Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[RCSaunders]

You can’t think about any thing without conceiving it...

No thing conceives itself. If a thing conceived itself then what conceived the thing that conceived itself..there are no answers Steve..no explanation needed to describe nothingness.

This is not for you, Dontaskme, but for anyone reading this who might be wondering what you are talking about.

What Steve should have said is, "you can't think anything without a concept for it." Conceiving, in epistemology means being conscious of a concept (or sometimes the process of forming a concept).

Dontaskme's statement, whether intentional or not, gives an entirely different meaning to the word, "conceive." Conceiving, as Steve used it and any honest person would understand it, does not mean, "giving birth to," or "creating" as Dontaskme implies, it simply means you cannot have a thought about anything without a concept that identifies it, or a word which is the symbol for the concept. It is pretty difficult to think or talk about anything without ever identifying it.

[surreptitious57]

The electromagnetic spectrum is a mind independent phenomenon not a mind dependent one so therefore
the colour something is depends on its frequency within the spectrum not what the mind imagines it to be

But how can the ES phenomena be independent of mind ?

Electromagnetism as a phenomena has existed for virtually all of known time long before any minds ever did
It therefore cannot be mind dependent because if it was then it would be impossible for it to pre date minds

[surreptitious57]

I know you have used this independent from mind idea many times and I still dont get what you mean by that idea
Can you explain in coherent detail what you mean by the knowledge of something is independent of the mind .... thanks

Actual knowledge of something cannot ever be mind independent but what I mean by that statement is that the thing in question however can be

Minds are not infinite or eternal only finite so it is entirely possible that other phenomena existed before they did [ which they did of course ]
As I have already stated minds are a relatively new phenomena in cosmological terms so there will be much that actually does pre date them

So anything therefore that does [ basically all natural phenomena ] cannot either logically or temporally be dependent upon them
Everything that is fundamental about observed reality existed long before minds ever did - energy / matter / light / space / time

[surreptitious57]

What if LIGHT was just another word for MIND or CONSCIOUSNESS

That would be rather confusing given that light is a mind independent phenomenon
The electromagnetic spectrum has nothing to do with either mind or consciousness

The MIND or CONSCIOUSNESS that you are specifically referring to here is not what is usually meant by those terms
It is a bad idea to explain metaphysics using scientific terminology given how they are entirely separate disciplines

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme's statement, whether intentional or not, gives an entirely different meaning to the word, "conceive." Conceiving, as Steve used it and any honest person would understand it, does not mean, "giving birth to," or "creating" as Dontaskme implies, it simply means you cannot have a thought about anything without a concept that identifies it, or a word which is the symbol for the concept. It is pretty difficult to think or talk about anything without ever identifying it.

People read into knowledge in their own unique way that is understandable to them.

Many times I have read symbolic words here at the forum not having any idea what is being pointed to.

In my opinion we each understand reality according to our own unique take on it that is directly experiential to us only. If others resonate then there can be an exchange of mutual understandings ..more often though there can be a lost in translation scenario triggering the demand to ask clarifying questions to the other.

Any honest person would understand that 'concepts' do not identify a 'thought'' ...any 'thought' is the 'concept' in the exact same instance..identity is formed of the formless ..identity IS NOT formed from the form aka a concept known... the known cannot know anything, for what is known is sourced in the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

A word symbolised is not the 'thing' identifying the 'thought' ..the symbol is the 'thought' in the exact same instance...else the symbol could not be known...a concept known is instantaneously one with consciousness.
A concept is being conceived every time it is KNOWN.....known instantly as knowledge one with the knowing.

There is no 'you' having a 'thought'...there is no 'you' who is conscious of a 'thought'. The 'you' is a 'conceptual thought' known only by Consciousness. The concept of 'you' doesn't know or conceive or understand anything, a concept is KNOWN aka conceived BY CONSCIOUSNESS. . and the conceived KNOWN cannot know anything because what is KNOWN cannot be KNOWN because every 'thought' is invisible, it is empty to the core.

So how to go about describing a concept KNOWN which is empty at it's core...? would go something like this...Any description of a doughnut hole has to be about the doughnut... meaning both consciousness and the known conceptual contents of consciousness are needed to describe the other...which are only ever one in the same instant...the known concepts of EMPTY consciousness IS consciousness knowing itself as an image of the imageless. All that is happening is emptiness describing it's own emptiness using concepts...in other words, filling nothing up with something...which in essence is the same nothing.

Knowledge thereof informs the illusory nature of reality....''Einstein is quoted as saying..'' life is a dream albeit a persistent one.''


Without 'thought' consciousness has no concept of itself, 'thought' gives illusory birth to consciousness in this conception/ as conceived...as there is no 'thought' possible without a consciousness aware and knowing the 'thought' instantly as and when it arises.
Consciousness is the unborn, becoming born as it identifies with 'thought' albeit illusory, since the unborn cannot be born except in this artificial conception..aka knowledge.

Although 'thought' is sourced within consciousness and known only by consciousness means that all concepts point to the illusory nature of reality meaning that any concept known does not know anything in the same context no concept can conceive itself because it doesn't exist except an imagined thing..so the words 'concept' aka 'conception' aka 'conceive' are imagination ..no thing has ever been born, concepts exist and are known as fictional knowledge only...as conceived artificially as and through the mind of 'thought' ..ultimately there is no thing conceiving any thing..things are only imagined as they are artificially conceived aka KNOWN by no thing..aka consciousness.


Conceiving a 'thought' is 'knowing' the 'thought'..aka having a concept of something is having knowledge of something...but it's not the concept itself that has the knowledge of itself. No concept has ever been seen, no concept has knowledge of itself, all concepts are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness which also has no knowledge of itself except in this artificial conception...as conceived via 'thought'

.

.

[Skepdick]

you cannot have a thought about anything without a concept that identifies it

Begging the question: Can you have a thought about concepts without having a concept for a concept?

[Dontaskme]

you cannot have a thought about anything without a concept that identifies it

Begging the question: Can you have a thought about concepts without having a concept for a concept?

The 'you' believed to have a 'thought' is a concept known.

A concept cannot conceive itself, nor know itself...it's already being known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be known, it is the knowing that cannot be known.

Any attempt to pin down the knower and we are back into infinite regression...altering the knower into the known which knows nothing, ultimately never quite catching up with the true knower..which is instantaneously now..always and forever one with itself.

.

[Skepdick]

The 'you' believed to have a 'thought' is a concept known.

A concept cannot conceive itself, nor know itself...it's already being known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be known, it is the knowing that cannot be known.

But you are talking about concepts.

Are you telling . me that you are doing that without having conceptualised the concept of a concept?

Are you telling me that you are speaking without thinking? Because I can believe that...

[Dontaskme]

The 'you' believed to have a 'thought' is a concept known.

A concept cannot conceive itself, nor know itself...it's already being known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be known, it is the knowing that cannot be known.

But you are talking about concepts.

Are you telling . me that you are doing that without having conceptualised the concept of a concept?

Are you telling me that you are speaking without thinking? Because I can believe that...

Believe what you want pal, it's your imagined belief.

For this one here...There is no 'you' talking.

Both the 'speaker' and the 'hearer' are not the 'no thing' in which they appear...as conceptually conceived, understood by association..as and through the medium of the mind... They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

Aka infinite expression appearing in-finitely.

.

[Dontaskme]

But how can the ES phenomena be independent of mind ?

Electromagnetism as a phenomena has existed for virtually all of known time long before any minds ever did
It therefore cannot be mind dependent because if it was then it would be impossible for it to pre date minds

So what you are basically saying here is that...

Knowledge of any concept can only exist in spacetime. . the place of known knowledge, and that even the concept of 'mind' is knowledge known in spacetime...and that that knowledge within spacetime is not dependant on a knower knowing that knowledge.

That's basically what you've said here isn't it? ..is that right? if so..then what knows the pre-dated knowledge described as the ES phenomena existing in known spacetime if there was no knower present there as you've already addimtted there was no knower there..?

How can pre-dated knowledge be known to exist if there was no knower around to know it at the time? how can what was independant of a knower be suddenly known now.. where does this sudden knower of pre-dated knowledge come from that didn't according to your logic exist at one point in time? ..but does exist now?

If there was no knower of pre-dated knowledge, but now there is a knower of pre-dated knowledge, then that pre-dated knowledge that was once unknown can only be known because of a knower existing NOW...and CANNOT be known in any other time line? ..so who or what is the other knower that knew pre-existing knowledge had no knower present to know it existed ...who is the other knower outside of what can only be known as knowledge now?

In other words is IT not better to say that pre-dated knowledge without a knower can only ever exist in a knower that is now? ..otherwise what the heck knows there was no knower present in the pre-dated knowledge known now...does that even make sense to you?

Does it make sense to announce a knowledge that was absent of a knower of that knowledge existing which can only be known now... as you have done here?

Is it not better to say that the knower of any knowledge is alway NOW... and that knowledge of any thing can only ever be known now...?



.

[Dontaskme]

So anything therefore that does [ basically all natural phenomena ] cannot either logically or temporally be dependent upon them
Everything that is fundamental about observed reality existed long before minds ever did - energy / matter / light / space / time

I do get what you are saying here..but only in the context of my own understanding, in that the words described as existing aka 'thoughts' CONCEPTUALISED ...must already exist prior to becoming known..else they cannot be conceived of, there can not be a knowing awareness of any thing unless that thing already exists in the one who conceives it into existence in other words become aware of what was previously unknown.. so it takes a conceiver to conceive..and that to me is where the mind comes into the equation. The mind too is a conception..because only concepts are KNOWN...here now...there is no knowledge of the conceiver because that can only be known in the concept..so each concept is a fiction, simply because it's sourced in the unknown unknowable. But what can the mind do with the unknowable nothingness?...therefore it forms an identity out of it's own artificially constructed concept..aka an imagined character.

Can't have a concept without a conceiver, they have to exist in the exact same instantaneous moment. NOW

Therefore, (knower/knowing/known) are ultimately ONE entire whole totality...phenomena appearing NOW and only NOW.

.

[SteveKlinko]

We know there are millions of different Colors and variations within Colors. So I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Millions?
Are you sure it's not billions?
Perhaps quadrillions?

We 'know' as many colours as we are able to quantize from the light spectrum between 380 to 740 nanometers.

I am not trying to say anything. I am pointing out that your claim begs a question.

The question: "How many different colors are there?" is rather similar to the mathematical question of "How many real numbers are between 380 and 740?"

Unless you can answer that question first, it's rather difficult to say how many colours there are...
There are as many colours as you can distinguish. How many CAN you distinguish?

It is probably true that there are more Colors than we can distinguish. How many Colors there are is a good question but it is not the point of this thread. The point of this tread is: How do we See the Colors that we can See?

[SteveKlinko]

Steve -

What us your point? Sure, we don’t need eyes to ‘see’ as we can also ‘see’ with our hands, ears etc.,. Why should I concern myself with “redness”?

From the phenomenological perspective I would say I experience “redness” due to the hue, tone, brilliance etc., of said “redness”. I cannot imagine a “redness” absent of tone or brilliance. So I’ve just ‘shown’ you what happens when I focus on redness.

Is there anything else you’d like to add or a question you’d like to pose?

You are talking about the different qualities of Redness. Each quality hue, tone, Brilliant or Dull is just another Color. The question remains: regardless of the hue, tone or brilliance: How do you See (Experience) that Color. Do you not recognize that The Redness is a thing in itself? Do you believe that Redness does not even exist?

[SteveKlinko]

First of all, you never See the Object itself in the way you think you do.

Since I totally disagree with this premise I'll not comment on the rest.

If you believe you never, "See the Object itself in the way you think you do," there is no way you can know that what you are seeing is related to actual objects or not, you only think they are.

Very true, but after a whole life time of using this Detection method we find that it works pretty good. But it also makes Hallucinations, Delusions, and Illusions possible. We do have to be careful.

[Skepdick]

How many Colors there are is a good question but it is not the point of this thread. The point of this tread is: How do we See the Colors that we can See?

What kind of answer are you looking for and how much fidelity do you expect?

Are you satisfied with the primitive models of mind-body dualism, or are you looking for a neuroscientific explanation which understand the human brain as a complex system.
Do you care about things like 'retinas', 'cones and rods', 'optical nerves', 'lateral geniculate nucleus', 'visual cortices' or.... what?

If any one of those components in the system fail - you would not 'see' color. And if those systems fail in a particular way you could even end up tasting color.