The 'Mirror Test' and Self-Consciousness of "I"

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

The 'mirror test' is usually used to demonstrate self-recognition in various animals.
Some 'higher' animals [e.g. apes, elephants, dolphins, etc.] are capable of self-recognition.
One point is animals are only capable of self-recognition after the certain age, not when they are babies.

In humans, self-awareness of "I" begin noticeably at 18 months and is reinforced after that.
This imply the development of the self-awareness of "I" begin at birth with the inherent DNA potential and assisted by nurturing after birth.

From the above we can infer the "I" is a developed concept and reality that is dependent upon the subject and environment.
This meant the "I" is not something that is independent of the human conditions.

Theists and some others claim there is an independent "I" in terms of a soul that survives physical death which can go on to have eternal life in heaven.

I have argued and demonstrated the independent "I" or soul claimed by theist is illusory based on a natural transcendental illusion compelled by some fundamental internal psychological drives.

My above explanation is a more tenable explanation than the claim by theists that an independent "I" exists which could eventually meet up with God in paradise.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another question is;

Other than humans and some others, do all living things down to one-cell living things has a potential of an independent "I" that they are not conscious of?
I don't think so.

Self recognition is restricted to a few animals and only humans are capable to recognizing an "I." This is because they have evolved with the potential to do so.
This is indication that the "I" is developed by human consciousness and not that it pre-existed somewhere independent of the human conditions, then eventually leave the human body to enter heaven with eternal life.

This idea of an independent "I" is merely a self-deception to console the very anxious self as a result of some inherent psychological drives.

[Dontaskme]

Another question is;

Other than humans and some others, do all living things down to one-cell living things has a potential of an independent "I" that they are not conscious of?
I don't think so.

Self recognition is restricted to a few animals and only humans are capable to recognizing an "I." This is because they have evolved with the potential to do so.
This is indication that the "I" is developed by human consciousness and not that it pre-existed somewhere independent of the human conditions, then eventually leave the human body to enter heaven with eternal life.

This idea of an independent "I" is merely a self-deception to console the very anxious self as a result of some inherent psychological drives.

All of Life is Enlightenment. It's permanently Awake. It's unborn so cannot die.

Birth and Death is knowledge ...knowledge only pertains within the dream of separation as the duality of opposites(mental constructions of the no thing constructing them) images of the imagless...aka (mindscape)

The human body wakes up the moment it is meant to wake up in the morning and no cause can be identified for the body waking up. Similarly, the mind awakens to enlightenment the moment the mind is meant to awaken to enlightenment, which happens when understanding evolves in the mind that everyone and everything is interconnected as one, though they appear dissimilar and diverse.

The individual cannot experience enlightenment for he ceases to experience individuality when the mind awakens to enlightenment.
The clue to the process of awakening is the mind itself. The mind has evolved in man, and this indicates that the mind is present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom. If the mind were NOT present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom, the mind would not be present in humans either, because life is an evolutionary process and the old, which is present in everything, evolves as the new, and the new is not separate from the old.

.

This idea of an independent "I" is merely a self-deception to console the very anxious self as a result of some inherent psychological drives.

Is all imagined.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another question is;

Other than humans and some others, do all living things down to one-cell living things has a potential of an independent "I" that they are not conscious of?
I don't think so.

Self recognition is restricted to a few animals and only humans are capable to recognizing an "I." This is because they have evolved with the potential to do so.
This is indication that the "I" is developed by human consciousness and not that it pre-existed somewhere independent of the human conditions, then eventually leave the human body to enter heaven with eternal life.

This idea of an independent "I" is merely a self-deception to console the very anxious self as a result of some inherent psychological drives.

All of Life is Enlightenment. It's permanently Awake. It's unborn so cannot die.

Birth and Death is knowledge ...knowledge only pertains within the dream of separation as the duality of opposites(mental constructions of the no thing constructing them) images of the imagless...aka (mindscape)

The human body wakes up the moment it is meant to wake up in the morning and no cause can be identified for the body waking up. Similarly, the mind awakens to enlightenment the moment the mind is meant to awaken to enlightenment, which happens when understanding evolves in the mind that everyone and everything is interconnected as one, though they appear dissimilar and diverse.

The individual cannot experience enlightenment for he ceases to experience individuality when the mind awakens to enlightenment.
The clue to the process of awakening is the mind itself. The mind has evolved in man, and this indicates that the mind is present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom. If the mind were NOT present in matter, vegetation and the animal kingdom, the mind would not be present in humans either, because life is an evolutionary process and the old, which is present in everything, evolves as the new, and the new is not separate from the old.

I agree you are taking the matter of enlightenment to a very refine aspect.

However I do not agree with your using 'it' and the universal mind which is a reification.
You do not seem to be able to let go of everything and just 'be'.
There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans are compelled to see two 'normal' faces in this image.

[Dontaskme]

I agree you are taking the matter of enlightenment to a very refine aspect.

However I do not agree with your using 'it' and the universal mind which is a reification.
You do not seem to be able to let go of everything and just 'be'.
There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans are compelled to see two 'normal' faces in this image.

Your comment made at me regarding ... ''You do not seem to be able to let go of everything and just 'be'.'' ...maybe because I'm in a conversation with you which creates the illusion of otherness? ...obviously when there is no relationship in that there is no communication, then here there is ''just beingness''...so to point out to another that they are unable to ''just be'' while in communication is pointless, are you aware of that?

We cannot discuss anything without the self-referential reference point...that point is sometimes called IT, or, THIS, or, YOU, or THAT... do you not see this ''overlay'' is unavoidable?

So this statement you made here > ''There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans''

Isn't that psychological compulsion part of evolutions programme to be like this?


It was postulated ... ''There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans.''

In this communication there is the use of the word ''YOU'' and then there is also the use of the word ''HUMAN''....doesn't this imply two in one...?


.

[surreptitious57]

The human body wakes up the moment it is meant to wake up in the morning and no cause can be identified for the body waking up. Similarly
the mind awakens to enlightenment the moment the mind is meant to awaken to enlightenment which happens when understanding evolves in
the mind that everyone and everything is interconnected as one though they appear dissimilar and diverse

The individual cannot experience enlightenment for he ceases to experience individuality when the mind awakens to enlightenment. The clue to the process of awakening is the mind itself. The mind has evolved in man and this indicates that the mind is present in matter vegetation and the animal kingdom. If the mind were NOT present in matter vegetation and the animal kingdom the mind would not be present in humans either because life is an evolutionary process and the old which is present in everything evolves as the new and the new is not separate from the old

Yes everything is interconnected to everything else regardless of dissimilarity or diversity
Yes the mind is present in matter since it is a function of the brain which is itself matter

But if one cannot experience enlightenment how do they know if they have been enlightened
As one has to actually experience it because that is the only way to know that it has occurred

And even after enlightenment has occurred one will still be experiencing individuality
One might not perceive of themselves as such but their existence will still be unique

[Dontaskme]

The human body wakes up the moment it is meant to wake up in the morning and no cause can be identified for the body waking up. Similarly
the mind awakens to enlightenment the moment the mind is meant to awaken to enlightenment which happens when understanding evolves in
the mind that everyone and everything is interconnected as one though they appear dissimilar and diverse

The individual cannot experience enlightenment for he ceases to experience individuality when the mind awakens to enlightenment. The clue to the process of awakening is the mind itself. The mind has evolved in man and this indicates that the mind is present in matter vegetation and the animal kingdom. If the mind were NOT present in matter vegetation and the animal kingdom the mind would not be present in humans either because life is an evolutionary process and the old which is present in everything evolves as the new and the new is not separate from the old

But if one cannot experience enlightenment how do they know if they have been enlightened
As one has to actually experience it because that is the only way to know that it has occurred

And even after enlightenment has occurred one will still be experiencing individuality
One might not perceive of themselves as such but their existence will still be unique

Enlightenment is not an experience. There is only mind, one cannot experience mind, one is the mind. There is no begining nor ending to the mind, as it makes clear in the paragraph above...so if there is no start nor end to the mind then this proves the mind in infinite, and that it's one.
Lets not forget here everything in life is a mental creation of that one, known as source.The mind is the uncreated created. Meaning the mind and the contents of mind are the same one, all present and correct seamlessly now without begining nor end. The mind wakes up to itself, in the sense it's the unknown knowing.

The mind knows via the polarity of opposites, it knows because it doesn't know.. and vice versa. The mind is not an object, it is the knower of an object.No object has been seen because the mind has never been seen, objects are known by the mind which is unknowable to the object because the object has no existence separate from it's creator mind... (the knowing)

We're taking about the mind that identifies itself as a separate entity, (an object) and how that identity is an illusory character within the mind, this phenomena is an anomaly factored in by evloution for what ever reason that cannot be known.

No one literally becomes enlightened, enlightenment is knowledge known by the mind, that there is no separation between the mind and the contents of mind (objects)

Everything is just oneness which is known by the mind as enlightenment. It knows oneness because it doesn't know nothingness. It cannot know without also not-knowing. The mind knows nothing of non-existence, (itself) ...because there is only itself as it conceives itself to be in the form of conceptual images, aka knowledge known.

The mind can only know itself as exsiting, as and through known concepts of itself,as imaged images of it's imageless self. It's no self selfing.

So, in the dream of separation where the mind apparently identifies itself with it's content aka the object as being a separate identity with it's own mind..is an anomaly called the dream of separation factored in by evolution...it's unique in every sense of the word, but it's an illusion...appearing real.

Lets not forget that the illusion is every bit convincing as a night-time dream is real upon waking up in the morning..the waking world and the night-time dream world is seen by the same one awareness, the light, and this light is the universal mind.

But who would believe this?



.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree you are taking the matter of enlightenment to a very refine aspect.

However I do not agree with your using 'it' and the universal mind which is a reification.
You do not seem to be able to let go of everything and just 'be'.
There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans are compelled to see two 'normal' faces in this image.

Your comment made at me regarding ... ''You do not seem to be able to let go of everything and just 'be'.'' ...maybe because I'm in a conversation with you which creates the illusion of otherness? ...obviously when there is no relationship in that there is no communication, then here there is ''just beingness''...so to point out to another that they are unable to ''just be'' while in communication is pointless, are you aware of that?

We cannot discuss anything without the self-referential reference point...that point is sometimes called IT, or, THIS, or, YOU, or THAT... do you not see this ''overlay'' is unavoidable?

In a discussion of the conventional, yes we will indulge in
IT, or, THIS, or, YOU, or THAT.

But at the ultimate level of reality, one must qualify to detach from IT, or, THIS, or, YOU, or THAT. One has to be in that state to be spontaneously mindful of such a point.

You are not in such a state to be spontaneously mindful it and that is why you keep arguing for it and using it.
This is also why Buddhism-proper is very particular about this precision that differentiate Buddhism-proper from Advaita Vedanta.

Btw, I am not against Advaita Vedanta which I think is very good spiritually but it is at 'Master Degree' level relative to the Abrahamic religions at Grade School level. Buddhism-proper then is relatively at the PhD level.

Re advaita vedanta there is the atman via the ultimate Bakthi Yoga to merge with the 'ocean' but there is still the ocean. In Buddhism ultimately the ocean evaporated into nothingness.

So this statement you made here > ''There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans''

Isn't that psychological compulsion part of evolutions programme to be like this?

It was postulated ... ''There is a psychological compulsion that compel you to reify nothingness just like all humans.''

In this communication there is the use of the word ''YOU'' and then there is also the use of the word ''HUMAN''....doesn't this imply two in one...?

What is critical in this point is one must understand and recognize this psychological drive to its highest precision and thus understand how it generate transcendental illusions that one grasp to.

Btw, do you have any comments on the images of the two faces above.
The effects are similar and parallel to how end up with the illusory God.
Suggest you say something or if you do not have a clue to what my point is, I will explain my point.

[Dontaskme]

The brain doesn't immediately recognise the differences in a projected image - it's only on reflection, when the differences are known, does the brain then recognise the difference. So what was once unknown ''nondual information'' prior to being seen as differences, aka duality....is now seen in the knowing. And then it is seen that there wasn't ever a prior or after, ...the difference existed purely in the same seer, together in the same moment.

The eye can only see what it knows, what it doesn't know it cannot see.

When the differences are recognised - opposites become known, and the differences can be seen....this is known as the dual nature of nondual reality...differences are only known, never seen. Because the seer is everywhere at once, indivisible. The seer can only know itself, not see itself.



Can't have one without the other. Opposites exist simultaneously as one. Non-duality.

Duality can never be Not-Duality ..duality can never not be Nondual....Duality is Non-Duality.

Your theory is one big epic fail.

.

[Dontaskme]

Btw, I am not against Advaita Vedanta which I think is very good spiritually but it is at 'Master Degree' level relative to the Abrahamic religions at Grade School level. Buddhism-proper then is relatively at the PhD level.

Nope, there is no difference ...because nothingness and ocean are just different concepts pointing to the same empty fullness.

Re advaita vedanta there is the atman via the ultimate Bakthi Yoga to merge with the 'ocean' but there is still the ocean. In Buddhism ultimately the ocean evaporated into nothingness.

Ocean depicts all that is, as it is, this is it.
Nothingness depicts same in the sense of nothingness is the same as everything, all that is, as it is, this is it...it's just expressed differently, but both differences are known conceptual differences... where there isn't any.


Any description about the empty fullness is back in conceptual story again. And description can only arise to the sense of a separate self where there isn't one.


You fail when you attempt to explain the ineffable...including my attempt....all we can do is look beyond what the words are pointing to.

You cannot eliminate God which is just another word for Consciousness which is just another word for Nothingness or what ever word you want to use...without using that which you are trying to eliminate.



.

