Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

[Dontaskme]

I think objects exist independently of a perceiver else they would be nothing more than mental constructs. I think the act of perceiving does
not automatically involve objectification but simple recognition with no added emotional input. I think my existence is just one point on the
spectrum of all existence which includes objects and organisms and also space and time. I do not think pure emptiness exists for a perceiver
as absolute nothing cant be sustained and definitely not over the life time of a perceiver. This is what this particular perceiver thinks is true

Thanks for your comments, which are excellent bye the way...I like the way you think.

Some questions to you...

Do you not think objects are mental constructs? if not, what are they?

Do you not think that a recognition involves some kind of input? in that some ''thing'' is being recognised? who is imputing and what is being imputed? is what is recognised the same as what is recognising?

Do you not think that emptiness cannot exist? if not, what sustains the perceived objects that appear to come and go...what are they coming and going in?

.

[surreptitious57]

Do you not think objects are mental constructs? If not what are they?

I do not think that objects are mental constructs because I think they are mind independent. Which is to say that the mind perceives them but does not create them. If objects were just mental constructs then that would mean nothing could exist before it was perceived. However that cannot be true given that some objects are older than any one who perceives them. And what is true for those objects must therefore logically be true for all objects. Their existence therefore cannot be dependent upon them being perceived

Do you not think that a recognition involves some kind of input? In that some thing is being recognised?

The input is the brain processing information that it receives from the sense organs. These are how human
minds [ and indeed all minds ] interpret and rationalise the physical world which they are a part of as well

Who is imputing and what is being imputed? Is what is recognised the same as what is recognising?

Without a mind nothing can be processed or imagined. This includes the notion that the mind doesnt exist even though such a notion cannot be mind independent. As how can a mind go outside of itself when everything it perceives is inside of itself. What is recognised is not the same as what is recognising but neither can be done outside of a mind. Objects that do not possess minds cannot perceive anything at all. Therefore all perception and thinking involves a mind because it is the mind that actually does these things

Do you not think that emptiness cannot exist?

Emptiness in the absolute sense cannot be sustained because nature will not allow it. However it only exists at the
quantum level and so it cannot be seen or experienced by human minds who only sense things at the classical level

If not what sustains the perceived objects that appear to come and go ... what are they coming and going in?

What causes absolute nothing to be violated at the quantum level are quantum fluctuations which come into
existence by borrowing energy and then discarding that energy when they disappear again almost as quickly

[Dontaskme]

Do you not think objects are mental constructs? If not what are they?

I do not think that objects are mental constructs because I think they are mind independent. Which is to say that the mind perceives them but does not create them. If objects were just mental constructs then that would mean nothing could exist before it was perceived. However that cannot be true given that some objects are older than any one who perceives them. And what is true for those objects must therefore logically be true for all objects. Their existence therefore cannot be dependent upon them being perceived

Do you not think that a recognition involves some kind of input? In that some thing is being recognised?

The input is the brain processing information that it receives from the sense organs. These are how human
minds [ and indeed all minds ] interpret and rationalise the physical world which they are a part of as well

Who is imputing and what is being imputed? Is what is recognised the same as what is recognising?

Without a mind nothing can be processed or imagined. This includes the notion that the mind doesnt exist even though such a notion cannot be mind independent. As how can a mind go outside of itself when everything it perceives is inside of itself. What is recognised is not the same as what is recognising but neither can be done outside of a mind. Objects that do not possess minds cannot perceive anything at all. Therefore all perception and thinking involves a mind because it is the mind that actually does these things

Do you not think that emptiness cannot exist?

Emptiness in the absolute sense cannot be sustained because nature will not allow it. However it only exists at the
quantum level and so it cannot be seen or experienced by human minds who only sense things at the classical level

If not what sustains the perceived objects that appear to come and go ... what are they coming and going in?

What causes absolute nothing to be violated at the quantum level are quantum fluctuations which come into
existence by borrowing energy and then discarding that energy when they disappear again almost as quickly

Thanks for your ideas.

I agree with your responses.

As for this response below...

I do not think that objects are mental constructs because I think they are mind independent. Which is to say that the mind perceives them but does not create them. If objects were just mental constructs then that would mean nothing could exist before it was perceived. However that cannot be true given that some objects are older than any one who perceives them. And what is true for those objects must therefore logically be true for all objects. Their existence therefore cannot be dependent upon them being perceived

I have some more questions to ask regarding this part, which I will have to come back to later....I'm too busy today.

.

[Dontaskme]

I do not think that objects are mental constructs because I think they are mind independent.

Which is to say that the mind perceives them but does not create them.

If objects were just mental constructs then that would mean nothing could exist before it was perceived.

However that cannot be true given that some objects are older than any one who perceives them.

And what is true for those objects must therefore logically be true for all objects.

Their existence therefore cannot be dependent upon them being perceived

The belief that objects exist independently of the perceiver is due to the belief that there exists an independent perceiver.

