The mind itself cannot know anything.

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm

Londoner wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:58 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:16 pm
Real reality is when what's happening is just what is happening and no one is making it happen, it is what is without any meaning or interpretation attached.
OK. Then we would be unable to say anything about it. (Because any word we used about it would be saying it was like other things that word refers to, so it would be an interpretation.) We are not breaking new philosophical ground here.
So then are you implying there is a new philosophical ground to be broken?
There is no one doing life, there is only being life. There is no one knowing life, there is only knowing life. Knowing is one unitary movement.

The mind is a manifestation of the the 'source', just as anything else is. There is no 'other' source of knowing, certainly not in an object.
Londoner wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:58 pm
I disagree with all of that. OK. So how are we going to decide whether you are right, or I am?

If we cannot say, then it indicates that those assertions must be meaningless.
It's only meaningless to the one who seeks meaning.

Life has no meaning. Life is not in conflict with itself. It does not seek to agree or disagree as to what is right or wrong, real or unreal, true or false. It's not even meaningless, it doesn't even have any concept of itself whatsoever, it just is...this is real true reality.

So who is the ''other'' one who seeks to conceptualise real true reality ? ....is that not just another concept that is not real reality?

Concepts have made up a story about how reality is when it isn't really like that at all.




.

Londoner
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Londoner » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:44 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm

So then are you implying there is a new philosophical ground to be broken?
No, I'm saying that we are not breaking any new ground here.
Me: I disagree with all of that. (There is no one doing life, there is only being life, etc.) OK. So how are we going to decide whether you are right, or I am?

If we cannot say, then it indicates that those assertions must be meaningless.

You: It's only meaningless to the one who seeks meaning.
If that is not you, if you do not seek meaning, then you cannot claim that your assertions are meaningful. I'm OK with that.
Life has no meaning. Life is not in conflict with itself. It does not seek to agree or disagree as to what is right or wrong, real or unreal, true or false. It's not even meaningless, it doesn't even have any concept of itself whatsoever, it just is...this is real true reality.
But I am to understand that none of what you write above is meaningful? When you say 'this is real true reality' you are not claiming that it is 'true' in the sense that the opposite would be false.
So who is the ''other'' one who seeks to conceptualise real true reality ? ....is that not just another concept that is not real reality?
There is no point in writing of 'real reality' or anything else if those words do not have meaning. Meaning would involve a test that distinguished 'real reality' from 'un-real reality' or 'real un-reality' or whatever.

But if you do not intend to assert any meaning, let alone explain what that meaning is, then there is nothing for me to respond to.
Concepts have made up a story about how reality is when it isn't really like that at all.
Same thing. I reply to what certainly looks like an assertion of truth by asking How do you know?. And, as far as I can tell, your response is that you do not claim to know. In which case I was mistaken in thinking you had said something.

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by thought addict » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:04 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm
It's only meaningless to the one who seeks meaning.
From your user name and your statements, am I to assume that you do not seek meaning?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm
Life has no meaning. Life is not in conflict with itself. It does not seek to agree or disagree as to what is right or wrong, real or unreal, true or false. It's not even meaningless, it doesn't even have any concept of itself whatsoever, it just is...this is real true reality.
Life is a property. It is an attribute that a living thing possesses. It is not life that can seek to agree or disagree, it is the living thing. I suspect you already know this.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm
So who is the ''other'' one who seeks to conceptualise real true reality ?
You just asked a question. If you are a living thing, then living things can ask questions. Are you yourself not an example therefore of an entity possessing life that just sought a truth?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:17 pm
....is that not just another concept that is not real reality?

Concepts have made up a story about how reality is when it isn't really like that at all.
How do you know reality isn't "like that at all"?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:46 am

thought addict wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:04 pm

You just asked a question. If you are a living thing, then living things can ask questions. Are you yourself not an example therefore of an entity possessing life that just sought a truth?



How do you know reality isn't "like that at all"?
No thing is living, that which lives cannot die, and that which dies cannot live.
Reality is nothing until we think about it then it becomes what thought thinks about it.