[commonsense]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

The 'mirror test' is usually used to demonstrate self-recognition in various animals.
Some 'higher' animals [e.g. apes, elephants, dolphins, etc.] are capable of self-recognition.
One point is animals are only capable of self-recognition after the certain age, not when they are babies.

In humans, self-awareness of "I" begin noticeably at 18 months and is reinforced after that.
This imply the development of the self-awareness of "I" begin at birth with the inherent DNA potential and assisted by nurturing after birth.

From the above we can infer the "I" is a developed concept and reality that is dependent upon the subject and environment.
This meant the "I" is not something that is independent of the human conditions.

Theists and some others claim there is an independent "I" in terms of a soul that survives physical death which can go on to have eternal life in heaven.

I have argued and demonstrated the independent "I" or soul claimed by theist is illusory based on a natural transcendental illusion compelled by some fundamental internal psychological drives.

My above explanation is a more tenable explanation than the claim by theists that an independent "I" exists which could eventually meet up with God in paradise.

Views?

Solid argument.

One thing leaves me with an uneasy feeling, though.

If soul could exist, unaware, unattached to “I” but connected to a human before “i” develops, couldn't soul be everlasting?

At the same time, if such a soul could exist, “I” could not lay claim to it, allowing for an everlasting soul, but one that has no connection to “I”?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The brain doesn't immediately recognise the differences in a projected image - it's only on reflection, when the differences are known, does the brain then recognise the difference. So what was once unknown ''nondual information'' prior to being seen as differences, aka duality....is now seen in the knowing. And then it is seen that there wasn't ever a prior or after, ...the difference existed purely in the same seer, together in the same moment.

The eye can only see what it knows, what it doesn't know it cannot see.

That is my point.
Your brain does not understand [recognize] the difference between;
1. The God which you think is real, and
2. The God which is illusory but you think is real.

As I had stated you need deeper understanding and reflection to understand that you have been fooled by your brain to grasp the idea that God exists is real.

You are prevented by your primal brain which is more dominant than your thinking [rational] brain to reflect deeper on this matter due to the existential crisis.

Your cognition that 'God is real' is an illusion,
it is the same as how your brain forces you to see the right face-image as normal, when in reality is not.

When the differences are recognised - opposites become known, and the differences can be seen....this is known as the dual nature of nondual reality...differences are only known, never seen. Because the seer is everywhere at once, indivisible. The seer can only know itself, not see itself.

Again that is my point.

Note you did not know the difference in the face illusion until I told you the truth. You accept my explanation because it is easy to explain and verify an empirical based illusion.

The point is you are now experiencing an illusion [transcendental not empirical], i.e. God exists as real, but you do not know the difference.
Because this illusion of God exists as real is a transcendental illusion [based on thoughts only] it is more difficult to explain plus the resistance is very primal thus very difficult to break through.

I am only discussing the point and I do not expect you to understand or agree with my views. I understand the primal resistance to change from theism to non-theism. Many people suffer terrible withdrawals while changing from theism to non-theism.

Can't have one without the other. Opposites exist simultaneously as one. Non-duality.

Duality can never be Not-Duality ..duality can never not be Nondual....Duality is Non-Duality.
Your theory is one big epic fail.

Yes, I understand duality and non-duality, e.g. Yin-Yang and the Tao, but the Tao is also illusory.

[Dontaskme]

Your cognition that 'God is real' is an illusion,

Is the cognitioner an illusion?

I understand duality and non-duality, e.g. Yin-Yang and the Tao, but the Tao is also illusory.

Is the I that understands the Tao is an illusion ....also an illusion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your cognition that 'God is real' is an illusion,

Is the cognitioner an illusion?

I understand duality and non-duality, e.g. Yin-Yang and the Tao, but the Tao is also illusory.

Is the I that understands the Tao is an illusion ....also an illusion?

Note Cogito Ergo Sum. I Think therefore I AM.
The 'I Think' i.e. the "I" that thinks is an empirical "I" which is not an transcendental illusion.

What you are alluding to is the "I AM" which is the transcendental idea and that is an illusion if claimed to be real.
This "I AM" is the soul that many claim to survive physical death.

[Dontaskme]

Note Cogito Ergo Sum. I Think therefore I AM.
The 'I Think' i.e. the "I" that thinks is an empirical "I" which is not an transcendental illusion.

So the empirical "I" is Awareness without an object?

Note that awareness does not look for differences, it's undifferentiated, it doesn't distinguish ?

What you are alluding to is the "I AM" which is the transcendental idea and that is an illusion if claimed to be real.

Okay, I get that...as in real and unreal pertain to duality the world of conceptual opposites aka knowledge, the dream of separation?

This "I AM" is the soul that many claim to survive physical death.

But this is just an interpretation right?

The I AM doesn't look for differences. ie: birth and death...it is birthless and deathless?

.