Can anything perceived be separate from the perceiver?

It is clear that objects are seen, but can the perceiver / knower of a seen object be seen? ...where is the perceiver?


And how would an object ever be known to exist without a perceiver ....where, or what or who is the perceiver?



.

[surreptitious57]

Can anything perceived be separate from the perceiver

It is clear that objects are seen but can the perceiver / knower of a seen object be seen ... where is the perceiver

And how would an object ever be known to exist without a perceiver ... where or what or who is the perceiver

The perceived can be separated from the perceiver for one is not conditional upon the other. And so an object will still exist whether or not it is
perceived less it is only an object of imagination rather than one of reality [ though objects strictly speaking have to be more than simply mental
constructs and actually physically exist ] A perceiver can see another perceiver in the same way that they can see an object. Without a perceiver
an object cannot be known to exist but it will exist anyway. A perceiver is a mind that perceives although it may not necessarily know that it can

[Dontaskme]

Can anything perceived be separate from the perceiver

It is clear that objects are seen but can the perceiver / knower of a seen object be seen ... where is the perceiver

And how would an object ever be known to exist without a perceiver ... where or what or who is the perceiver

The perceived can be separated from the perceiver for one is not conditional upon the other. And so an object will still exist whether or not it is
perceived less it is only an object of imagination rather than one of reality [ though objects strictly speaking have to be more than simply mental
constructs and actually physically exist ] A perceiver can see another perceiver in the same way that they can see an object. Without a perceiver
an object cannot be known to exist but it will exist anyway. A perceiver is a mind that perceives although it may not necessarily know that it can

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatist ... 1394591465


.

[surreptitious57]

Objective reality cannot be perceived as it actually is only subjectively or inter subjectively so

[Dontaskme]

Objective reality cannot be perceived as it actually is only subjectively or inter subjectively so

Yes, objective reality can only ever be subject objectifying itself as and through the prism of the (the bodymind mechanism) as perceived... which itself cannot be perceived. For what is perceived does not exist separate from the perceiver, except as the mirror image of the perceiver which is this immediate empty awareness aka no 'thing' appearing to itself as fullness.




The sense of embodied self arises from the bodymind's sensory ground of being. The story of me arises from thinking mind's interpretation of the sensory data.

When mind quiets, and there is inner stillness, the story of self ("me") disappears, while the sense of self ("impersonal awareness") remains.

As such, the sense of self does not (need to) disappear, only the story of "me" seen through.

.

As such, the perceiver subject cannot be perceived. The perceiver is the perceiving perception perceived ..in the same moment ..One without a second.

.

“Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world.” ― Ramana Maharshi

.

[Dontaskme]

In his 2003 book, Being No One, Thomas Metzinger contends there is no such thing as a “self.” Rather, the self is a kind of transparent information-processing system. “You don’t see it,” he writes. “But you see with it.”


http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness ... al-reality


.

We are basically watching the movie of our life ..the movie content is fiction while the screen on which it shows (awareness) aka (you) is your true identity.

You are immortal.

.

There is no way out, no escape.

.

Being lucid means awakening inside your own dream...having a kind of control over the dream.


.


Make it a good dream or a bad one...choice is optional...and will make no different to your true nature which is indestructible.


.

ONE THING THAT LASTS FOREVER ...is you...> Energy is Neither Created or Destroyed. There is No You because there is No Other than You.



Sweet dreams.


.

[surreptitious57]

I agree with all that other than there being no escape as death is the point at which that will happen

[surreptitious57]

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness ... al-reality

Some interesting comments here about death and how it cannot exist as energy cannot be destroyed. But death is the cessation of consciousness
not of energy. Also the idea that death cannot exist as life is an illusion created by the illusion of self. But the illusion of self does not invalidate
physical existence itself otherwise only nothing could exist. So I accept that I exist as a physical organism and that at the point of death I will no
longer be able to experience consciousness even though I will still possess energy. And so death for me is just a transference from consciousness
to non consciousness. Something that I have zero need to fear once transference has taken place. I find my self becoming more detached in this
existence as I realise how transitional it is. As the concept of the experienced present which is all I have ever known will eventually cease to be

[Dontaskme]

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness ... al-reality

Some interesting comments here about death and how it cannot exist as energy cannot be destroyed. But death is the cessation of consciousness
not of energy.

Death is just a concept, no concept dies because no concept is real... there is only non-conceptual unborn energy transforming itself from one form to another...appearing live...
Life and Death are the same no /thing...appearing as thing...as it changes from one form to another...from no thing to thing.

Also the idea that death cannot exist as life is an illusion created by the illusion of self. But the illusion of self does not invalidate
physical existence itself otherwise only nothing could exist.

That's right...but this is expressed as not-a-thing appearing as everything...and is why it's known as illusory...albeit appearing real.

So I accept that I exist as a physical organism and that at the point of death I will no
longer be able to experience consciousness even though I will still possess energy. And so death for me is just a transference from consciousness
to non consciousness. Something that I have zero need to fear once transference has taken place. I find my self becoming more detached in this
existence as I realise how transitional it is. As the concept of the experienced present which is all I have ever known will eventually cease to be

The I that is consciousness is the same I that is unconscious..aka awareness....neither states are are alive or dead, they only appear to be.


When awareness (latent) knows sensation there is a conscious reaction(self-awareness)....but no thing is acting this...it's a reaction after the event is over replayed in the brain.....as self recognising itself...albeit illusory..because it's made-up by the brain as a representation of this immediate presentation.

.

[ken]

Now you know how all the other people feel when you go on the way you do

I understand her better than you apparently do which renders this absolute statement of yours false

My reply was in direct reference to what dontaskme wrote, which was, "Ken, I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are going on about." So, although your statement appears to be absolutely correct here because of the way I wrote it, I was actually referring to those specific people who, and when they do, have absolutely no idea what the heck dontaskme is going on about, she now knows how all those other people feel. If you, or any other person, always understand ALL of the ideas of what dontaskme goes on about all of the time, then My statement is false.

It is not a good idea to speak on behalf of others ken unless you actually know what their position is

Great advice.

[ken]

The fact IS I already KNOW what is unknown to dontaskme

It is dontaskme who does NOT know who they are yet and thus IS trying to be some thing which they are NOT

Another couple of absolute statements from you ken

Yes that is very true.

Do you know what is unknown to Dontaskme or do you only think you do

Yes I know some, and some i think i know.

Do you know that Dontaskme does not know who they are or only think you do

Without clarification I do not know, for sure. But the way dontaskme writes I am pretty sure I know.

Do you know that Dontaskme does not know she is trying to be something she is not or only think you do

Yes, I know.

[ken]

REMEMBER it is I who says I am able to answer the question Who am I? So, I KNOW who I am, and thus am not trying to be some one. I have already be-come and come to Be who I am.

It is dontaskme who does NOT know who they are, yet, and thus IS trying to be some thing, which they are NOT.

Yes, and if you are really certain you are able to answer the question ''Who am I''....then you would be equally certain of who I am too.

To Me, there is no "too" (or also) here. There is no other 'I', nor is there an 'I', as well. There is only One true 'I'. But just to clarify there is multiple people who refer to them self as an 'I'. I refer to these multiple different people as an 'i'.

And you would stop projecting on to ''me'' your insatiable desire for clarification of what I am talking about...you project on to ''me'' as if there was a some one in ''me'' to receive your projections, when you already admitted you KNOW the answer to the question.. ''WHO AM I''.

I desire clarification from 'you' to understand just how much you know, and whereabouts you are coming from exactly, that is what experiences you have come from. From My perspective there is an actual One in 'you', who is the true 'I', and who does receive.

And since you've already admitted to yourself that you are not trying to be ''some one'', because you KNOW who you are...then why assume there is a ''some-one'' over here to whom you can project your thoughts at?....

Because of the replies I get back, is the answer.

surely if you know who you are, then this one here must know that too?

Why would that supposedly follow?

I know plenty of human beings who are unable to answer the question, Who am 'I'?

Just like there are plenty of human beings who have no real idea what 'love' is and/or what the 'Mind' actually is.

Although the "one here", which I think you are referring to, does actually know who and what that One IS.

Surely you must know there is no ''some one'' here to receive your projections? ..

But there are actually two here, there is dontaskme over there behind that computer reading and writing, and there is the real and true One who is HERE, which is EVERYWHERE.

The true One receives and KNOWS what is going on. The dontaskme labelled one also receives and replies, as evidenced here.
so why project ?

I project so as to achieve a particular aim.

Or is this one here completely separated from who you are? ...

To Me, 'one' with a small 'o' is just a person, and the word 'you' is also a way of separating one from the true 'I' or another person. So, when dontaskme writes that way, then yes the 'you' labelled 'ken' is completely separated from the 'one' labelled 'dontaskme'. ALL people are made up of the exact same stuff, but all people are uniquely different in their own right.

HOWEVER, without yet clarifying from dontaskme, the one that dontaskme i think is referring to, is NOT separated.

and if I am separated....then what relevance is what you are trying to show me going to have on me anyway?...

That is completely up to dontaskme. You make your own choices. No one can force you to do any thing that you do not want to do.

do you not see how you are simply tying yourself up in knots here?

Not really. In fact I see the opposite. I see that I am continually unraveling the confusion human beings have made for themselves. Although, human beings themselves are still very confused and are still looking for answers to those, so called, age-old questions, I am revealing the way they can find answers for and by themselves all the time.

It seems in your human personified ideological way of thinking...if people don't think like you, then they have no idea what they are talking about...and that makes you look like a right proper clownshoe since you already KNOW who you are, yet you seem to think and believe others don't know who they are...

.

Just to clarify then;

Does dontaskme know who 'you' are?

Does dontaskme KNOW who 'I' am?