Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

[AlexW]

It depends on the amount of space-time you budget for the decision-making process.

I leave that up to you
Do you have a formula worked out?

Anyway, I was trying to make you (well, not actually you, but doesn’t matter) see that these alternatives really only exist in thought. Remove thought and life simply happens, no decision making process to be found anywhere.

But decisions are made via thought, right?
Now we only have to figure out if a thought can really make a decision...
The alternative is that thoughts simply happen, just like the rest of life.
Have a look, not a thought, but a real close look, and see...

[Logik]

Remove thought and life simply happens, no decision making process to be found anywhere.

Now we only have to figure out if a thought can really make a decision...
The alternative is that thoughts simply happen, just like the rest of life.
Have a look, not a thought, but a real close look, and see...

Sure. Thought happens in Oracle machines. Thought is an oracle machine. Potato potatoh.

Distinction without a difference.

Remove thought and all those things you call 'society' and 'culture' disappear.

Remove the Oracle machine and the sentence above disappears. You are reading the sentence above because I DECIDED to type it.
Whereas I could've gone for a cup of coffee instead.

[AlexW]

Sure. Thought happens in Oracle machines. Thought is an oracle machine.

Thought happens in thought? Sorry, I don’t understand...

Remove thought and all those things you call 'society' and 'culture' disappear.

True, and decisions as well.


“You are reading the sentence above because I DECIDED to type it.”

No, you typed it because this was the spontaneous reaction at the moment.
The idea “I have decided it” was an afterthought.

Can you choose/decide which thought to think next?
If not... how exactly do you make a decision?

[Logik]

No, you typed it because this was the spontaneous reaction at the moment.

I found myself idle.
I had 5 minutes to spare.
I recognized that I can reply to you OR get coffee.

I literally gave up coffee to reply to you... You ungrateful sod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

[Logik]

If not... how exactly do you make a decision?

I evaluate what I want (values/desires).
I evaluate what resources I have at my disposal (time/money/energy).
I choose which option brings me closer to my desires given the opportunities in front of me.
I act on the option.

[Logik]

Thought happens in thought? Sorry, I don’t understand...

You don't have to understand everything. At some point you just have to accept that certain things are beyond language or human understanding and the law of non-contradiction is a pipe dream thanks to the incompleteness of human knowledge.

Thought is an emergent property. It happens in brains.
I conceptualize my mind (and this is where your brain misfires because of the recursion) as an Oracle machine.
It is a conceptual and pragmatic truth. A necessary evil to enable model-constructive thought.

Kolmogorov and Tarski explained to us why a machine cannot describe itself so I am well aware that my conception of my own mind is just a model...

[Atla]

Do you think using words like "idiot" somehow makes your made up conclusions more right?

Wrong again, calling idiots idiots helps keep things in perspective.

(What about the other obvious "footnote"? Have you considered that one also? If not, then why not? That "footnote", by the way, is the actual Truth of things. Why have you not worked out what the Truth is yet?)


For the readers, I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum. I do this to point out and SHOW how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings, in the days of when this is written. However, curiosity usually jumps to the forefront when some things are written. We will wait and see.

All you show the "readers" is your insanity. Again: curiosity doesn't lead to discovering some magical "actual Truth of things" that you think you have access to.

I told you this about 20 times now. Why do you think you failed to grasp it 20 times? Then you would have to admit to yourself that you're just another nutcase with a huge delusion.

[Dontaskme]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

The moon is a KNOWN conceptual perception (an appearance) within the perceiver.
( ''within'' ) being the important factor here. In that an appearance is not actually external to you, everything that appears to be outside of you is actually appearing within you, inseparable from you. ''YOU'' being the first person subjective consciousness.

To 'you', how many 'you's' are there?

ONE

Without a conscious observer no thing can possibly KNOWS it exists. Therefore, consciousness is the only knowing there is. And there is nothing outside of that KNOWING.

Why do 'you' propose such a thing?

If, as you propose, consciousness is the only knowing, then why do 'you' say that there can NOT be thing outside of consciousness?

Because consciousness is all there is, it's without beginning or end, it's infinity now.

There is nothing outside of infinity. And nothing inside it either, for what is inside/outside except as a known concept arising here now in consciousness that has no known begining nor end...which is another term for everything and nothing existing simultaneously here now infinitely for eternity.

Concepts are relative to itself only which is 'not a thing' formless consciousness appearing as a formed thing or put another way, form is relative to itself only aka formless source, the shapeless formless being the ultimate shapeshifter that can take on many forms while it itself is formless ..forms being illusions of the formless.

If, for example, there is consciousness/knowing of a "moon", then surely that would suggest that there is A thing outside of the consciousness/knowing, right?

See above answer.

If a conscious observer is seeing things, then that suggests that there ARE things, to see and observe, correct?

A conscious observer is not the seer, it is the seeing that cannot be seen, it's a verb. What is seen is what is seeing, there is no separation.

There is no moon without a perceiver present to perceive it...and the moon will only be a KNOWN conceptual appearance within the perceiver that must be first, so the moon does not and cannot exist outside or external to the perceiver...

Why are you saying and/or suggesting that there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver? What evidence do you have for this?

Direct experience is the only evidence and it's not even evidence, it doesn't need evidence ..IT IS... NO such need for evidence for that would require a prover, but it's totally self evident via direct experience, no need for a prover, it doesn't require or need a middle man. Everything perceived can only be known if there is a preceiver present aware of itself as known. I am that instantaneous knowing when that knowing arises here.

How many perceiver's are there existing?

ONE

Who/what is A 'perceiver'?

It's not a who or a what... It just IS...

Where does a perceiver exist?

Everyhwere and Nowhere simultaneously.

How long have perceiver/s been existing for?

Time is a known conceptual idea, a thought appearance within timeless infinity..aka consciousness perceiving and knowing itself.

Where do perceiver/s come from if there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver first?

Perceiver and Percieved are one in the same instant which is NOW...NOW is the only place there is. This is it, source right here now manifesting all at once.

the moon is inside the perceiver, so both the moon and that which is perceiving the moon do not and cannot possibly exist separately in the same sense that wetness does not exist separate from water.

So, A perceiver encompasses absolutely EVERY thing, and ALWAYS HAS, that is if THINGS have always existed also, correct? If, however, THINGS have not always existed and there still needed to be a perceiver FIRST, then in what shape and/or form was the perciever existing in, prior to 'things', which could be observed, coming into existence? But, if things ONLY exist because of A perceiver, then that would mean that while A perceiver is existing, then so are ALL the "other" things, which you say are inseparable from the perceiver.

The perceiver doesn't have a form, it's formless shapeless conciousness taking the shape of shape and form according to what concept /perception is placed upon itself.

Any relationship or division between observer and observed is purely conceptual, so all concepts are illusory fictional characters within the infinite observer, therefore a character does not and cannot exist in and of itself separate from the perceiver/ KNOWER..which is CONSCIOUSNESS.

Back to; How many actual perceiver's/KNOWER's are there, to 'you'?

ONE

If you want to come across as KNOWING what you are talking about and that you are actually true, right, and correct, then you have to be able to clear up any and all seemingly perceived contradictions and/or absurdities. If not for "others" but for YOU.

Any contradiction is a mental illusory projection of the mind, mind being an aspect of consciousness, projection is the content of consciousness itself knowing itself, the mind being the sense of separation, the dual aspect of nondual consciousness. Your own mind is getting in the way causing the consciousness that you already are to appear twice as in ''I know I am consciousness'' but that knowing I am is a conceptual thought appearing to itself only the only knowing there is... which is consciousness. Nondual Consciousness and the contents of Consciousness (the duality of split mind the unknown knower)... are the same ONE consciousness interacting with itself appearing to itself appearing as two, but not two.

And yes, the concept of ONE thing existing is absurd, and yet here it is. Ta Da!

.

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

Wait, In the response to you about sensation in the thread about pain, you seemed to be denying the subjective phenomena of the illusion as relevant. ??

???
You're not making sense.
So, not only do you not speak English but you also don't understand it...
Start using English words according to what they mean in English and we may try a conversation.

If the 'Moon' is not a word you assign to any experience outside of it as a word, then you may be just denying the choice of label, not the reality.

Where is it I seemed to be talking about the word "Moon", do you think? All I did was talk about the Moon and whatever it is I know.
There's a language barrier here. If you don't speak the language, we're not going to understand each other.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon. Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

The moon as you see it, from the physical eyes, does not exist anymore. That moon has already changed in shape and form. So, I do NOT know if the moon exists, at any current moment.

Fair enough.
So, suppose you're looking at the Moon in the sky, would you say you'd know that the Moon at least has existed at some point in the past, say, perhaps a bit more than a second ago, for example?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

You only THINK that the moon exists. You do NOT KNOW this for sure.

Ok, so, is there anything you know?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

How does it follow that if all I know are subjective impressions, then I must know that there is a subjective-objective division?

How does it not follow? You wrote that all you know are subjective impressions.

So?
If you can't articulate your point, I won't do it for you.

You're assuming a lot here.
I would say myself that if you have the impression of looking at the Moon, it's plausible that the impression is based on some sort of image or representation in your head. It's also plausible that the image is a model of some real thing out there which would be the actual Moon. All that in the subjunctive.

But here you are talking about an impression based on some sort of image or representation in your head, that's two things. But the image IS the impression, or a part of the impression. Again some unnecessary subjective-objective duality.

No, the image is not the impression. Words matter and I mean what I say. If you don't understand, try again. The impression of looking at the Moon can only be based on some sort of image. It can't be the image itself. An image is not an impression. There's no "image of looking at the Moon".
And I'm definitely not talking about "objective". It's all yours.

Does exist?! You're just assuming that having an impression you are looking at the Moon entails that there is a Moon being looked at. You don't actually know that.

Then likewise you can't actually know that your impression exists or not, since no subjective-objective duality was ever found. Same thing.

Whenever I have an impression, there is an impression and I know I have an impression. If I don't know I have an impression, then I don't have an impression and there is no impression. How could I have the impression of looking at the Moon if I don't know the impression that I am looking at the Moon or if there is no impression to begin with?
And this has nothing to do with an subjective/objective duality.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

The moon is a KNOWN conceptual perception (an appearance) within the perceiver. ( ''within'' ) being the important factor here. In that an appearance is not actually external to you, everything that appears to be outside of you is actually appearing within you, inseparable from you. ''YOU'' being the first person subjective consciousness. Without a conscious observer no thing can possibly KNOWS it exists. Therefore, consciousness is the only knowing there is. And there is nothing outside of that KNOWING. There is no moon without a perceiver present to perceive it...and the moon will only be a KNOWN conceptual appearance within the perceiver that must be first, so the moon does not and cannot exist outside or external to the perceiver... the moon is inside the perceiver, so both the moon and that which is perceiving the moon do not and cannot possibly exist separately in the same sense that wetness does not exist separate from water. Any relationship or division between observer and observed is purely conceptual, so all concepts are illusory fictional characters within the infinite observer, therefore a character does not and cannot exist in and of itself separate from the perceiver/ KNOWER..which is CONSCIOUSNESS.

But I didn't ask whether you knew the appearance of the Moon within your consciousness. I'm not even talking about that. I'm asking if you think you know the Moon.

The Moon
1. The natural satellite of Earth, visible by reflection of sunlight and having a slightly elliptical orbit, approximately 363,100 kilometres distant at perigee and 405,700 kilometres at apogee. Its mean diameter is 3,475 kilometres, its mass approximately one eightieth that of Earth, and its average period of revolution around Earth 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes calculated with respect to the sun.

Do you know it? Yes or no?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Although I cannot demonstrate it I think that the physical world is mind independent so think the
moon exists as an object in its own right rather than as a mental construct of my own imagination
The reason why I think the physical world is mind independent is because it cannot be manipulated at will
I cannot change it which means it is beyond my control and therefore cannot be something created by me

Ok, so, what is it you can change exactly?

[Logik]

The Moon
1. The natural satellite of Earth, visible by reflection of sunlight and having a slightly elliptical orbit, approximately 363,100 kilometres distant at perigee and 405,700 kilometres at apogee. Its mean diameter is 3,475 kilometres, its mass approximately one eightieth that of Earth, and its average period of revolution around Earth 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes calculated with respect to the sun.

Do you know it? Yes or no?

42

Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer.

I do not know the chemical composition of The Moon.
I do not know the shape of the gravitational field of The Moon.
I do not know the topography of The Moon.
I do not know the flattening of The Moon.

I have absolutely no idea as to the fidelity/precision of the model in your head which you call "The Moon".
I have absolutely no idea which features you have included in the abstraction or which features you have excluded etc.

If an exact replica of The Moon could be represented with 10^100 bits of information, how much of this information must exist in my head for me to claim that I "know" The Moon?

5%? 10%? 50%? 95%? 100%?