No person ever thought a thought or asked a question, thoughts and questions are self arising in impersonal consciousness, believed to belong to you giving the impression there is a thinker present in which they are appearing, that presence is the only presence there is ...it's one presence, all knowing arises to this one presence, every concept thought and question arises in conscious presence, known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

Knowledge is memory in consciousness, therefore illusory, knowledge is a fictional story of 'things' arising in not-a-thing consciousness.

Without a story there is nothing. Stories come and go, nothing does not come and go, nothing stays, it is the permanent silent stillness in which everything arises and falls away and arises again as one unitary action.

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:36 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
No person ever thought a thought or asked a question thoughts and questions are self arising in impersonal consciousness believed
to belong to you giving the impression there is a thinker present in which they are appearing that presence is the only presence there
is ... it is one presence all knowing arises to this one presence every concept thought and question arises in conscious presence known
by the only knowing there is which is consciousness
So does this mean that the human mind is simply a channel through which Consciousness manifests itself and that it is Consciousness which is
doing the thinking rather than the mind even though the mind is not aware of this. And so are human minds incapable of thinking any original
thoughts. Like the proverbial brain in a vat that thinks it has free will but is really controlled by a superior intelligence which is the real brain

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:27 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:36 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
No person ever thought a thought or asked a question thoughts and questions are self arising in impersonal consciousness believed
to belong to you giving the impression there is a thinker present in which they are appearing that presence is the only presence there
is ... it is one presence all knowing arises to this one presence every concept thought and question arises in conscious presence known
by the only knowing there is which is consciousness
So does this mean that the human mind is simply a channel through which Consciousness manifests itself and that it is Consciousness which is
doing the thinking rather than the mind even though the mind is not aware of this. And so are human minds incapable of thinking any original
thoughts. Like the proverbial brain in a vat that thinks it has free will but is really controlled by a superior intelligence which is the real brain
The idea there is a someone here with a free will able to control or choose their actions is an illusion.
Here is an image to support that...

Image

The mind/body mechanism is likened to a biological computer, it is the interface between mind and heart, the heart being the universal field of consciousness that is beyond the brain which is the engine of the heart. The brain being likened to a transistor radio, the information is not in the actual radio, the radio is just the channel for the information to come streaming in and through...

The brain is the processor of information stored as memory in the field of consciousness which is processed into 2D images, and known as 3D informational knowledge. So there is no original thought because all thoughts already exist in consciousness, which are drawn upon by the mind/ brain mechanism, the instrument by which formless consciousness experiences itself as form, the desire to be in- form is knowledge on demand.
_________

I've copied this information below from the internet to give you some more idea of what's going on.....

''The wrong perception of west and its science is that Brain and mind is the root of consciousness and power.

Eastern thinking sees it beyond mind in the realm of heart. They see Consciousness as the field in which life and universe exists and functions

Brain and its sensory inputs feeds information's and co-ordinates functioning of the body in relation to a world beyond brain and mind.

The real processing of information and order to act to specific input of information comes from the inner world and its center.
The center of inner world is the heart and its brain [AV node that controls its pulse].

The proof is that Life can exist in Brain dead state and yet do all the functions necessary for the life to exist.
Another proof is that Life and Nature is bestowed with a phase when mind is at sleep and Life Force works to repair the system.

This design is evident also in Nature in day and night and climatic cycle.

The beauty of Ancient Rishis and spiritualist is that they were taken beyond the realm of heart and its brain to a space-time field, which is source of all information, knowledge or Life Force that creates and sustains the universe eternally.

They called this Universal Consciousness and intelligence field, where Life force and intelligence exist. This Life Force is called by different names in different scriptures, Vedas call it Brahman, Bible calls it Holy Spirit, Koran calls it, al-Ruh and al-Quds, Chinese philosophy calls “Chi” and so on.''

