain-mind that has a quantum part and a classical part that are coupled together. In justifying the quantum part of the brain-mind, Goswami notes that the mind has several properties that are quantum-like:

a) Uncertainty and complementarity. A thought has feature, which is instantaneous content, analogous to the position of a particle.It also has association, which is movement, analogous to the velocity (or momentum) of a particle. A thought occurs in the field of awareness, which is analogous to space. Feature and association are complementary. If we concentrate on one and clearly identify it (small uncertainty), we tend to lose sight of the other (large uncertainty).

b) Discontinuity, or jumps. For example, in creative thinking, new concepts appear discontinuously.

c) Nonlocality. The correlations in the observations of different observers is a form of nonlocality (see Section 4.3).

d) Superposition. Psychological experiments by A.J. Marcel [Conscious and preconscious recognition of polysemous words: locating the selective effect of prior verbal context, in Attention and Performance VIII (1980), (Ed., R.S. Nickerson)], too complicated to be discussed here, can be interpreted in terms of a model of the subject’s brain which exists in a superposition of possibilities until the subject recognizes the object.


http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

/slaps with a dead fish

i used to do the same thing
that is, until i abandoned all hope

But knowledge comes through thinking.


Knowledge comes through observation primarily. A thought is based on observation. Perception is what entails concept, not the other way around.

When a thought becomes knowledge it is no longer a thought because thought are assumed and subject to negation because of true/false logic. That is why to know nothing is to think nothing but to observe.

consciousness exhibits by default, a duality. a distinction b/w the experiencer and the experience itself. until it has been conclusively proven to be wrong, and a viable alternative offered up to replace it. i will accept at face value

law of parsimony and whatnot


sorry buddy
you have setup a construct containing two objects that have an implicit and necessary relationship with one another. the viability and very existence of the construct becomes moot if the relationship is broken

iow....why bother in the first place?

there
the woo woos have taken over the asylum
flee
flee for your lives