A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:24 am “Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭139:12‬ ‭
The 'thee' just being thy True Self, Me.

The human 'person' is the one stuck in the darkness, which is not hidden at all from 'Me', thee, True Self.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
It seems that no matter how many times I say and use the words

If you do NOT assume any thing and do NOT believe any thing then you can and will be
far more open and IF you are completely OPEN then you can and will SEE the Truth of things


They just seem to BE MISSED and / or NOT UNDERSTOOD
Then why cannot you keep repeating those words until they are understood
There is no reason as to why you cannot do this so why not just do that then
Age
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
It seems that no matter how many times I say and use the words

If you do NOT assume any thing and do NOT believe any thing then you can and will be
far more open and IF you are completely OPEN then you can and will SEE the Truth of things


They just seem to BE MISSED and / or NOT UNDERSTOOD
Then why cannot you keep repeating those words until they are understood
Talk about a waste of (mental) energy.

I can do that. WHY did you ASSUME I can NOT?

But just re-repeating the same thing over and over does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' will ever understand it.

If just repeating things over and over would mean that it gets understood, then surely, by now, 'you' would have understood what I have repeated so many times already.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:33 pmThere is no reason as to why you cannot do this so why not just do that then
WHY I do NOT just do that is because 'you' are living PROOF that that way just does NOT work.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what WAY works. But you appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED or NOT UNDERSTOOD that as well.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
If just repeating things over and over would mean that it gets understood then surely by now you would have
understood what I have repeated so many times already
I already do understand what you have repeated many times already even though you think that your words
are being misunderstood or misinterpreted but I cannot speak for how others understand or interpret them
Age
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:30 pm
Age wrote:
If just repeating things over and over would mean that it gets understood then surely by now you would have
understood what I have repeated so many times already
I already do understand what you have repeated many times already even though you think that your words
are being misunderstood or misinterpreted but I cannot speak for how others understand or interpret them
So, why then do you continue to use the wrong and incorrect term "your mind" when obviously no such thing exists?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:Ok, we can move on if that is your desire. ...
Nothing to do with my desire, you said we can't move on until we understand what was said. I was just checking if you'd reached that understanding and as such we could move on.
I can't see how there can be a separate mind - as I see it, the use of words are the only way the idea of any separation becomes apparent. So it is knowledge itself that appears to separate you there from me here... ok? ...
Not really, what separates you and me and us from an external world is being a body. Have you not noticed all the objects you cannot pass through and that are separate from you? This is one of the first things that we learn as a babies, the world is not us.
And then if you think about it closely, the words are appearing out of nothingness, and we label this nothingness THE MIND
So in truth, there is no MIND, except the conception of it via the label no thing is placing on it. ...
If there was nothing then we couldn't label it or even assign labels. It is true that language appears to play a large part in creating the idea of a self or a mind but it is not the case that this is the mind as "mind" is just the word we use to name the experience of being a self aware or self-conscious being.
To be aware of having an experience is to KNOW and to be able to inform yourself of having the experience via knowing which is knowledge informing via words and language that we call the mind. But you already ARE prior to any knowledge of yourself, so in truth, the knowledge of yourself is a fiction. ...
Experience isn't what's happening to you it's how you deal with what's happened to you. 'Mind' isn't just language as if it was Helen Keller would not have been able to do what she did and what is prior to the self of language is the being of a body with senses, memory and language in an external world, it is the ground for everything else that follows and it is no fiction that that is what you are.
It reappears every time a new baby becomes aware of itself via a knowledge IMPOSED upon it. ...
It does not 'reappear' as it is unique and individual to each baby, there is no 'mind-stuff' out there waiting to incarnate in a new-born. No idea what you mean by 'imposed' unless you just mean that we learn the language spoken by our parents and peers?
There is no answer to the whys and hows..of what is mind really because like I said earlier, it's arising out of nothingness. ...
You think this I think because you make the mistaken assumption that without language there'd be no 'mind' but this is wrong as thoughts do not necessarily have to be the internal voice. You keep appearing to think the 'mind' is a separate entity?
There are many answers as to why and how we think but I guess you'd not accept them as you already have decided what the 'mind' is.
I'm referring to knowledge in the sense of what is known, can that which arises from nothingness be anything more than just a pretense in the sense that what is known is a conceptual fact or fiction, believed to be real and true by the nothingness from which it all arises. ...
It doesn't arise from 'nothingness', it arises from being a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.
I'm sorry that this might appear to sound like total woo woo...but this is what nonduality is. This is the reality of the world of beingness.
Personally I think it the usual half-arsed western interpretation of another culture's belief system.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:But to express a thought would require to put that thought into words, so in essence words are frozen thoughts appearing as symbol/image that we can all relate to. Language is the divider and the connecter both. ...
Words are not 'frozen thought' think of them more as catalysts, they do not contain thoughts they invoke them in the other but they need not be the same complex of thoughts, for example, if I say "apple" to you I very much doubt we will have the same thought but we will both understand the meaning of the word. So I agree that due to this language can be divisive which is why words should be chosen carefully and more importantly responses should be listened to if we wish to connect.
Language is just sound heard as words with meaning, and sound appears out of nothingness. ...
But they don't come out of 'nothingness'? They come from being a body with senses, memory and language in an external world communicating with it's fellows.
There is all sorts of sounds coming from the jungle creatures as nature attempts to communicate to itself.
This is a reification of 'nature', 'nature' is not attempting to communicate to itself there are just living creatures communicating with each other.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8477
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:20 amIf there was nothing then we couldn't label it or even assign labels.
Nothing can't be known without making nothing something known. In knowing nothing I know something.
So that which is known knows nothing.

