The Inter Mind

[faulkner1]

separate individual self (which was pretty much refuted by science anyway).

Science has never debunked such a thing, self has absolutely nothing to do with science at all, and the word "separated" added up by you hippies, so you can solve from your false premise your own false conclusion, you non dualists always crack me up

[faulkner1]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a human ...human is a ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶n̶ concept,

it's a concept, you idiot, we use concepts for things.

no human has ever been seen to exist.

OF COURSE, YOU CAN'T SEE, IT IS A F******* CONCEPT WE USE TO PEOPLE, HOW THE F*** WOULD YOU SEE A FUCKING HUMAN IF IT'S A FUCKING CONCEPT FOR PEOPLE, IT'S NOT A TANGIBLE SHIT YOU IDIOT, FOR GOD'S SAKE, YOU ARE A CLOWN.

I believe consciousness ̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶

HOW MANY times will you lie? tell me? how many times, you will be refuted, and will be lying over and over and over and over the same lie over and over and over????

con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/Submit
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"



iv·ing
ˈliviNG/Submit
noun
1.
an income sufficient to live on or the means of earning it.
"she was struggling to make a living as a dancer"
2.
the pursuit of a lifestyle of the specified type.
"the benefits of country living"
1.
alive.
"living creatures"
sinônimos: alive, live, having life, animate, sentient; Mais

you live a life, you have a consciousness, stop lying, you should STOP L-Y-I-N-G



and consciousness is not IN A human,consciousness is in your head.

you have consciousness, dontaskme, and you know the concept,

but is itself without concept. Even the word consciousness is a concept

OH RLY??? DON'T TELL ME, WE USE CONCEPTS TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THINGS, DIDN'T YOU KNOW ABOUT IT????? OH YES, AND FROM THAT YOU DISTORT IT IN FAVOR OF YOUR HIPPY BULLSHITS.

you first see something subjectively you understand and you communicate it, what is objective, has information, you communicate subjectively with concepts, words, and even your hippy bullshits you use concepts, didn't you know about it??????

..but here we only have conceptual language to point to that which is without knowledge.

but here we also have conceptual language to point to objects or to your hippy bullshits too.

̶B̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶u̶r̶e̶... ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶, ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶.̶
meaningless babble

This is what Steve speaks about when he says...

no need to talk to Steve in third person.

I too believe we are consciousness, in that every organism that lives and breathes is the same consciousness.

You are tired of being debunked in the skepticforum, using the same argument. the argument of we sharing the "same" consciousness, which is utter bullshit, if we did, you could read my thoughts, what is in my mind, and you cannot, you were debunked there, so you can preach your oneness of consciousness bullshit here.

I know I am conscious. My consciousness is what experiences everything that I experience. I am aware that I cannot be anywhere but at centre of my own consciousness.

Yes, basically I guess you are in your house, , not in your consciousness, you live in your house, your consciousness what is in your head ..

And that is the same for every one else, including animals.

No, it's absolutely not, and you have absolute no proof of that. Just a religious background of proof. Which is not proof.

We're all just a single consciousness having an experience, and we're only aware of this experience one life at a time.

There you have it, more hippy garbage, more of what we already debunked and you still insist in shilling and bullshiting the same false lie, over and over and over....Here the topic that already debunked this false lie of yours: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... er#p630415

.

This is what I intuitively know.

I also intuitively know you are lying.

Yet what is this consciousness that I ̶ ̶ have?

ask yourself. find out for yourself, take a time, meditate.

And more broadly what is this consciousness ̶w̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶?̶

We don't experience any shared consciousness, you have your consciousness, I have mine, and steve has his own. and no big consciousness outside us, you can't have anyone consciousness but yours...when you touch something, you experience that, but you also distorted "experience"...... you have a consciousness, it's different from experiencing something,
we are not connected, with our finite consciousnessess to any "big" consciousness, which we can all indirect "experience". http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... er#p631300


.

[faulkner1]

Existence has ̶n̶o̶ ̶ beginning or end because

Existence has beginning or end because

Because you don't understand what existence is.

ex·ist·ence
iɡˈzistəns/Submit
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
"the plane was the oldest Boeing remaining in existence"

The moment something begins to exist, it has existence, the moment, the boeing gets destroyed, it ceased to exist. Simply. had a beggining and then an end. same to you, but your existence is different from that of an object tho.

it is eternal.

eternity does not exist, except in bibles/fairytales

[faulkner1]

̶N̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶, therefore, exists in isolation.