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:50 pm

That Buddha quote is slightly wrong since atoms occupy physical space and so if everything is reduced
to its smallest state there will still be something rather than nothing. And though solidity is an illusion
it is one so powerful that it is taken to be true and so it makes no difference that it is not actually real

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:08 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:50 pm
That Buddha quote is slightly wrong since atoms occupy physical space and so if everything is reduced
to its smallest state there will still be something rather than nothing. And though solidity is an illusion
it is one so powerful that it is taken to be true and so it makes no difference that it is not actually real

Occupancy doesn't exist, space is space, whether it appears as an image or not, it's all the same one space.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
That Buddha quote is slightly wrong since atoms occupy physical space and so if everything is reduced
to its smallest state there will still be something rather than nothing. And though solidity is an illusion
it is one so powerful that it is taken to be true and so it makes no difference that it is not actually real
Occupancy does not exist space is space whether it appears as an image or not it is all the same one space
Yes it is but within that single space are objects that exist as separate entities so the space is occupied. Also if everything could be reduced
to absolutely nothing then you would not exist and your philosophy would not exist. For like everything else it would have no meaning at all
It is only by something actually existing that meaning can exist. You cannot have meaning to absolutely nothing because who or what would
there be to give meaning. Not Buddha or Mooji or Dontaskme. Because they would not actually exist and nor would anyone or anything else

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:51 am

Occupancy does not exist space is space whether it appears as an image or not it is all the same one space
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 pm
Yes it is but within that single space are objects that exist as separate entities so the space is occupied.
It's only occupied in relation to being empty. And yet space is neither empty or full, it's both empty and full simultaneously. The separation between object and space is knowledge, knowledge is mind which informs illusory separation where there is none. The mind divides what cannot be divided, therefore any mental projection is an imposition, it's a fictional divide.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 pm
Also if everything could be reduced
to absolutely nothing then you would not exist and your philosophy would not exist.
There is no you to exist, except the idea claimed by the fictional knowledge of you, and philosophy is also a fictional knowledge, it's all made-up by the mind.There's no such state known as pure nothingness since any knowing claim of any knowledge of nothingness requires a knower. All known knowledge is a mental projection, it's fictional unknown knowing, there is no separate entity behind a mental projection, except another projection. All the elements that make up the universe are not nothing simply because knowledge demands the opposite to exist at the same time in the same space...which is how we get the notion of Duality albeit illusory because the base subatomic level is actually Nondual from where all dual notions arise in relation.



surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 pm
For like everything else it would have no meaning at all
It is only by something actually existing that meaning can exist. You cannot have meaning to absolutely nothing because who or what would
there be to give meaning.
For something to be known, the opposite but also be known, but any thing known is a mental projection. Knowledge of opposites have to exist in the same space at the same time. There cannot be something without the nothing. Something and Nothing are the same one stateless state. Any meaning projected onto that neutral state is a mental projection, it's pure fiction.


surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:13 pm
Not Buddha or Mooji or Dontaskme. Because they would not actually exist and nor would anyone or anything else
Names, or labels are mental projections, they have no existence apart or separate from the minds knowledge of such...knowledge informs a reality of separate ''things'' to be illusory since there is no separate entity with a mind.There is only the mind in which all knowledge of separate entities are projected. The mind is not a person or a thing or any thing...things are projections of the no thing mind.



.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:21 am

Knowledge cannot be the separation between objects and space because it is not something physical but mental. Knowing and unknowing do
not both have to exist for something to be known because not knowing is not necessary for knowledge. If things are a projection of the mind
then that would make them mind dependent which they are not since the human mind has not existed for the majority of cosmological time

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:21 am
Knowledge cannot be the separation between objects and space because it is not something physical but mental.
Physical is just a perception, a perception is mental construction.
Consciousness is all there is, to know something is to conceptualise into existence through perception. The source of perception is this immediate here-now nowhere source of everything known. Source is nothing being everything.

