An afterlife and forgetfulness

[RCSaunders]

Again, our senses are mentally-based, not bodily-based.

"Mental," only pertains to the human mind and those unique aspects of human consciousness, volition, rationality, and intellect. All higher animals consciously perceive (see, hear, feel, smell and taste) existence, but it's not, "mental."

The human does not have a mind, except in the concepts conception of itself.

The human mind is that aspect of human consciousness that has concepts. It's what no other animals have.

[Dontaskme]

Again, our senses are mentally-based, not bodily-based.

"Mental," only pertains to the human mind and those unique aspects of human consciousness, volition, rationality, and intellect. All higher animals consciously perceive (see, hear, feel, smell and taste) existence, but it's not, "mental."

The human does not have a mind, except in the concepts conception of itself.

The human mind is that aspect of human consciousness that has concepts. It's what no other animals have.

Animals do not know they are animals.

'Human' is a concept known not by a human, but by consciousness, the only knowing there is.

Concepts do not know anything because they exist as ideas only within consciousness. What is an idea? what is consciousness? No conceptual thing can answer those questions.

[RCSaunders]

The human does not have a mind, except in the concepts conception of itself.

The human mind is that aspect of human consciousness that has concepts. It's what no other animals have.

Animals do not know they are animals.

'Human' is a concept known not by a human, but by consciousness, the only knowing there is.

Concepts do not know anything because they exist as ideas only within consciousness. What is an idea? what is consciousness? No conceptual thing can answer those questions.

Speak for yourself. I have no problem answering them.

It's actually quite silly to use terms like, "idea," and, "consciousness," and then claim you do not know what they are. If you don't know what ideas and consciousness are, how could possibly know no one else does?

[Dontaskme]

Speak for yourself. I have no problem answering them.

It's actually quite silly to use terms like, "idea," and, "consciousness," and then claim you do not know what they are. If you don't know what ideas and consciousness are, how could possibly know no one else does?

Concepts are known, every word is a concept known by the ONLY knowing there is. ''Only'' meaning one without a second.

The known is Knowledge which can only point to the illusory nature of existence. You are consciousness the only knowing there is. Consciousness cannot know consciousness without splitting into two things which would be knower and known, subject and object, which is impossible, because subject and object / knower and known are inseparably one in the exact same instance of knowing.
Oneness does not make any claim to know, oneness is always this immediate knowing that cannot be known, because it is one without a second, no one knows this.

.

[seeds]

You seemed very confused about psychology.

First of all, let me address a major problem in your reply.

The fact that in one post you say the following...

Nope! A dream is nothing more than free-running imagination (because one is not conscious to control it)...

...and in the very next post say this,...

I am a lucid dreamer. I am almost always aware that I am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...

...shows me that you have no problem making contradictory statements in the course of a debate.

I mean, did you think that I wouldn't notice that in one breath you insist that one is NOT "conscious" enough in a dream to "control" it, and then in the very next breath you say that you are almost always "aware" (conscious) of your dreams, and can thus "manipulate" (control) them?

Sheesh!

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to the heart of your concerns...

You cannot dream anything the parts of which were not originally actually experienced while awake.

I'm not denying that our inner (again, mind-based) sensing structures need to be "primed," so to speak, with samplings (memories) of what we call "reality" in order to have something to work with as we use those samplings in the willful construction of our thoughts and dreams.

Indeed, I have created several illustrations that attempt to demonstrate that our thoughts and dreams are simply un-ordered, low-resolution replications of the extremely ordered, high-resolution reality of the universe, both of which are created from a similar (informationally-based/holographic-like) substance.

(Note: don't worry about trying to read the small and blurry text; just look at what the drawings are suggesting)...



Furthermore, I am also not denying that we receive the abovementioned "priming" through the five sensory "windows" of our body that allow our "central consciousness" access to the outer reality of the universe.