̶everything, that is far from you, therefore, exists in isolation.

Even your phone that you forgot in your house, will be not entangled but isolated from you, even at quantum level and at the deep quantum
scales of the phone is distance from you

, your poem is as valid as bible/fairytale.

i·so·la·tion
ˌīsəˈlāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the process or fact of isolating or being isolated.
"the isolation of older people"
an instance of isolating something, especially a compound or microorganism.
plural noun: isolations
denoting a hospital or ward for patients with contagious or infectious diseases.
modifier noun: isolation

[faulkner1]

Yes, but infinity / empty

̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶ ̶

boneca.jpg (22.88 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

in·fin·i·ty
inˈfinədē/Submit
noun
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.

MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

empty Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
what is empty: not containing any things or people.


both distinct, not even related.

and fullness .

̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶

boneca.jpg (22.88 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

...........

full·ness
ˈfo͝olnəs/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being filled to capacity.




I can also lie and affirm things without, ABSOLUTELY, without, any fucking sense..

bananas can be both meat and steak at the same time.......

Infinity is

̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ i̶m̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶

in·fin·i·ty
inˈfinədē/Submit
noun
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.

MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

empty

boneca.jpg (22.88 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

empty Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
what is empty: not containing any things or people.

-fullness

full·ness
ˈfo͝olnəs/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being filled to capacity.

expressing

̶e̶n̶d̶l̶e̶s̶s̶l̶y̶ i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶ .

boneca.jpg (22.88 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

images.png (10.66 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

nothing

opposite of something

everything

antonym of nothing

all

antonym of partly

all
ôl/Submit
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
"all the people I met"



.

Beginnings and Endings

beginning Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
what is beginning: the first part of something or the start of something: .

end·ing
ˈendiNG/Submit
noun
an end or final part of something, especially a period of time, an activity, or a book or movie.
"the ending of the Cold War"

̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶ flux of life

̶i̶s̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶ ̶.̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶
"life" is not in flux, there is no flux of life, a PERSON who is living, first was born, born = beggining. when he;she was born, began to exist, then has existence and will die and end its existnece. ...which happened in the past, not "now", and will die in the future, and will cease to exist, will have and end, in the future, if you born in the 80's, it was in the past, not now.



so, again, all you do is lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie. lie.

not a single post of you, a single sentence is true. it's all lies. it's not even funny anymore, you're a shill.

lies, lies, lies and more lies..........for the sake of Self-verification and confirmation bias;;;;;;;;;;;;;

https://www.autismcommunity.org.au/stra ... lying.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying

images.png (10.66 KiB) Viewed 4456 times

[faulkner1]

Steve, thanks for doing that...but what do you mean by hover over the full text feature, where is that or how do I do that?

Sorry for being a bit innocent of this knowing...

Just realized that if you use your phone then the Hover doesn't seem to work anyway. At least on my phone it doesn't. Assuming you are not messing with me then Hovering over an Acronym means putting the mouse cursor over an Acronym. When the cursor is over any Acronym a small text box will pop up near the Acronym with the Full Text of the Acronym.

I'm not messing with you Steve, I'm one of those rare normal people that do exist in life, I don't mess with other peoples head in cyber space just because they can't retaliate, that's the work of a weak mind trying to win points by putting others down...I'm genuinely normal.

So anyway...I've tried what you said..but it doesn't seem to be working ..my cursor is not bringing up any pop-ups when I hover it over the Acro's...I haven't got a mobile phone either, so can't use that...don't have one, don't like them, don't need one.

.

did she tell you that she is lying and part of a group of lying hippies trying to do psychology on others and failing miserably??? Ask her why she repeats the same thing over and over since 2014, or even before..., no, she is not trynig to discuss anything or "discover" anything, she is shilling on forums. exactly, shilling on posts, shilling shilling and lying, pushing the same agenda, she don't wanna debate anything, just push the agenda. But got exposed on skepticforum and is now being exposed here and will be exposed everywhere along with all of this non dual cult .
and then start investigating more of these cults, don't be surprised when you find her there. and then don't be surprised who she said did an act of love.

[faulkner1]

That would only help with external light (PL).

No one has ever seen external light.

Right On! We have only ever seen our own internal Conscious Light. You get an A.

I won't be surprised if SteveKlinko is another sockpuppet from dontaskme;

here the entire "internal ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ light" DEBUNKED, for anyone who accesses this bs OP,
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27982

light is EXTERNAL. period.

Matthew did a great job explaining what this bucko means when we see internal light, with our retinas.

[Atla]

separate individual self (which was pretty much refuted by science anyway).

Science has never debunked such a thing, self has absolutely nothing to do with science at all, and the word "separated" added up by you hippies, so you can solve from your false premise your own false conclusion, you non dualists always crack me up

Okay then show me how science confirmed that our self is floating around somewhere and isn't really a part of the "physical" universe?

Btw don't mistake me for Dontaskme. You are both crazy and ignorant, just in different ways, and I enjoy reading your debate.

[Dontaskme]

Hi Steve.


Here are 2 more interesting articles for you to read, if you haven't read them already that is.
They are current discussions going on at the Science & Nonduality Conference.

The Real Time Traveler
https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress. ... -traveler/

Consciousness Isn’t Scientifically Explainable
https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress. ... plainable/

.

See if there is anything in these essays that correlate with your own ideas? Lets us know what you discover?

We're all each of us one piece of the puzzle, so we need to come together with our pieces in the hope of forming the bigger whole picture.


.

Also, what do you think of the idea that gravity is a pushing force, and not a pulling force?

[SteveKlinko]

No one has ever seen external light.

Right On! We have only ever seen our own internal Conscious Light. You get an A.

I won't be surprised if SteveKlinko is another sockpuppet from dontaskme;

here the entire "internal ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ light" DEBUNKED, for anyone who accesses this bs OP,
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27982

light is EXTERNAL. period.

Matthew did a great job explaining what this bucko means when we see internal light, with our retinas.

Let's think about Red Light. The Physical Red Light that exists in the Physical Universe has Physical Properties like Wavelength. But since we are Physical things we can only Detect this Physical Red Light. We don't See the Physical Red Light like we think we do. Instead the Physical Red Light is received by the Retina and immediately converted into Nerve impulses that are processed by the Visual areas of the Brain. During all the processing the Physical Red Light does not exist anymore. It is just Neural Activity that produces the final end product of a Conscious experience of Red. That Conscious experience is the only way you have ever known Red Light. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light in your Conscious Mind. The Redness of the Red Conscious experience is a Conscious Mind thing. The Redness that you have always Experienced is a Property of the Conscious Red Light and not a Property of the Physical Red Light. The Physical Red Light has a property of wavelength and the Conscious Red light does not have a Property of Wavelength. The Conscious Red Light has a Property of Redness and the Physical Red Light does not have a Property of Redness. We commonly think that the Redness we see is a Property of the Physical Red Light because it is correlated with the Physical Red Light. When we see Red in a Dream it is obvious that we are not Seeing Physical Red Light. We are Seeing Conscious Red Light. So we can See Conscious Red Light without there being any Physical Red Light. Also the Dream Red Light is obviously an Internal Red Light. We See the Surrogate for Physical Red Light not the Physical Red Light itself. The website at http://TheInterMind.com explains how the Red Light or any other possible Color of Light is always Internal.

[SteveKlinko]

Hi Steve.


Here are 2 more interesting articles for you to read, if you haven't read them already that is.
They are current discussions going on at the Science & Nonduality Conference.

The Real Time Traveler
https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress. ... -traveler/

Consciousness Isn’t Scientifically Explainable
https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress. ... plainable/

.

See if there is anything in these essays that correlate with your own ideas? Lets us know what you discover?

We're all each of us one piece of the puzzle, so we need to come together with our pieces in the hope of forming the bigger whole picture.


.

Also, what do you think of the idea that gravity is a pushing force, and not a pulling force?

Good Links. We always like it when we can see parallels to our own thinking. There was a lot of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity jargon in these links. To do justice to them I would have to do a lot of reviewing my knowledge on particular concepts. But I like that they show a Screen concept similar to the Conscious Light Screen that I talk about on the website. They also talk about the possibility of a 3 part process in the concept of perception. I think from the Physical situation it's more intuitive to think in terms of Pull rather than Push. With Pull the force seems to be in between the two object system. With Push it seems like the Force is outside the two object system.

[Dontaskme]

Good Links. We always like it when we can see parallels to our own thinking.

Yes, thanks, I like to think it's the same thinker thinking it's own thoughts, discovering for itself what is already here as itself...but this self has to born itself in order to experience itself, and every time there is a new birth, it's the same self discovering itself all over again in a completely different and unique experience. All lives exist parallel to every other life. The one self can move in and out of those parallel lives any time it chooses, because it exists in all dimensions simultaneously ..we're all doing this shifting in and out of different realities all the time without realising we're doing it, until we do realise we can do it and are doing it.

There was a lot of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity jargon in these links. To do justice to them I would have to do a lot of reviewing my knowledge on particular concepts.

Yes, there is lots to uncover, to discover what is already here. I believe in the Quantum nature of everything and nothing being the same place which is this vast infinite void pregnant with infinite pure possibility...pure in that nothing belongs to any separate self, it's all oneness expressing itself as everything.

But I like that they show a Screen concept similar to the Conscious Light Screen that I talk about on the website.

Yes, that screen being the infinite light inseparable from it's contents every finite shadowy thing.

They also talk about the possibility of a 3 part process in the concept of perception.

3 being the magic number....father/mother =child....<<same one appearing as two

Or..No / thing = everything...<<same one appearing as the many.

I think from the Physical situation it's more intuitive to think in terms of Pull rather than Push. With Pull the force seems to be in between the two object system. With Push it seems like the Force is outside the two object system.

My intuition says all movement is of a singular self starting phenomena...in that movement has a causeless cause..and that because the singularity was self starting, there could not be any other force existing outside of the singularity (centre) influencing it to move for that would imply a separate force existing as well as the central singular point ...it would imply there is a something that is outside the centre pulling on that centre...pulling would be totally not possible.

My logic tells me there's nothing inside or outside the centre that can exert a force on that centre to move it...the centre is totally self starting, so the only force available would be for it to self start, to push itself aka propel itself forward, outward from within itself.

This is consistence with the forward movement of time..and the birth of life...life is pushed into birth, it is not pulled to birth... there is nothing outside of life pulling life into existence.

Everything is born from within it's same one self.

Time does not go backwards, we don't walk backwards, we are pushed out of the womb, and everything is flowing in the same one direction, a push to be.

The forces of Gravity is an illusion just like everything else in life..it's just a sensation...appearing to be there, Einstein coined the phrase as it being a very persistent illusion.



.

[SteveKlinko]

Good Links. We always like it when we can see parallels to our own thinking.

Yes, thanks, I like to think it's the same thinker thinking it's own thoughts, discovering for itself what is already here as itself...but this self has to born itself in order to experience itself, and every time there is a new birth, it's the same self discovering itself all over again in a completely different and unique experience. All lives exist parallel to every other life. The one self can move in and out of those parallel lives any time it chooses, because it exists in all dimensions simultaneously ..we're all doing this shifting in and out of different realities all the time without realising we're doing it, until we do realise we can do it and are doing it.

There was a lot of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity jargon in these links. To do justice to them I would have to do a lot of reviewing my knowledge on particular concepts.

Yes, there is lots to uncover, to discover what is already here. I believe in the Quantum nature of everything and nothing being the same place which is this vast infinite void pregnant with infinite pure possibility...pure in that nothing belongs to any separate self, it's all oneness expressing itself as everything.

But I like that they show a Screen concept similar to the Conscious Light Screen that I talk about on the website.

Yes, that screen being the infinite light inseparable from it's contents every finite shadowy thing.

They also talk about the possibility of a 3 part process in the concept of perception.

3 being the magic number....father/mother =child....<<same one appearing as two

Or..No / thing = everything...<<same one appearing as the many.

I think from the Physical situation it's more intuitive to think in terms of Pull rather than Push. With Pull the force seems to be in between the two object system. With Push it seems like the Force is outside the two object system.

My intuition says all movement is of a singular self starting phenomena...in that movement has a causeless cause..and that because the singularity was self starting, there could not be any other force existing outside of the singularity (centre) influencing it to move for that would imply a separate force existing as well as the central singular point ...it would imply there is a something that is outside the centre pulling on that centre...pulling would be totally not possible.

My logic tells me there's nothing inside or outside the centre that can exert a force on that centre to move it...the centre is totally self starting, so the only force available would be for it to self start, to push itself aka propel itself forward, outward from within itself.

This is consistence with the forward movement of time..and the birth of life...life is pushed into birth, it is not pulled to birth... there is nothing outside of life pulling life into existence.

Everything is born from within it's same one self.

Time does not go backwards, we don't walk backwards, we are pushed out of the womb, and everything is flowing in the same one direction, a push to be.

The forces of Gravity is an illusion just like everything else in life..it's just a sensation...appearing to be there, Einstein coined the phrase as it being a very persistent illusion.



.

Where there is an Illusion there is always an implied Observer of the Illusion. Everything we know could be a Virtual Reality kind of Illusion but I perceive an independent existent Physical Reality. It seems to me that there are separate Physical things and separate Conscious things in our Reality.

[Dontaskme]

Where there is an Illusion there is always an implied Observer of the Illusion. Everything we know could be a Virtual Reality kind of Illusion but I perceive an independent existent Physical Reality. It seems to me that there are separate Physical things and separate Conscious things in our Reality.

Yes quite right and all this is perceived...but that one who is doing the perceiving cannot be perceived, it is the PERCEIVER. (verb)


That which is perceived cannot be the perceiver. The perceiver cannot experience itself as a thing perceived because the perceiver isn't a thing.

The perceiver is not a thing PERCEIVING itself as a thing in the same moment/instant... ''body and mind''.. are inseparably one in the same instant reality.

If the perceiver perceives lets say a tree, it cannot experience it self as a tree literally, the tree is just an image the observer is imaging...so that image of the tree is a concept known within the observer, the tree is the experience of the observer, the tree doesn't exist outside the observer except as a known concept inside the observer...the tree cannot experience itself as a tree literally...because it only exists inside the observer which is not an experience. The concept is the experience within that which is not an experience.



lol..steve ..does this make sense? ..this is so hard to put into words.


Observing is not an illusion, it is one with the observed, what is observed is what is observing in the same instant inseparable. The illusion is the implied observer, to know you are observing you first have to be the observer...so anything observed is appearing in that observer that is always one with itself in the same instant.

You can be the observer without the contents of observation being present, but the contents aka physical things are totally dependant on that observer to be known. There is no physical reality independent of the observer...except as conceptual experience within itself, it's all one unitary action.

This doesn't mean the physical isn't there when it is not observed, because it's already known by the observer ...the observer and observed are totally without division here. Both the observer and the observed are one.

Things, as in separate concepts are all contained within the same observer...observer being another label for knower, which is another label for awareness..which is no thing being everything.

There's no gap steve. . .

.

[SteveKlinko]

Where there is an Illusion there is always an implied Observer of the Illusion. Everything we know could be a Virtual Reality kind of Illusion but I perceive an independent existent Physical Reality. It seems to me that there are separate Physical things and separate Conscious things in our Reality.

Yes quite right and all this is perceived...but that one who is doing the perceiving cannot be perceived, it is the PERCEIVER. (verb)


That which is perceived cannot be the perceiver. The perceiver cannot experience itself as a thing perceived because the perceiver isn't a thing.

The perceiver is not a thing PERCEIVING itself as a thing in the same moment/instant... ''body and mind''.. are inseparably one in the same instant reality.

If the perceiver perceives lets say a tree, it cannot experience it self as a tree literally, the tree is just an image the observer is imaging...so that image of the tree is a concept known within the observer, the tree is the experience of the observer, the tree doesn't exist outside the observer except as a known concept inside the observer...the tree cannot experience itself as a tree literally...because it only exists inside the observer which is not an experience. The concept is the experience within that which is not an experience.



lol..steve ..does this make sense? ..this is so hard to put into words.


Observing is not an illusion, it is one with the observed, what is observed is what is observing in the same instant inseparable. The illusion is the implied observer, to know you are observing you first have to be the observer...so anything observed is appearing in that observer that is always one with itself in the same instant.

You can be the observer without the contents of observation being present, but the contents aka physical things are totally dependant on that observer to be known. There is no physical reality independent of the observer...except as conceptual experience within itself, it's all one unitary action.

This doesn't mean the physical isn't there when it is not observed, because it's already known by the observer ...the observer and observed are totally without division here. Both the observer and the observed are one.

Things, as in separate concepts are all contained within the same observer...observer being another label for knower, which is another label for awareness..which is no thing being everything.

There's no gap steve. . .

.

Maybe the Oneness you talk about is true and so there is no Gap for you. But I am talking about what Science knows and doesn't know right now. Science more and more is figuring out how the Brain works. Science claims to have solved what Consciousness is by saying that it is just an Illusion of Neural Activity. Literally, that is what they say. The Gap that I am talking about is a Gap of Scientific understanding.