Without the projection of language.. no ''thing'' or ''concept'' has ever been seen. Anything seen is a projected image of the imagless...an image being a thought, a thought being a construction, as perceived and imposed upon the world as if those images were real, but the images are inseparable from the seer, and the seer is the invisible light in which they appear as visible. According to constructivism, every experience is an interpretation of bare sense data through language, therefore we cannot perceive what we haven't a word for. You simply cannot say that ''things'' existed before a 'human mind' came on the scene to validate their existence...simply, the 'human mind' does not exist, human is a concept known, by consciousness which has always existed. Consciousness did not come into being, it did not appear on the scene. The scenery appears in it. Reality is only ever No-thing thing-in...Consciousness is an illusion appearing real.



surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:21 am
Knowing and unknowing do not both have to exist for something to be known because not knowing is not necessary for knowledge.
Knowledge comes from not-knowing, and not-knowing is who you are, in essence you are the the boundless sentient space aware of every perception known that appears and disappears in you.. as projected via language/knowledge. Not-knowing is knowing, so of course they have to exist in the same instant. Knowing is only ever one with itself, with consciousness, not even with it, for it is it.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:21 am
If things are a projection of the mind then that would make them mind dependent which they are not since the human mind has not existed for the majority of cosmological time.
How can something not exist?...There can be no such thing as some thing not existing ...you are not making sense with that statement.

Existence and non existed are time bound conceptual appearances and disappearances,they are fictional perceptions projected into time space duality, their source being of the timeless one that is here now nowhere always and for ever eternally without beginning nor end infinitely projecting itself.

There are no ''things'' prior to the knowing of them waiting for a knower to show up so they can be known. Knower and known are created instantaneously only ever in the immediate now present.

There is no time or human surreptitious57 ..these are conceptual mental constructs. You seem to think knowledge has an owner, and that owner came into existence at some point in time...but there is only knowing consciousness which is timeless eternal NOW

Nature of Self is undifferentiated boundless formless awareness knowing itself as consciousness /mind comes online, becomes known to itself... it only knows itself through differentiated by name and form. We can only perceive a form through a name.

No name, no form.So our perception of a multiplicity of separate entities comes from language.

So in fact ''thing's'' are mind dependant because that which is without form is dependant on that which gives itself form. Form is emptiness emptiness is form joined together in one compound word. (Mind)

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:14 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Physical is just a perception a perception is mental construction
A mind cannot exist without a body so the physical must be real or else how is the mind producing thoughts
The thoughts it produces come from the brain which is physical and without it no thoughts can be produced

Dontaskme
Posts: 3078
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:34 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:14 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Physical is just a perception a perception is mental construction
A mind cannot exist without a body so the physical must be real or else how is the mind producing thoughts
The thoughts it produces come from the brain which is physical and without it no thoughts can be produced
A body cannot exist without a mind to know it's there, so the non-physical must be real.

And yet the non-physical cannot be known, it is that which is knowing. The non-physical is physical as conceived, aka a fiction appearing real.

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The mind itself cannot know anything.

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:30 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Without the projection of language ... no thing or concept has ever been seen. Anything seen is a projected image of the imageless ... an
image being a thought a thought being a construction as perceived and imposed on the world as if those images were real but the images are inseparable from the seer and the seer is the invisible light in which they appear as visible. According to constructivism every experience is an interpretation of bare sense data through language therefore we cannot perceive what we have not a word for. You simply cannot say that things existed before a human mind came on the scene to validate their existence ... simply the human mind does not exist human is a concept known by consciousness which has always existed. Consciousness did not come into being it did not appear on the scene. The scenery appears in it. Reality is only ever No thing thing in ... Consciousness is an illusion appearing real
Thought pre dates language as language is an invention while thought is a product of the mind so things can be perceived before they are named
The human mind is not required to validate the existence of anything that exists independent of it such as things that exist but are not known to
exist. They cannot start to exist when the human mind becomes aware of them as it might never become aware of them. And it is not necessary
for consciousness to have always existed as the scenery can exist without it. And reality cannot be wthin consciousness. Because if consciousness
exists then it must be part of reality although this does not mean it has to exist. It exists now but will eventually pass away and there may be no
more ever again. Or there might be. But it is not actually necessary

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest