Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:42 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:44 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:33 am
Only the 3 listed Phenomena are entirely internal Experiences. I never said that there was no External World. For example when you are Awake and looking at a scene of objects in the External World the Brian/Mind mechanism creates the Internal Conscious Light that lets you See the scene. The Internal Conscious Light scene is Correlated with the External Physical World scene. Because of this Correlation you understandably think you are Directly Seeing the objects in the scene. This Internal Conscious Light Visual scene that you See is how you Detect the External World. You don't See the External World like you think you do, but rather you are always Seeing your Internal Brain/Mind generated Conscious Light representation of it.
Very good...I totally understand and get that description, well said.

It's almost like the brain is literally living as and through itself only ..here now nowhere as this manifested world...there is no ownership or copyright of the brain, there is only the brain braining...the brain is not on the inside of a 'someone' nor is it on the outside of a 'someone'...because there is no 'middle man' experiencing what is essentially ONLY LIGHT manifesting ALL AT ONCE...so even the appearance of a shadow in the form of a ''body'' is nought but the LIGHT. Colour aka constrast is nought but the appearance of the same one invisible LIGHT fragmented into many aspects of the same one LIGHT

Light cannot experience itself as a shadow, it can only reflect a CONtrast aka a representation from within it's own self that is not an experience.
LIGHT IS this IMMEDIATE presentation, never a representation, except in this CONception.

Any known SELF is a mirage brought about by imageless images reflecting back upon itself..The manifest world of sound and light is meer shadow of itself..the colourless world of colour...known only by association via contrast in this artificial conception of LIGHT itself.

This IMMEDIATE presentation cannot be known or seen...only the representation of what cannot be known or seen is known and seen.
AKA.. a mirage.

.

If the brain is the source of consciousness and the external world is known and seen, then that external world is also the internal world simultaneously. In other words there is no exact actual location of consciousness at all. It's everywhere at once one without a second.

.

Steve, when I read your posts about consciousness they help me better my own understanding of what consciousness means to me, so thank you.

.
You're Welcome. You say some Mysterious things that make me think. The Oneness thing still evades me but I'm working on it.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7476
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:26 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:42 am
You're Welcome. You say some Mysterious things that make me think. The Oneness thing still evades me but I'm working on it.
Of course, oneness is a difficult concept to grasp via the conceptual mind, because concepts known automatically divide the (all knowing I ) which is always and ever ONENESS ...into many apparent 'knowers'......aka many individual I's

Oneness is the unborn....so how does the unborn ever know or experience itself? ...it does so via it's own concept of itself born of the mind, so here only the mind is born which is just an aspect of the unborn oneness...the concept is an appearance of oneness appearing as itself as and through the many aspects of itself....The unborn appearing to be born as conceived in this conception known. It's not ( the known concept of I ) that knows..the concept is being KNOWN by the unborn I

So no concept has ever been seen nor conceived since all known concepts are the activity of mind, aka as and through a ''thought'' source unknown.
All that is known is an illusion of the unknown source, albeit a very convincing illusion. It's an illusion that works, else there would be no point to it at all. It has to work, it has to be convincing...but ultimately nothing is real...the sages and mystics have known this truth for eons.

...and yet it's such a simple shift in perception, it's basically what the sages call dying to the idea you are your identity, aka your symbolic label...placed upon oneness via 'thought'...by noticing that prior to the name given to you at birth, you existed without any awareness of your existence. So how did you become aware you existed prior to becoming aware you existed?
The answer is...before your birth you were pure not-knowing awareness, then after your birth you were the exact same pure not-knowing awareness NOW popped aware of your pure not-knowing awareness as KNOWN in your conception....aka you are now the known concept of your prior not-knowing. You are now the not-knowing known. An apparent duality within the nondual you.

Knowing you know is what creates the world of duality. .but that knowing you know is not known by a person, it is known by the not-knowing oneness that is consciousness itself.

Awareness is unknown without the world of otherness to reflect it's own mirror image back to itself ..to become (the known)

Essentially, awareness unknown becomes known to itself in the form of symbolic images it has conceived within itself and projected to appear outside of itself as an image of itself... so what's happening here is the formless mind/consciousness projects an image / label onto itself giving rise in effect to the experience of selfhood as known as and through that image of itself, in this conception. The image is known instantly by association as conceived via the 'projected thought'
But notice the conception aka 'thought' is never seen or known, by the 'thought' itself... the 'thought' is being seen and known, by the awareness of it.. which is a verb in every instant.

Another way of approaching oneness..albeit illusory, because oneness is an imagined idea .. source unknown... so it's only ever oneness approaching itself anyway as imagined.. and that other way is to think backwards.
Become aware of the ''thought'' that places an image upon it's not-knowing emptiness....notice there is an awareness already present of each and every thought/image without the need to be identified with those thoughts/images.

But although Awareness is nothing without an concept/image of itself via thought...it doesn't need 'thought' to BE... 'thought' can be absent from awareness, in that awareness doesn't need to to have an image of itself to be...as proved in deep dreamless sleep when no 'though't is present...that state aka the stateless one state OF AWARENESS is always present..and that is how to know oneness...aka pure not-knowing awareness.

The reason why no 'person'..aka a 'thought' has not been able to crack the hard problem of consciousness is because ''thought'' doesn't know anything, 'thought' is already being known by oneness itself...'thought' is already within that which 'thought' apparently is seeking. So as soon as 'thought' becomes a seeker of it's own source, it's in big trouble, it is unknowingly dividing oneness into two...that automatic function within oneness itself is the illusion of otherness...it is the causeless cause of an artificial effect, in the form of a divide ..obscuring what is already oneness in every moment...so it is when 'thought' thinks back to the source of 'thought' eliminating it's entire existence as it once artificially 'thought' itself to be...is when it seemingly can get a peek into the nothingness in which it arises and falls away without a trace.

That nothingness is also everything simultaneously because while everything can be 'thought' about, nothingness cannot be 'thought' about, because that would require oneness to be on the outside of it's own arena looking back in on itself...so any looking back in on itself has to come within itself only...to see the source of it's own source...this has to be done within source itself which is oneness aka consciousness...because there is nothing outside of that arena...except it's own projected image of itself via 'thought' already couched within it's own imageless source.

.

In a nutshell Steve...when what is looking aka consciousness is looking for what is looking aka consciousness inside of what it's looking at, aka it's projected conception aka ''thought'' aka it's imagined image of it's previously unknown imageless self... it's in big trouble...because consciousness is in no image of itself, it is the projector of the image only...the images come and go in it. IT NEVER COMES OR GOES...because it's unborn and undying.

.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:45 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
You dont See the External World like you think you do
The external world as it truly is is never seen by us at all because we cannot process that much detail
We instead see the world within the physical limitations of our capabilities and anything else is missed

The human eye can see less than one per cent of what actually appears on the electromagnetic spectrum
Therefore most of observable reality is entirely absent from our visual representation of what we can see

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7476
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:12 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:45 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
You dont See the External World like you think you do
The external world as it truly is is never seen by us at all because we cannot process that much detail
We instead see the world within the physical limitations of our capabilities and anything else is missed

The human eye can see less than one per cent of what actually appears on the electromagnetic spectrum
Therefore most of observable reality is entirely absent from our visual representation of what we can see
Although absolutely ''everything'' is the only 'thing' happening all at once simultaneously right now. For when one thing is known aka NOTHING, every thing is known...aka EVERYTHING.

Not-knowing consciousness can only KNOW one frame of reference at a time as and when that knowledge appears known as and through the instrumental mechanism of KNOWING aka the mind..conceptually known as time...the mind of knowledge is an appearance within spacetime duality....since time is what stops the entire field of knowledge aka the totality of all there is infinitely aka nondual reality... happening all at once.

Known spacetime is the dual illusory appearance of what is essential nondual reality one without a second...appearing one frame of reference at a time and while one frame is being veiwed, nothing else is happening...because all happenings can only happen in spacetime duality..aka as in a dream within the infinite not-happening dreamer.


You are the infinite dreamer dreaming your unique frame of reference dream right now...there is nothing outside of that arena for you here, for what you think is outside of you happening there, is only here in you the whole time. There is nothing happening outside of your own unique frame of reference...except more dreams happening within yourself here only.

You are no thing dreaming it is a thing. You are no man dreaming you are a man.

Every apparent OTHER ..( I ).....is the same ONE DREAMER dreaming from the unique frame of reference as and through that ( I ) which is everywhere at once...appearing to be localised within the particular frame of reference...albeit illusory since any frame of reference is a 'thought' it's the dream of separation.

.

.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:02 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:45 am
The external world as it truly is is never seen by us at all because we cannot process that much detail
We instead see the world within the physical limitations of our capabilities and anything else is missed

The human eye can see less than one per cent of what actually appears on the electromagnetic spectrum
Therefore most of observable reality is entirely absent from our visual representation of what we can see
What secret method do you have for knowing that there is an external world different from the one you see?

How do you know about the electromagnetic spectrum? What information did you deduce that from. If what you see is not the world as it actually is, what world do you use for your scientific investigation? If the one you perceive is not the actual world, wouldn't any reasoning based on that incomplete distorted information be incomplete and distorted as well?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:26 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:42 am
You're Welcome. You say some Mysterious things that make me think. The Oneness thing still evades me but I'm working on it.
Of course, oneness is a difficult concept to grasp via the conceptual mind, because concepts known automatically divide the (all knowing I ) which is always and ever ONENESS ...into many apparent 'knowers'......aka many individual I's

Oneness is the unborn....so how does the unborn ever know or experience itself? ...it does so via it's own concept of itself born of the mind, so here only the mind is born which is just an aspect of the unborn oneness...the concept is an appearance of oneness appearing as itself as and through the many aspects of itself....The unborn appearing to be born as conceived in this conception known. It's not ( the known concept of I ) that knows..the concept is being KNOWN by the unborn I

So no concept has ever been seen nor conceived since all known concepts are the activity of mind, aka as and through a ''thought'' source unknown.
All that is known is an illusion of the unknown source, albeit a very convincing illusion. It's an illusion that works, else there would be no point to it at all. It has to work, it has to be convincing...but ultimately nothing is real...the sages and mystics have known this truth for eons.

...and yet it's such a simple shift in perception, it's basically what the sages call dying to the idea you are your identity, aka your symbolic label...placed upon oneness via 'thought'...by noticing that prior to the name given to you at birth, you existed without any awareness of your existence. So how did you become aware you existed prior to becoming aware you existed?
The answer is...before your birth you were pure not-knowing awareness, then after your birth you were the exact same pure not-knowing awareness NOW popped aware of your pure not-knowing awareness as KNOWN in your conception....aka you are now the known concept of your prior not-knowing. You are now the not-knowing known. An apparent duality within the nondual you.

Knowing you know is what creates the world of duality. .but that knowing you know is not known by a person, it is known by the not-knowing oneness that is consciousness itself.

Awareness is unknown without the world of otherness to reflect it's own mirror image back to itself ..to become (the known)

Essentially, awareness unknown becomes known to itself in the form of symbolic images it has conceived within itself and projected to appear outside of itself as an image of itself... so what's happening here is the formless mind/consciousness projects an image / label onto itself giving rise in effect to the experience of selfhood as known as and through that image of itself, in this conception. The image is known instantly by association as conceived via the 'projected thought'
But notice the conception aka 'thought' is never seen or known, by the 'thought' itself... the 'thought' is being seen and known, by the awareness of it.. which is a verb in every instant.

Another way of approaching oneness..albeit illusory, because oneness is an imagined idea .. source unknown... so it's only ever oneness approaching itself anyway as imagined.. and that other way is to think backwards.
Become aware of the ''thought'' that places an image upon it's not-knowing emptiness....notice there is an awareness already present of each and every thought/image without the need to be identified with those thoughts/images.

But although Awareness is nothing without an concept/image of itself via thought...it doesn't need 'thought' to BE... 'thought' can be absent from awareness, in that awareness doesn't need to to have an image of itself to be...as proved in deep dreamless sleep when no 'though't is present...that state aka the stateless one state OF AWARENESS is always present..and that is how to know oneness...aka pure not-knowing awareness.

The reason why no 'person'..aka a 'thought' has not been able to crack the hard problem of consciousness is because ''thought'' doesn't know anything, 'thought' is already being known by oneness itself...'thought' is already within that which 'thought' apparently is seeking. So as soon as 'thought' becomes a seeker of it's own source, it's in big trouble, it is unknowingly dividing oneness into two...that automatic function within oneness itself is the illusion of otherness...it is the causeless cause of an artificial effect, in the form of a divide ..obscuring what is already oneness in every moment...so it is when 'thought' thinks back to the source of 'thought' eliminating it's entire existence as it once artificially 'thought' itself to be...is when it seemingly can get a peek into the nothingness in which it arises and falls away without a trace.

That nothingness is also everything simultaneously because while everything can be 'thought' about, nothingness cannot be 'thought' about, because that would require oneness to be on the outside of it's own arena looking back in on itself...so any looking back in on itself has to come within itself only...to see the source of it's own source...this has to be done within source itself which is oneness aka consciousness...because there is nothing outside of that arena...except it's own projected image of itself via 'thought' already couched within it's own imageless source.

.

In a nutshell Steve...when what is looking aka consciousness is looking for what is looking aka consciousness inside of what it's looking at, aka it's projected conception aka ''thought'' aka it's imagined image of it's previously unknown imageless self... it's in big trouble...because consciousness is in no image of itself, it is the projector of the image only...the images come and go in it. IT NEVER COMES OR GOES...because it's unborn and undying.

.

.
More food for thought. Thank You. I think you are talking about generalized Consciousness and the concept of the Self that are part of some One Consciousness. I can't remember if you have addressed the question that I always ask: Simply, what is the Redness of the color Red? I could ask what is the Colorness of any of the Colors. The Redness of Red is a Mind generated Phenomenon that exists only in the Mind. But what is it? I'm sure finding out what it is will involve some kind of Conscious Self concept. The Redness is a thing in itself that defies Explanation by any Scientific analysis. It has nothing to do with Wavelengths of Electromagnetic Energy. You can See Redness in Dreams where there is obviously no Electromagnetic Energy. So What is the Redness itself?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7476
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:19 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:47 pm

I can't remember if you have addressed the question that I always ask: Simply, what is the Redness of the color Red?
Steve, the problem here is in the question itself..because until it is known 'who or what' is asking the question - what can be known about anything, really?
The fact that things are known just informs the mind there is a knowledge available, but then this knowing of knowledge poses another question..'who or what' is the knower of knowledge ??...again, we come back to the same problem, which then begs another question..'who or what' is the MIND?


Steve, the hardest question to answer is 'who or what' is asking the question 'what is the Redness of the colour Red ?
When that is known then there would be no more asking the question ( 'what is the Redness of the colour Red ? )


My logic Steve, tells me that we can only answer questions with the knowledge we already have about the questions, in that there can be no question without already knowing the answer .. else a particular question wouldn't exist...so in effect no question can go unanswered, the answer to every question must also exist.
All our answers must include either ( I know) or ( I don't know yet ) there CANNOT be an outright ( I DON'T KNOW) answer to a question, else the question wouldn't exist.


The only question that cannot be answered effectively absolutely.. is 'who or what' is asking the question?..in other words (where / what / who is it that wants to KNOW) ?

Does the colour Red say it's Red? Does the colour Red ask what or why or how it's Red? ... so 'who or what' is asking the question? what is the mind? what is knowing? who is knowing, why is knowing, how is knowing, where is knowing?

Can the seer be separated from what it's looking at? aka (knowing)...when it is clear (seer and seen and seeing) is one unitary action, so how can 'one thing' KNOW exist?

That's the hardest question to answer?

Shall we start here Steve? ..start by asking ...How can 'One Thing' KNOW it exists?

When that is known, then that KNOWER will surely know all the answers to any question it has.



.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:09 am

You two may find aesthetics a more stable pursuit. The tail chasing exercise of articulating in words what cannot be expressed in words will end in solipsism and/or nihilism. Then again, it may lead to a closer scrutiny of logic?

At the moment the past few posts seem to be stuck in an epistemic bubble. What are you hoping to achieve here by constantly selecting, deselecting and reselecting different functions for certain worded concepts? After all “brain” and/or “mind” as ‘perceived’ so it is a nonsense to talk of the brain process light input when the very ‘brain’ you’re referring to is an item of perception.

Th ‘redness’ of ‘red’ is just more wordplay. Colour perception requires space as does form. Time perception requires change. You simply cannot imagine a colour ‘contained’ beyond space. No one is ever ‘conscious’ of the colour red. We are conscious of SOMETHING red.

Does any of this help or help or should I go elsewhere?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:24 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:19 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:47 pm

I can't remember if you have addressed the question that I always ask: Simply, what is the Redness of the color Red?
Steve, the problem here is in the question itself..because until it is known 'who or what' is asking the question - what can be known about anything, really?
The fact that things are known just informs the mind there is a knowledge available, but then this knowing of knowledge poses another question..'who or what' is the knower of knowledge ??...again, we come back to the same problem, which then begs another question..'who or what' is the MIND?


Steve, the hardest question to answer is 'who or what' is asking the question 'what is the Redness of the colour Red ?
When that is known then there would be no more asking the question ( 'what is the Redness of the colour Red ? )


My logic Steve, tells me that we can only answer questions with the knowledge we already have about the questions, in that there can be no question without already knowing the answer .. else a particular question wouldn't exist...so in effect no question can go unanswered, the answer to every question must also exist.
All our answers must include either ( I know) or ( I don't know yet ) there CANNOT be an outright ( I DON'T KNOW) answer to a question, else the question wouldn't exist.


The only question that cannot be answered effectively absolutely.. is 'who or what' is asking the question?..in other words (where / what / who is it that wants to KNOW) ?

Does the colour Red say it's Red? Does the colour Red ask what or why or how it's Red? ... so 'who or what' is asking the question? what is the mind? what is knowing? who is knowing, why is knowing, how is knowing, where is knowing?

Can the seer be separated from what it's looking at? aka (knowing)...when it is clear (seer and seen and seeing) is one unitary action, so how can 'one thing' KNOW exist?

That's the hardest question to answer?

Shall we start here Steve? ..start by asking ...How can 'One Thing' KNOW it exists?

When that is known, then that KNOWER will surely know all the answers to any question it has.



.
Yes, the answer to my question will probably involve some sort of Conscious Self concept because Redness is experienced by Something. The quest for the answer to Redness will drive the answer to what that Something is.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:35 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:09 am
You two may find aesthetics a more stable pursuit. The tail chasing exercise of articulating in words what cannot be expressed in words will end in solipsism and/or nihilism. Then again, it may lead to a closer scrutiny of logic?

At the moment the past few posts seem to be stuck in an epistemic bubble. What are you hoping to achieve here by constantly selecting, deselecting and reselecting different functions for certain worded concepts? After all “brain” and/or “mind” as ‘perceived’ so it is a nonsense to talk of the brain process light input when the very ‘brain’ you’re referring to is an item of perception.

Th ‘redness’ of ‘red’ is just more wordplay. Colour perception requires space as does form. Time perception requires change. You simply cannot imagine a colour ‘contained’ beyond space. No one is ever ‘conscious’ of the colour red. We are conscious of SOMETHING red.

Does any of this help or help or should I go elsewhere?
Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness. It is a thing in itself disconnected from any object. That is what you need to do to understand the question. Redness is a pure Conscious Experience existing only in our Minds. What is it? How is it generated? How does the Mind Experience it?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:44 am

RCSaunders wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
The external world as it truly is is never seen by us at all because we cannot process that much detail
We instead see the world within the physical limitations of our capabilities and anything else is missed

The human eye can see less than one per cent of what actually appears on the electromagnetic spectrum
Therefore most of observable reality is entirely absent from our visual representation of what we can see
What secret method do you have for knowing that there is an external world different from the one you see?

How do you know about the electromagnetic spectrum? What information did you deduce that from? If what you see is not the world
as it actually is what world do you use for your scientific investigation? If the one you perceive is not the actual world would not any
reasoning based on that incomplete distorted information be incomplete and distorted as well?
The external world is different to the one we see because of the limitations of the eye like I already said
We cannot see radio waves / X rays / gamma waves / micro waves yet they are all part of physical reality
We also cannot see dark matter or dark energy that between them account for 96 per cent of the observable Universe
When you cannot see or account for that much then the reasoning is going to be very incomplete and distorted indeed

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by RCSaunders » Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:25 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:44 am
When you cannot see or account for that much then the reasoning is going to be very incomplete and distorted indeed
Except yours, of course.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7476
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Yes, the answer to my question will probably involve some sort of Conscious Self concept because Redness is experienced by Something. The quest for the answer to Redness will drive the answer to what that Something is.
Steve...the colour Red is a conceptual experience consciousness is having. Known only to consciousness itself, there is no direct experience of a concept ..for the concept is already known to consciousness. Without the word Red...what is Red?
Red is not really there, it’s a conceptual known aka a contrasting shadow of Light. There is only light, every shadow has it’s source from light only.. all colour is the illusion of light. There is no colour separate from it’s source.
Source ..Light..Consciousness...are all just different names for the same thing...Consciousness or light is this immediate un-known knower of a concept but consciousness is not a something ...the something is the concept known...and that which is known cannot know anything.in that does the Red colour know it is Red?

The colour Red is known only to that which is unknowable....science will never be satisfied with that answer and is why the quest continues, because science does not want the quest to come to an end.

Red is a concept ..it is the colour of the colourless. The knowing of the unknown. An image of the imageless. Red’s only existence in reality is an illusory shadow of the light...it owes it’s existence to the Light only...there is only Light.

So the only question is how does light see and experience it’s own light?

The answer is as and through it’s own illusory projection of itself. How does it do that?

Imagine it.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:31 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:35 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:09 am
You two may find aesthetics a more stable pursuit. The tail chasing exercise of articulating in words what cannot be expressed in words will end in solipsism and/or nihilism. Then again, it may lead to a closer scrutiny of logic?

At the moment the past few posts seem to be stuck in an epistemic bubble. What are you hoping to achieve here by constantly selecting, deselecting and reselecting different functions for certain worded concepts? After all “brain” and/or “mind” as ‘perceived’ so it is a nonsense to talk of the brain process light input when the very ‘brain’ you’re referring to is an item of perception.

Th ‘redness’ of ‘red’ is just more wordplay. Colour perception requires space as does form. Time perception requires change. You simply cannot imagine a colour ‘contained’ beyond space. No one is ever ‘conscious’ of the colour red. We are conscious of SOMETHING red.

Does any of this help or help or should I go elsewhere?
Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness. It is a thing in itself disconnected from any object. That is what you need to do to understand the question. Redness is a pure Conscious Experience existing only in our Minds. What is it? How is it generated? How does the Mind Experience it?
There is no other way to think of “red”. There is no possible experience of “red” disconnected from some conceived ‘object’. I could just as easily tell you to stop focusing on ‘red’ and focus on the ‘object’.

What ou seem to be vaguely outlining here is the phenomenology view - one I’m accustomed to.

Skepdick
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:14 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:35 am
Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness.
Are you thinking of the "Redness" now:

███████████████████████████████████████

How about now?

███████████████████████████████████████

And now?

███████████████████████████████████████

Did you experience a different "Rednesses" each time? You should have... because the above are all different colors.

FF0000, FF0100 and FF0001

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests