Meaning and Perception

[Age]

The Universe is all that exists but it can be also be composed of many individual Universes such as this one

To me this is highly contradictory. How do you define the word 'Universe' and separate that from the word 'Universe', and its definition?

And which "Universe" are you referring to here exactly? You say "this one", but which one is "this one" exactly?

To avoid confusion the total Universe is usually referred to as the Multiverse but I prefer to call it Existence

So why call "it" 'Universe'?

Do you like to cause confusion?

Also, "it" is usually referred that way by who?

[Age]

In this Universe that I inhabit with other minds such as all these on the forum I prefer to keep my own mind open

But who is the 'I' that inhabits "this" Universe?

How you differiante between the so called "many minds"?

How is the word "mind" being defined here?

How does the 'I' keep the "mind" open?

Do the so called "many minds" default to the closed position, and therefore there needs to be an "outer" or "another" which keeps these so called "many" minds open?

For it is the most effective way I choose to use it

What keeps closing "your own" mind, which "you" prefer to keep open?

How do "you" keep "your own" mind open?

How do you know "preferring to keep your own mind open" is the most effective way to use your own mind?

What else have you compared to, to reach this conclusion?

but how other minds choose to use theirs is entirely up to them

To state 'minds can choose to use theirs is, to me, highly contradictory.

How could one choose to use itself?

For example, if keeping oneself open is the most effective way to use ones self, then how could a "mind" choose to prefer to keep itself open if and when it was closing itself?

If these minds, or oneself, default to the closed position, then how could itself (a closed mind) then choose to prefer to remain open, or choose to do any thing other than remain closed?

In simple terms, how could something which is by itself, or intrinsically, closed then choose to not be?

By the way have you noticed in your writings how you say you prefer to remain open yet you write from a very, as you would call it, a "closed minded" perspective?

In that, from my perspective, you write from a 'this is the truth' perspective and you are unwilling to change, unless of course some thing comes along to convince you otherwise.

Do you see this yourself?

[Dontaskme]

The world and all objects are thought of as 'extending in time and space'. They do not. As a dream they have no reality. They exist in no place and no time.

All objects 'exist' only as conceptions within the knowing which is one with Consciousness.

Consciousness does not move, it is the unmoved mover of all images seen. And so that which is seen are but moving projections upon the unseen unmoving consciousness screen appearing to be out-there appearing separate from the screen, and so as the image appears to change, the perspective appears to change making it appear that "I am moving through the world" just as it appears when riding on an airplane in a flight simulator.. only the illusion is complete for there are no clues as in a simulator, or a dream to tell that it is just an image upon the imageless consciousness. If consciousness not was not imageless, no image would be able to show up. All images seen are being looked upon by the imageless consciousness, therefore no seen thing is ever really seen, a thing is only known through it's association with knowing consciousness.

As the image changes, the perspective appears to move... though the location of the image does not move... it remains 'on the screen of consciousness' that never moves.
All that appears to change are the momentary impressions formed by the rising and falling of sensations in Consciousness: colour in the seeing, sounds in the hearing, odours in the smelling, flavours in the tasting and feelings within the faculty that feels.

The 'world' as it exists in the knowing both it's form and meaning in the 'abstract' never changes... it is timeless.
Objects are known to be a 3D abstract form .. though no such 3D form can be seen or visualised. Conscious reality is 2D as images upon the imageless. Objects are KNOWN but never seen. KNOWN to the only knowing there is which cannot be known or seen for it is the only knowing and seeing. Consciousness cannot know it is conscious...it's the only knowing there is one without a second. All alone, all one...as an image is inseparable from it's projector upon the screen it is seen as an image of the imageless.






.

[f12hte]

The world and all objects are thought of as 'extending in time and space'. They do not. As a dream they have no reality. They exist in no place and no time.

All objects 'exist' only as conceptions within the knowing which is one with Consciousness.

Consciousness does not move, it is the unmoved mover of all images seen. And so that which is seen are but moving projections upon the unseen unmoving consciousness screen appearing to be out-there appearing separate from the screen, and so as the image appears to change, the perspective appears to change making it appear that "I am moving through the world" just as it appears when riding on an airplane in a flight simulator.. only the illusion is complete for there are no clues as in a simulator, or a dream to tell that it is just an image upon the imageless consciousness. If consciousness not was not imageless, no image would be able to show up. All images seen are being looked upon by the imageless consciousness, therefore no seen thing is ever really seen, a thing is only known through it's association with knowing consciousness.

As the image changes, the perspective appears to move... though the location of the image does not move... it remains 'on the screen of consciousness' that never moves.
All that appears to change are the momentary impressions formed by the rising and falling of sensations in Consciousness: colour in the seeing, sounds in the hearing, odours in the smelling, flavours in the tasting and feelings within the faculty that feels.[/quote]

What you describe sounds like the block universe idea, where everything that happens exists simultaneously in one big block, and each person's lifeline cuts a path through the block universe over time.

"Imagine a regular chunk of cement," says Marina Cortês, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. "It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a four-dimensional block, but instead of [being made of cement, it is made of] spacetime. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time

The 'world' as it exists in the knowing both it's form and meaning in the 'abstract' never changes... it is timeless.

I kinda agree, but can you explain how the "knowing' of world form and meaning happens in consciousness?













.
[/quote]

[surreptitious57]

By the way have you noticed in your writings how you say you prefer to remain
open yet you write from a very as you would call it a closed minded perspective

In that from my perspective you write from a this is the truth perspective and you are
unwilling to change unless of course some thing comes along to convince you otherwise

I try to avoid holding onto anything anymore than is absolutely necessary
This existence is a very temporary one so dogmatism is not the ideal here

Your second sentence is most interesting although not entirely true from my own perspective

Openness is of course relative although I specifically mean how open I am now in relation to how open I used to be
How open other minds are is not my concern for it is not for me to decide as it is a matter for them and them only

[Age]

By the way have you noticed in your writings how you say you prefer to remain
open yet you write from a very as you would call it a closed minded perspective

In that from my perspective you write from a this is the truth perspective and you are
unwilling to change unless of course some thing comes along to convince you otherwise

I try to avoid holding onto anything anymore than is absolutely necessary

Is it necessary at all to hold onto any of the thoughts that "you" are expressing here?

If yes, then why?
If no, then why do it?

And, why try to do some thing when you could actually just do it?

This existence is a very temporary one so dogmatism is not the ideal here

'This existence' or 'your existence' is a very temporary one?

I think you will find that 'this existence', which is eternal, is not a very temporary one at all.

Your second sentence is most interesting although not entirely true from my own perspective

Openness is of course relative although I specifically mean how open I am now in relation to how open I used to be
How open other minds are is not my concern for it is not for me to decide as it is a matter for them and them only

Was this meant to be some sort of support for your claim that my second sentence is not entirely true from your own perspective?

If yes, then I do not see it. Honestly, I do not even know what your response here, has to what I was actually saying.

The way you continue to write, like expressing that there are many minds is just more evidence, to me, of how you are not really open, and just continue to think you know what is right and true. This is what I was saying appears to be, from my perspective.

By the way are you at all able to clarify what these 'mind' things are, which you continual talk about and insist exist?

[Dontaskme]

What you describe sounds like the block universe idea, where everything that happens exists simultaneously in one big block, and each person's lifeline cuts a path through the block universe over time.

I know nothing of the block universe theory, that is, I have never got around to studying the idea.
My ideas are about consciousness being. All my answers come to me alone when I sit silently and contemplate my own questions about this presence that is I that appears to be myself...I've been doing this since I was about 6 years old.

So what happened to me was that this sense of I existed as a person separate from other persons and things totally disappeared, I remember feeling a very strong sense of ''there never was a me here'' ..and then in that moment there was just this blank not-knowing presence of being, and that there was nothing being this being presence. It became clear to me that this silent presence had no known source, no known author, no known identity, no known concept of itself, no known knowledge, no known imagination, no known clue as to what or when or where, or why or how's ???
There was just THIS obvious irrefutable self-evident presence.

I knew in that instant that all knowledge of being was nothing more than just imagination upon the nothingness of this mysterious presence. I don't know where the imagination comes from, all I know is that I am it.
It became clear that this presence was here first before any label was attached to it, and then I realised that it was the blank nameless presence itself forming an image of itself in the form of a word or a picture as imagined how or which ever way it imagined itself to be through association...but I had no idea as to what or where of how this is happening....it seems that all ideas are products of mentation sourced within the empty blank mysterious presence of being. I then realised that the idea that I had once existed was just an idea, I then realised that I could let go of the idea of existing and see that what was left was everything and nothing and that I was the everything and nothing.

The 'world' as it exists in the knowing both it's form and meaning in the 'abstract' never changes... it is timeless.

I kinda agree, but can you explain how the "knowing' of world form and meaning happens in consciousness?

I'm not sure why you would want to know the ( how question ?) I mean how is anything sensed and known at all?...what knows/senses anything? what would your answer be?

I personally don't know how I AM happening, maybe I am witnessing here, but I have no idea how or what is this knowing / seeing witnessing.

Knowledge calls it consciousness.

All I can say is that which changes is always changing and can only be known to change in association with it's opposite which is changeless.

Therefore, all change is within the dream of separation in space-time duality..all of which is just an appearance of the changless witness that is consciousness.

That which is appearing to change never changes. That which appears to be moving never moved.

It's similar to the movie upon the tv screen, all movement within the picture is a superimposed image upon the unmoved blank screen inseparable from it.

Images 'exist' only in the knowing and that the senses create within Consciousness that give the impression of experiencing this world from the perspective of each and every image in turn.

Each of these experiences is unique and all happen now... though each is separate, the experiences are neither concurrent nor consecutive. For here there is no time. Time appears only in the dream of separation in spacetime duality.


.

[surreptitious57]

The way you continue to write like expressing that there are many minds is just more evidence to me of how you are not really
open and just continue to think you know what is right and true . This is what I was saying appears to be from my perspective

There are things I think are true but whether they actually are I do not know
I make no knowledge claims about anything less it can actually be supported

When I say there are many minds I mean there are many human beings but why use two words when one will do ?
So therefore is saying there are many human beings really evidence of me not being open from your perspective ?

[surreptitious57]

I think you will find that this existence which is eternal is not a very temporary one at all

The existence I was referring to is my own in the here and now not the eternal existence
Given that I accept eternal existence it should have been obvious what I was referring to

[Age]

The way you continue to write like expressing that there are many minds is just more evidence to me of how you are not really
open and just continue to think you know what is right and true . This is what I was saying appears to be from my perspective

There are things I think are true but whether they actually are I do not know
I make no knowledge claims about anything less it can actually be supported

Can the notion of there being 'many minds' be supported?

When I say there are many minds I mean there are many human beings but why use two words when one will do ?

There is no need to IF those two words mean the exact same thing.

But are there two words that mean the exact same thing?

Does the word 'mind' mean the exact same thing as the words 'human being'?

If yes, then what is the definition for those two words?
If no, then I agree.

So therefore is saying there are many human beings really evidence of me not being open from your perspective ?

No, because that does not follow on from what I was saying.

[Age]

I think you will find that this existence which is eternal is not a very temporary one at all

The existence I was referring to is my own in the here and now not the eternal existence
Given that I accept eternal existence it should have been obvious what I was referring to

In case it was not obvious I do not like to assume any thing, and therefore I like to clarify things, just to make sure.

By the way, as for the actual temporary, or not, position of one's own existence you will have to be wait and see. The actual answer to that one might just surprise you somewhat.

[f12hte]

I know nothing of the block universe theory, that is, I have never got around to studying the idea.
My ideas are about consciousness being. All my answers come to me alone when I sit silently and contemplate my own questions about this presence that is I that appears to be myself...I've been doing this since I was about 6 years old.

What do you mean by contemplate? Is it a meditative state? Or is it more like thinking? In meditation I can disengage from associating sensory input from memories. I do not think. I just take note of what I am sensing, without associating it with memories. But you conduct an inner dialog with yourself, but with a goal; to answer a question.

So what happened to me was that this sense of I existed as a person separate from other persons and things totally disappeared, I remember feeling a very strong sense of ''there never was a me here'' ..and then in that moment there was just this blank not-knowing presence of being, and that there was nothing being this being presence. It became clear to me that this silent presence had no known source, no known author, no known identity, no known concept of itself, no known knowledge, no known imagination, no known clue as to what or when or where, or why or how's ???
There was just THIS obvious irrefutable self-evident presence.

I get down to the state of "this blank not-knowing presence of being during meditation by dissociating sensory input from remembered information. But I never draw conclusions or anything from meditation. It's more gaining control over attention and placing that in the sensory signals you are receiving from the environment at the present. When you are doing that, then you hit the, if you will, ' know nothing being'. When you block all memory from your consciousness, the sense of 'self' does recede, and you are left with the mere awareness of being. I think that must be the origin of the idea that there is no self. I think that what we think of as 'self' is composed of the integrated memories of all of our life experience.

I kinda agree, but can you explain how the "knowing' of world form and meaning happens in consciousness?

I'm not sure why you would want to know the ( how question ?) I mean how is anything sensed and known at all?...what knows/senses anything? what would your answer be?

When you receive a signal from the environment, it creates an electrical impulse to the brain, where the memories of similar electrical impulses reside. It calls forth those memories, and the electrical impulse is read and understood by virtue of the relationships between the current impulse and remembered impulses. This is the real content of thinking consciousness. But underneath the experiential layer, there is this awareness of being which seems to be without content.

As near as we can get to a consciousness without experience is a neonate, although much has been written about what fetuses experience during gestation. And there are certain born-in memories which we call 'instinct', which memories are coded in the DNA of the gametes. So a neonate has little to relate his sensory input to in order to understand it. He has a small consciousness, which will grow with experience. As the young human experiences more and more of the world, he can relate current sensory experience to more and more past experience and doing this mash-up is what we commonly think of as consciousness.

The 'awareness of being' empty consciousness of the neonate becomes the adult consciousness after 18 years of experience of integrating memory with current sensory input. Guilio Tonini's Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness goes so far as to say that the "awareness of being" type of consciousness arises when the amount of integrated information reaches a certain level. He says that it could be a phase change like water turning to steam when there is enough heat. Experiential data, (electric impulses) becomes information when it is related to remembered experiences, which are stored in the same electrical impulse idiom. Information becomes conscious information when there is enough of it. We need to have witnessed a lot of similar relationships for consciousness to burst forth from the sub-conscious. The relationship between current experience and remembered experience is eerily similar to the way AI gets better at recognizing objects with a bigger training set.

All I can say is that which changes is always changing and can only be known to change in association with it's opposite which is changeless.

As I have said, change is realized by comparing current sensory input to similar, remembered sensory input.

Therefore, all change is within the dream of separation in space-time duality..all of which is just an appearance of the changless witness that is consciousness.

That which is appearing to change never changes. That which appears to be moving never moved.

It's similar to the movie upon the tv screen, all movement within the picture is a superimposed image upon the unmoved blank screen inseparable from it.

Images 'exist' only in the knowing and that the senses create within Consciousness that give the impression of experiencing this world from the perspective of each and every image in turn.

Each of these experiences is unique and all happen now... though each is separate, the experiences are neither concurrent nor consecutive. For here there is no time. Time appears only in the dream of separation in spacetime duality.

I don't know. I think it must be relative. I believe that the world does change relative to a given consciousness, but not necessarily to any other consciousness. Even if everything that happens exists timelessly in one big block, the individual viewpoint is changing as the individual encounters new experience (as he continues his lifeline through the block universe). Our senses are indicating something. Each of us interprets the world in accordance with his personal experience. Our senses send us electrical impulses for what they encounter, and these impulses, together with memory, create higher consciousness. And Higher consciousness becomes more conscious with more experience.

[Dontaskme]

What do you mean by contemplate? Is it a meditative state? Or is it more like thinking? In meditation I can disengage from associating sensory input from memories. I do not think. I just take note of what I am sensing, without associating it with memories. But you conduct an inner dialog with yourself, but with a goal; to answer a question.

Yes, that's what I mean by meditative state..where I disengage from associating sensory input from memories. But for me there is no inner dialog with myself apart from the discovery of seeing that I already contain all the answers to any question that arises, and for every question that does arise the answer comes right along side with the question itself.

There is no goal involved for me, there's just a relaxing back into the pure essence of awareness being and watching what spontaneously arises without any effort on my part. I see that I am being lived, and that there is 'no me' living a life, rather life is living me.
But that said..I can alternate between the two worlds at will. Two worlds meaning 'being' and 'not being'. I can dissociate from being a 'someone' in the world and see the oneness and unity of everything working as one unitary action, and at the same time I am totally engaged with being a 'someone' by associating with that dynamic even though I am aware that there is no such thing as a 'someone' living life except the idea in this conception of myself. Point is I never dissociate from ordinary everyday living, I have to put on the mask of otherness in order to function as a human being in the world. But I know there is nothing behind the mask, that's the difference with the way I live my life since awakening to the dream of separation.

I get down to the state of "this blank not-knowing presence of being during meditation by dissociating sensory input from remembered information. But I never draw conclusions or anything from meditation. It's more gaining control over attention and placing that in the sensory signals you are receiving from the environment at the present. When you are doing that, then you hit the, if you will, ' know nothing being'. When you block all memory from your consciousness, the sense of 'self' does recede, and you are left with the mere awareness of being. I think that must be the origin of the idea that there is no self. I think that what we think of as 'self' is composed of the integrated memories of all of our life experience.

Yes, I totally agree with that analogy.

When you receive a signal from the environment, it creates an electrical impulse to the brain, where the memories of similar electrical impulses reside. It calls forth those memories, and the electrical impulse is read and understood by virtue of the relationships between the current impulse and remembered impulses. This is the real content of thinking consciousness. But underneath the experiential layer, there is this awareness of being which seems to be without content.

As near as we can get to a consciousness without experience is a neonate, although much has been written about what fetuses experience during gestation. And there are certain born-in memories which we call 'instinct', which memories are coded in the DNA of the gametes. So a neonate has little to relate his sensory input to in order to understand it. He has a small consciousness, which will grow with experience. As the young human experiences more and more of the world, he can relate current sensory experience to more and more past experience and doing this mash-up is what we commonly think of as consciousness.

The 'awareness of being' empty consciousness of the neonate becomes the adult consciousness after 18 years of experience of integrating memory with current sensory input. Guilio Tonini's Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness goes so far as to say that the "awareness of being" type of consciousness arises when the amount of integrated information reaches a certain level. He says that it could be a phase change like water turning to steam when there is enough heat. Experiential data, (electric impulses) becomes information when it is related to remembered experiences, which are stored in the same electrical impulse idiom. Information becomes conscious information when there is enough of it. We need to have witnessed a lot of similar relationships for consciousness to burst forth from the sub-conscious. The relationship between current experience and remembered experience is eerily similar to the way AI gets better at recognizing objects with a bigger training set.

Well for me it seems quite difficult describing to another what it is like to have a direct subjective experience of oneness. I have no idea as to how I am experiencing consciousness at all, but I am aware even though I have no idea what or how awareness is being...I can only conceptualise the 'what's' and the 'how's' and the 'why's' about awareness, even though I intuitively know conceptualising reality is a fictional overlay upon what I already AM..So I am aware I cannot approach what I AM using a concept. In fact there is no approaching this at all via descriptive measures which is only ever adding more paint to the screen obscuring the whole seeing of it all together. In reality we focus on the paint, never the blank screen upon which it's appearing, but this is understandable, for there is nothing to see otherwise.

For me, it's as simple as the trinity concept...when Latent Awareness (Father) knows Sensation Consciousness (Mother) Mind (Child) is born...and these three aspects are the same ONE THING interacting with itself...in that Awareness is never born, only the mind is born, aka the awareness becoming conscious of it's own unborn awareness. This makes perfect sense to me, but to others, it might sound like a load of nonsense, but it matters not to me because only I am experiencing what it is like to be aware here, so it's only ever my direct experience that no thing else can penetrate to prove me wrong or right...that's my job.

As I have said, change is realized by comparing current sensory input to similar, remembered sensory input.

I totally concur.

For me, I only know I exist when I demand knowledge, and all my knowledge comes from memory. So for me, memory is the only place I can exist, because where there is no memory, there is no sense of me although behind the sense of 'me' lies hidden in plain sight this pure blank space of awareness or oneness which is the real 'me' aka the I AM nothing and everything.

I don't know. I think it must be relative. I believe that the world does change relative to a given consciousness, but not necessarily to any other consciousness. Even if everything that happens exists timelessly in one big block, the individual viewpoint is changing as the individual encounters new experience (as he continues his lifeline through the block universe). Our senses are indicating something. Each of us interprets the world in accordance with his personal experience. Our senses send us electrical impulses for what they encounter, and these impulses, together with memory, create higher consciousness. And Higher consciousness becomes more conscious with more experience.

Ok, thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I appreciate your input on the matter, and I see this is how you experience this from your own unique lens of perception that is your direct experience.

.

[surreptitious57]

Does the word mind mean the exact same thing as the word human

To me they do not mean absolutely exactly the same thing but they can still be treated as interchangeable terms
More specifically when one is talking about human minds but obviously not when one is talking about other minds

What is important here is that one clearly defines terms that they are using where those terms may not be dictionary definitions
Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive because language is organic and evolves naturally rather than something set in stone

[surreptitious57]

By the way as for the actual temporary or not position of ones own existence you will have to be wait and see

My existence within this body is temporary as I will eventually die just like all living things do
Equally so I will also carry on existing in another form after this body of mine no longer exists