(And by "central consciousness" I am talking about that "I" you keep referencing when you stated: "...("I") am a lucid dreamer. ("I") am almost always aware that ("I") am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...")

However, do you actually believe that if scientists could somehow create a device that could hook up to the unconscious, inanimate material structures of the human brain, tongue, and nasal cavity, for example,



...that it (the device) could experience the unique qualia of the taste and smell of an apple or banana?

Or do you concede that it would require the presence of the mind...

(the presence of the "central consciousness"/the "I")

...of the former owner of the brain, tongue, and nasal cavity to sense and experience such qualia?

Now it is needless to say that you (the consummate hardcore materialist) are simply going to insist that all of this is delusional hogwash.

Nevertheless, that will not deter me from suggesting that the physical body, in and of itself, is incapable of sensing anything, and merely functions as a sort of multi-faceted "interface" that connects the inner-dimension of a human mind to the outer-dimension of what I am clearly implying is a higher mind, as is depicted in yet another of my over-used illustrations...


_______

[Atla]

You seemed very confused about psychology.

First of all, let me address a major problem in your reply.

The fact that in one post you say the following...

Nope! A dream is nothing more than free-running imagination (because one is not conscious to control it)...

...and in the very next post say this,...

I am a lucid dreamer. I am almost always aware that I am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...

...shows me that you have no problem making contradictory statements in the course of a debate.

I mean, did you think that I wouldn't notice that in one breath you insist that one is NOT "conscious" enough in a dream to "control" it, and then in the very next breath you say that you are almost always "aware" (conscious) of your dreams, and can thus "manipulate" (control) them?

Sheesh!

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to the heart of your concerns...

You cannot dream anything the parts of which were not originally actually experienced while awake.

I'm not denying that our inner (again, mind-based) sensing structures need to be "primed," so to speak, with samplings (memories) of what we call "reality" in order to have something to work with as we use those samplings in the willful construction of our thoughts and dreams.

Indeed, I have created several illustrations that attempt to demonstrate that our thoughts and dreams are simply un-ordered, low-resolution replications of the extremely ordered, high-resolution reality of the universe, both of which are created from a similar (informationally-based/holographic-like) substance.

(Note: don't worry about trying to read the small and blurry text; just look at what the drawings are suggesting)...



Furthermore, I am also not denying that we receive the abovementioned "priming" through the five sensory "windows" of our body that allow our "central consciousness" access to the outer reality of the universe.

(And by "central consciousness" I am talking about that "I" you keep referencing when you stated: "...("I") am a lucid dreamer. ("I") am almost always aware that ("I") am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...")

However, do you actually believe that if scientists could somehow create a device that could hook up to the unconscious, inanimate material structures of the human brain, tongue, and nasal cavity, for example,



...that it (the device) could experience the unique qualia of the taste and smell of an apple or banana?

Or do you concede that it would require the presence of the mind...

(the presence of the "central consciousness"/the "I")

...of the former owner of the brain, tongue, and nasal cavity to sense and experience such qualia?

Now it is needless to say that you (the consummate hardcore materialist) are simply going to insist that all of this is delusional hogwash.

Nevertheless, that will not deter me from suggesting that the physical body, in and of itself, is incapable of sensing anything, and merely functions as a sort of multi-faceted "interface" that connects the inner-dimension of a human mind to the outer-dimension of what I am clearly implying is a higher mind, as is depicted in yet another of my over-used illustrations...


_______

I once came across an even better contradiction: people who bet on the possibility that there's a God far beyond any human comprehension, and then create detailed theories and presentations about what that God is like and how we relate to it. (And then try to teach that theory to everyone.)

[RCSaunders]

You seemed very confused about psychology.

First of all, let me address a major problem in your reply.

The fact that in one post you say the following...

Nope! A dream is nothing more than free-running imagination (because one is not conscious to control it)...

...and in the very next post say this,...

I am a lucid dreamer. I am almost always aware that I am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...

...shows me that you have no problem making contradictory statements in the course of a debate.

I mean, did you think that I wouldn't notice that in one breath you insist that one is NOT "conscious" enough in a dream to "control" it, and then in the very next breath you say that you are almost always "aware" (conscious) of your dreams, and can thus "manipulate" (control) them?

Sheesh!

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to the heart of your concerns...

You cannot dream anything the parts of which were not originally actually experienced while awake.

I'm not denying that our inner (again, mind-based) sensing structures need to be "primed," so to speak, with samplings (memories) of what we call "reality" in order to have something to work with as we use those samplings in the willful construction of our thoughts and dreams.

Indeed, I have created several illustrations that attempt to demonstrate that our thoughts and dreams are simply un-ordered, low-resolution replications of the extremely ordered, high-resolution reality of the universe, both of which are created from a similar (informationally-based/holographic-like) substance.

(Note: don't worry about trying to read the small and blurry text; just look at what the drawings are suggesting)...



Furthermore, I am also not denying that we receive the abovementioned "priming" through the five sensory "windows" of our body that allow our "central consciousness" access to the outer reality of the universe.

(And by "central consciousness" I am talking about that "I" you keep referencing when you stated: "...("I") am a lucid dreamer. ("I") am almost always aware that ("I") am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...")

However, do you actually believe that if scientists could somehow create a device that could hook up to the unconscious, inanimate material structures of the human brain, tongue, and nasal cavity, for example,



...that it (the device) could experience the unique qualia of the taste and smell of an apple or banana?

Or do you concede that it would require the presence of the mind...

(the presence of the "central consciousness"/the "I")

...of the former owner of the brain, tongue, and nasal cavity to sense and experience such qualia?

Now it is needless to say that you (the consummate hardcore materialist) are simply going to insist that all of this is delusional hogwash.

Nevertheless, that will not deter me from suggesting that the physical body, in and of itself, is incapable of sensing anything, and merely functions as a sort of multi-faceted "interface" that connects the inner-dimension of a human mind to the outer-dimension of what I am clearly implying is a higher mind, as is depicted in yet another of my over-used illustrations...


_______

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

[seeds]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you [sic] Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Ouch!!!...



...That sure is a devastating retort there, Cubby....I'll just wander off into a corner and lick my wounds.
_______

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Why are you sorry? Are you sorry you maybe hurt someone's feelings? If the latter you'd do better to not remark on the cartoons.

[RCSaunders]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you [sic] Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Ouch!!!...



...That sure is a devastating retort there, Cubby....I'll just wander off into a corner and lick my wounds.
_______

Get a life. It's too bad the world is not the way you'd like it to be, "where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." Life is tough and not everyone is going to blow kisses at you. Man up!

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders wrote:

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Why are you sorry? Are you sorry you maybe hurt someone's feelings? If the latter you'd do better to not remark on the cartoons.

It's just an expression. Nothing you say can hurt anyone else. If someone has a negative emotional reaction to something someone else says, it's their own interpretation and evaluation of what is said--their, "hurt," is their own makiing.

I do not care about my own feelings and regard them all as deceptive. Why would I care about anyone else's irrational feelings? I get no joy out of anyone else's pain, but I have no sympathy for those who cause their own suffering.

The cartoons are stupid. How is it a virtue to not point out absurdity?

Why do all you bleeding hearts hate the truth so much?

[seeds]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you [sic] Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Ouch!!!...



...That sure is a devastating retort there, Cubby....I'll just wander off into a corner and lick my wounds.
_______

Get a life. It's too bad the world is not the way you'd like it to be, "where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." Life is tough and not everyone is going to blow kisses at you. Man up!

Cubby, do you actually think I was being serious in the post you are responding to? I couldn't care less about what you think of my "cartoons."

And you have the gall to fancy yourself as being adept at psychology. What a joke.
_______

[Dubious]

You seemed very confused about psychology.

First of all, let me address a major problem in your reply.

