Page 3 of 7

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:41 pm
by -1-
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:31 pm

But in reality, consciousness is everywhere, it's the same as the world, it's not "ours". With some training one can get rid of the above hallucination.

(And of course 100% of all known evidence supports this view.)
If you, ATLA, are relying on the fact that you believe others have consciousness, then it's still not a proof that there is only one and we just partake in it.

That would be saying that all creatures that have legs and feet have only one leg and foot, and they partake in this leg/foot.

My consciousness is as much my own and everyone's is as much their own as my/their legs, stomachs, and noses.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:42 pm
by Atla
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:37 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:31 pm

But in reality, consciousness is everywhere, it's the same as the world, it's not "ours". With some training one can get rid of the above hallucination.

(And of course 100% of all known evidence supports this view.)
Lots of evidence supports this view to be false.

If someone kicks his dog, do you feel the dog's pain? If someone else other than you has an orgasm, do you feel the pleasure? If yes, you're a lucky guy as at any given time of the day there are literally tens of millions of orgasms going on concurrently.

Do you have my thoughts? Do you have my feelings? Do you know when I am hungry, horny, tired, have to pee?

I so don't buy this "common consciousness" idea.

If, as you say, 100% of evidence supports this view, then you'd be able to give me three simple instances of the theory's claim, wouldn't you.

So I ask you to please give me three instances of evidence that supports your claim, inasmuch as it is "consciousness is everywhere, it's the same as the world, it's not "ours"".
Of course I don't feel the dog's pain because the dog is over there and I'm here. What are you talking about?

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:05 pm
by -1-
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:42 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:37 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:31 pm

But in reality, consciousness is everywhere, it's the same as the world, it's not "ours". With some training one can get rid of the above hallucination.

(And of course 100% of all known evidence supports this view.)
Lots of evidence supports this view to be false.

If someone kicks his dog, do you feel the dog's pain? If someone else other than you has an orgasm, do you feel the pleasure? If yes, you're a lucky guy as at any given time of the day there are literally tens of millions of orgasms going on concurrently.

Do you have my thoughts? Do you have my feelings? Do you know when I am hungry, horny, tired, have to pee?

I so don't buy this "common consciousness" idea.

If, as you say, 100% of evidence supports this view, then you'd be able to give me three simple instances of the theory's claim, wouldn't you.

So I ask you to please give me three instances of evidence that supports your claim, inasmuch as it is "consciousness is everywhere, it's the same as the world, it's not "ours"".
Of course I don't feel the dog's pain because the dog is over there and I'm here. What are you talking about?
But you hear the dog bark, despite it's over there, but you don't sense its consciousness. Or do you sense the dogs consciousness when he gets closer? I contest that you do. Consciousness is individual, and I assert there is no evidence to support the idea that consciousness is everywhere.

But I shan't jump into conclusions before I hear the evidence.

Please provide that evidence you asserted exists.

You mentioned that 100% evidence supports the shared consciousness idea. I wish to hear from you three instances of the evidence. Please provide.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:19 pm
by Atla
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:05 pm
But you hear the dog bark, despite it's over there, but you don't sense its consciousness. Or do you sense the dogs consciousness when he gets closer? I contest that you do. Consciousness is individual, and I assert there is no evidence to support the idea that consciousness is everywhere.

But I shan't jump into conclusions before I hear the evidence.

Please provide that evidence you asserted exists.

You mentioned that 100% evidence supports the shared consciousness idea. I wish to hear from you three instances of the evidence. Please provide.
You have it all backwards of course, like everyone else. You are the one asserting an extra claim here: that consciousness is individual.

But matter, stuff, behaves everywhere the same in the known universe, there has never been any sort of evidence whatsoever that would imply that it produces something extra in an organism's head.

The default hypothesis is that the world is consciousness, they are one thing not two. 100% of science is consistent with this picture.

You are the one making an extra claim so provide evidence.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:26 pm
by -1-
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:19 pm
You (you being -1-) have it all backwards of course, like everyone else. You are the one asserting an extra claim here: that consciousness is individual.
Of course. I explained it already, if you cared to read my posts.

Here it is in a shorter version: I have two legs. Many people have legs. Dogs have legs, mountains have legs.

Do you say that the world is leg?

"There are legs on every mammal, and bird species. So it's pretty prevalent, and therefore denying that the world is leg is faulty logic."

Now substitute "consciousness" for "leg" and you see my point.

The entire topic has nothing to do with dualism.

If the whole world was consciousness, we'd feel each other's feelings. But we don't. Therefore I assert that the "whole world is one consciousness" is a false theory.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:33 pm
by Atla
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:26 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:19 pm
You (you being -1-) have it all backwards of course, like everyone else. You are the one asserting an extra claim here: that consciousness is individual.
Of course. I explained it already, if you cared to read my posts.

Here it is in a shorter version: I have two legs. Many people have legs. Dogs have legs, mountains have legs.

Do you say that the world is leg?

"There are legs on every mammal, and bird species. So it's pretty prevalent, and therefore denying that the world is leg is faulty logic."

Now substitute "consciousness" for "leg" and you see my point.

The entire topic has nothing to do with dualism.

If the whole world was consciousness, we'd feel each other's feelings. But we don't. Therefore I assert that the "whole world is one consciousness" is a false theory.
Your argument uses an idealistic conception of consciousness, which is based on dualism.

But consciousness doesn't have to do with feelings anymore than it does with rocks. Feelings of organism A are located in organism A, so why would organism B feel them?

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
by Sculptor
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:37 am
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:22 pm
The mind and consciousness are a property of the brain. They are/ it is what the brain does.
By saying mind is a property of the brain, you mean a possession,
What a stupid suggestion! LOL


or a quality?
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.

If it is a possession, you did not describe it. Similarly to how one can say "These widget-hookers are mine." What are widget-hookers? the sentence gives no clue as to that.

If it is a quality, you are still hedging the defining of the concept. "My house is blue." Okay, but what's blue? Everyone knows what blue is. But here the question is what is mind/consciousness. Questioned in a way which presupposes none of us knows how it is defined. So it is not known, and you come and chime in to say mind / consciousness is / are a quality of the brain. Which tells nothing to a being what mind / consciousness is.

I think you are wrong in saying that your answer is the best. I think mine is. (Which was "none of us know what we are talking about.")

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:04 pm
by waechter418
Mind can imprison as well as liberate itself. Liberating is an act of Will & Love and can thus bring about Selfrealisation.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:15 pm
by -1-
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:37 am
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:22 pm
The mind and consciousness are a property of the brain. They are/ it is what the brain does.
By saying mind is a property of the brain, you mean a possession,
What a stupid suggestion! LOL


or a quality?
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.

If it is a possession, you did not describe it. Similarly to how one can say "These widget-hookers are mine." What are widget-hookers? the sentence gives no clue as to that.

If it is a quality, you are still hedging the defining of the concept. "My house is blue." Okay, but what's blue? Everyone knows what blue is. But here the question is what is mind/consciousness. Questioned in a way which presupposes none of us knows how it is defined. So it is not known, and you come and chime in to say mind / consciousness is / are a quality of the brain. Which tells nothing to a being what mind / consciousness is.

I think you are wrong in saying that your answer is the best. I think mine is. (Which was "none of us know what we are talking about.")
Sculptor, "property" as in "property of something" can only mean two things: it is the possession of something, or a quality of something. If it's something else, state what it is.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:18 pm
by -1-
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:33 pm

Your argument uses an idealistic conception of consciousness, which is based on dualism.

But consciousness doesn't have to do with feelings anymore than it does with rocks. Feelings of organism A are located in organism A, so why would organism B feel them?
Becasue you are incredibly biassed and hide behind buzz words to hide the fact you don't know what you are talking about and when you find someone who says to you that your argument does not hold water, you simply ignore their valid arguments?

Perhaps.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
by Sculptor
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:15 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:37 am


By saying mind is a property of the brain, you mean a possession,
What a stupid suggestion! LOL


or a quality?
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.

If it is a possession, you did not describe it. Similarly to how one can say "These widget-hookers are mine." What are widget-hookers? the sentence gives no clue as to that.

If it is a quality, you are still hedging the defining of the concept. "My house is blue." Okay, but what's blue? Everyone knows what blue is. But here the question is what is mind/consciousness. Questioned in a way which presupposes none of us knows how it is defined. So it is not known, and you come and chime in to say mind / consciousness is / are a quality of the brain. Which tells nothing to a being what mind / consciousness is.

I think you are wrong in saying that your answer is the best. I think mine is. (Which was "none of us know what we are talking about.")
Sculptor, "property" as in "property of something" can only mean two things:..
Only if you are an idiot. Since a "brain" is not a legally defined person, it cannot OWN a property.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
by AlexW
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 am
By mind, I mean the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
Sounds a lot like what I would call consciousness (even it doesn't "do" anything as you seem to propose), but if you prefer to call it "mind".. ok..
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 am
I have an argument for the existence of mind: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist therefore A has to vanishes before B is caused. There is however nothing when A vanishes and B cannot possibly be caused by nothing. Therefore, there should exist a mind which experiences A and causes B.
You are looking at this the only way you can - via and as thought.
Its only ever thought that identifies states A and B, it requires memory aka thought to state that A has been here before and now state B has been reached. It also requires thought/memory to detect causation.
No thought means: no state A, no state B, no causation.

But mind/consciousness IS whether there is thought or not - and what if (in reality) there is ONLY mind/consciousness?
What happens to causation, state A, B etc if there is only one "thing" (which is not really a thing)?
Do states or causation make any sense at all if there is only mind? Obviously not... it only makes sense once thought gets involved and introduces duality/separation - when it attempts to cut mind/consciousness into pieces... only then can you have state A, B and causation.
Mind/consciousness itself is perfectly independent of any states, it is uncaused - only apparent things can be caused and appear/vanish.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:11 am
by -1-
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:32 pm
I said it was a property of the brain. No a quality.
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:04 am
Since a "brain" is not a legally defined person, it cannot OWN a property.
So since you say consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain... and it is neither a quality, nor a thing of the brain... so what is it you are saying? PROPERTY BY DEFINITION IS EITHER A QUALITY OR A POSSESSION. YOU SAY IT'S NEITHER. SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE "PROPERTY" WHEN IT IS NEITHER A POSSESSION NOR A QUALITY?

Because you deny you meant by "property" all and any of the meanings that the language gives to the word "property", if you don't provide your own idiosyncratic definition to what you mean by "property", then, obviously, you are talking nonsense.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:42 am
by Atla
-1- wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:18 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:33 pm

Your argument uses an idealistic conception of consciousness, which is based on dualism.

But consciousness doesn't have to do with feelings anymore than it does with rocks. Feelings of organism A are located in organism A, so why would organism B feel them?
Becasue you are incredibly biassed and hide behind buzz words to hide the fact you don't know what you are talking about and when you find someone who says to you that your argument does not hold water, you simply ignore their valid arguments?

Perhaps.
I know what I'm talking about. Again: consciousness in the nondual sense has nothing to do with feelings, the idea that the two are connected is just a Western philosophy hallucination.
Why is taking a hallucination for granted, and using it as an argument, valid?

The problem with you is the same as with Greta and uwot, you three realize that there is a lot you don't understand, but still vastly underestimate just how much that is.

Think of it this way: feelings happen in consciousness just as rocks happen in consciousness. In other words both feelings and rocks are part of existence. What Westerners think of as "consciousness", is actually a mixture of two components that have basically nothing to do with each other. One is what goes on in someone's head which is local, the other one is existence itself which is universal.

Re: proposition (1)

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:07 pm
by Ramu
Or you could say that one is relative and the other absolute