The fact that in one post you say the following...

Nope! A dream is nothing more than free-running imagination (because one is not conscious to control it)...

...and in the very next post say this,...

I am a lucid dreamer. I am almost always aware that I am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...

...shows me that you have no problem making contradictory statements in the course of a debate.

I mean, did you think that I wouldn't notice that in one breath you insist that one is NOT "conscious" enough in a dream to "control" it, and then in the very next breath you say that you are almost always "aware" (conscious) of your dreams, and can thus "manipulate" (control) them?

Sheesh!

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to the heart of your concerns...

You cannot dream anything the parts of which were not originally actually experienced while awake.

I'm not denying that our inner (again, mind-based) sensing structures need to be "primed," so to speak, with samplings (memories) of what we call "reality" in order to have something to work with as we use those samplings in the willful construction of our thoughts and dreams.

Indeed, I have created several illustrations that attempt to demonstrate that our thoughts and dreams are simply un-ordered, low-resolution replications of the extremely ordered, high-resolution reality of the universe, both of which are created from a similar (informationally-based/holographic-like) substance.

(Note: don't worry about trying to read the small and blurry text; just look at what the drawings are suggesting)...



Furthermore, I am also not denying that we receive the abovementioned "priming" through the five sensory "windows" of our body that allow our "central consciousness" access to the outer reality of the universe.

(And by "central consciousness" I am talking about that "I" you keep referencing when you stated: "...("I") am a lucid dreamer. ("I") am almost always aware that ("I") am dreaming, and can actually manipulate some dreams...")

However, do you actually believe that if scientists could somehow create a device that could hook up to the unconscious, inanimate material structures of the human brain, tongue, and nasal cavity, for example,



...that it (the device) could experience the unique qualia of the taste and smell of an apple or banana?

Or do you concede that it would require the presence of the mind...

(the presence of the "central consciousness"/the "I")

...of the former owner of the brain, tongue, and nasal cavity to sense and experience such qualia?

Now it is needless to say that you (the consummate hardcore materialist) are simply going to insist that all of this is delusional hogwash.

Nevertheless, that will not deter me from suggesting that the physical body, in and of itself, is incapable of sensing anything, and merely functions as a sort of multi-faceted "interface" that connects the inner-dimension of a human mind to the outer-dimension of what I am clearly implying is a higher mind, as is depicted in yet another of my over-used illustrations...


_______

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Actually I always liked those Micky-Mouse cartoons as you called them. They're quite original! But then, I'm not sophisticated enough - nor anyone else here, I imagine, compared to someone who manages to read 200 books a year.

[seeds]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Actually I always liked those Micky-Mouse cartoons as you called them. They're quite original! But then, I'm not sophisticated enough - nor anyone else here, I imagine, compared to someone who manages to read 200 books a year.

Thank you, Dubious, for your kind remarks.

He would never admit to it, but I think that the old Mouseketeer RCubbySaunders is lashing out at me for pointing out those glaringly contradictory statements he made.
_______

[Dubious]

I'm sorry, I have no interest in you Micky-Mouse cartoons.

Actually I always liked those Micky-Mouse cartoons as you called them. They're quite original! But then, I'm not sophisticated enough - nor anyone else here, I imagine, compared to someone who manages to read 200 books a year.

Thank you, Dubious, for your kind remarks.

He would never admit to it, but I think that the old Mouseketeer RCubbySaunders is lashing out at me for pointing out those glaringly contradictory statements he made.
_______

He makes a lot of statements one must be dubious about. All nice and well, but he's always so certain of what he says that if you catch him in a contradiction or straight-out error, as a self-proclaimed infallible truth-teller, he'll react in much the same way as IC. I've long ceased to give his kind of certainty any credence. For so many like him public forums are merely the means of enhancing oneself from floor level Mickey Mouse to the hot air level of Mighty Mouse.

It's all so common, banal and tiresome.