Something and nothing are the same ONE Awareness aware of itself as the other, as one and the same no thing.

The label nothing / no thing is just another label for awareness that is every living being.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8477
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:20 am It does not 'reappear' as it is unique and individual to each baby, there is no 'mind-stuff' out there waiting to incarnate in a new-born. No idea what you mean by 'imposed' unless you just mean that we learn the language spoken by our parents and peers?
It reappears as an imposition imposed upon not-knowing yes. A baby is born as pure object /identity free awareness. It then adopts an identity which is imposed upon it in the form of knowledge, or language aka a name, given to it by it's parent who they themselves have also gone through the same process ad-infinitum..and is why knowledge only informs the illusory nature of your apparent identity. This apparent identity is an appearance, and every time one is born, there is the reappearance of this fake identity believed to be real, when it isn't.
For only the mind is born, not YOU..mind being the label.


.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:Nothing can't be known without making nothing something known. ...
Nothing can't be known at all. Nothing just means a thing is not there but there is always something.
In knowing nothing I know something. ...
That you know nothing? You always know something and you can't know "nothing" as a thing.
So that which is known knows nothing. ...
Really just gobbledygook unless you clarify what you mean by "knowing" and "nothing".
Something and nothing are the same ONE Awareness aware of itself as the other, as one and the same no thing. ...
What "ONE" awareness, what on earth do you mean by such statements?
The label nothing / no thing is just another label for awareness that is every living being.
Again, what do you mean by "awareness"? As for sure living things are 'aware' but it is not that there is an 'awareness' that is a thing distinct from living things.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:It reappears as an imposition imposed upon not-knowing yes. A baby is born as pure object /identity free awareness. ...
Babies are very aware of their body.
It then adopts an identity which is imposed upon it in the form of knowledge, or language aka a name, given to it by it's parent who they themselves have also gone through the same process ad-infinitum..and is why knowledge only informs the illusory nature of your apparent identity. ...
There is nothing illusory about being a body and it is the ground for our identity.
This apparent identity is an appearance, and every time one is born, there is the reappearance of this fake identity believed to be real, when it isn't. ...
Sheer and utter nonsense and actually contradicted by your words, "one is born".
For only the mind is born, not YOU..mind being the label.
The 'mind' in the sense of internal voice is not developed until later but thoughts in the sense of the representations from perception retrieved via memory are before language. You appear insistent upon this idea that thinking in the sense of the internal voice, or language if you prefer, is what thought is, it isn't, although it is useful as a shorthand and guide for thought it is not the same.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8477
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:02 pmWhat "ONE" awareness, what on earth do you mean by such statements?
Awareness is who you are, who I am, who she is, who he is, who they are, and who my cat is...Awareness is the immediate state prior to any label imposed upon it. In fact every thing that can be thought about is AWARENESS objectifying itself as and through it's own concepts without ever being that concept. Awareness can never experience itself as the concept it knows, for the concept it knows, knows nothing of it's existence because awareness is the only knowing there is.

Awareness is ALL pervading. ALL knowing.


Awareness cannot know it is awareness because IT IS IT. Awareness has no conceptual identity but knows every conceptualised identity as and when it arises in it inseparable from it,.. and that which is known CONCEPTUALLY can know nothing because a ''conceptual known'' only exists as an idea already couched within awareness knowing, the only knowing there is.

So what is meant by one awareness? What is one awareness?

How can one awareness be known?...it can't...it can only BE... awareness in the attempt to fill THIS empty not- knowing forms an artificial idenity in the form of physical matter.

This phenomena is depicted here....>

The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualise what the elephant is like by touching it.The three blind men were told it was an "Elephant" and yet each man described it from a different unique perspective according to their own imagination of what they thought it to be relative to what they were feeling from their perspective. The men had no absolute knowing of the ''elephant'' only parts of it. It was an elephant and that was the truth.Since when did being mistaken make it the truth..Relative truths are all that can be known. Relative truths cannot touch the absolute truth because YOU ARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.


In other words, the awareness that you ARE cannot be touched or known, so the focus is redirected to what can be touched and known, namely the conceptual body.

Arising_uk if you don't understand what AWARENESS means, then you will not understand what is being discussed here.
Check out the BLIND MEN & ELEPHANT PARABLE for more understanding on what is being discussed here, namely the nondual awareness that you are.




.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
I already do understand what you have repeated many times already even though you think that your words
are being misunderstood or misinterpreted but I cannot speak for how others understand or interpret them
So why then do you continue to use the wrong and incorrect term your mind when obviously no such thing exists
It is not obvious to me that it does not exist but I fully understand from your perspective why you do not think it exists
It is possible that Consciousness causes brains rather than brains cause consciousness and so I am open to the possibility

However the only place that I know of where consciousness actually exists is within a brain so that for me is the default position
Now I am not absolute about this but less there is evidence for other positions then I cannot in principle fully accept any of them
Age
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:04 pm
Age wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
I already do understand what you have repeated many times already even though you think that your words
are being misunderstood or misinterpreted but I cannot speak for how others understand or interpret them
So why then do you continue to use the wrong and incorrect term your mind when obviously no such thing exists
It is not obvious to me that it does not exist
Therefore, you do NOT FULLY understand what I am saying.

If some thing is not yet obvious, to some one, and there is some curiosity left, and wonderment, in that one about what IS obvious, which they can not yet see and understand, then, and only then, that one will ask for more information/clarity.

Until then I will just wait.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:04 pm but I fully understand from your perspective why you do not think it exists
"do not think it exits" is another one of those terminologies that just does not work.

How can one "not think, it exists"?

One either "thinks it exists", or, "thinks it does not exist". Is it even possible to "not think" any thing?

When things like this start being better and further understood, then I will start moving onto how even when I use terminology like, "one thinks", this is even a completely WRONG and INCORRECT terminology, or use of words. But, that is for a later date.

By the way, you claim to FULLY understand from my perspective, I wonder HOW you could FULLY understand, from my perspective?

Also, just to verify that you have the absolute True, Right, and Correct FULL understanding, from my perspective, will you pleas explain what you think you FULLY understand, from my perspective?

From what I have observed and SEEN here, you do NOT FULLY understand, from my perspective.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:04 pmIt is possible that Consciousness causes brains rather than brains cause consciousness and so I am open to the possibility
I do NOT see how this could be possible. But it might be. Do you have any knowledge of exactly HOW Consciousness causes a physical brain to come into existence?

If yes, then will you share that with us here?

However the only place that I know of where consciousness actually exists is within a brain so that for me is the default position[/quote]

Okay, I am not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about though.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:04 pmNow I am not absolute about this but less there is evidence for other positions then I cannot in principle fully accept any of them
Okay.

But, from my perspective, there is still only One Mind, while there are as many human brains as there are human bodies, and there are as many different views as there are people.

ANY and ALL of those views could be possible and/or True.

But as I say only those views that are agreed with by ALL are the actual REAL Truth of things, every other view, is just that; 'another view', which might be completely RIGHT or might be completely WRONG, and everywhere in between.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
Do you have any knowledge of exactly HOW Consciousness causes a physical brain to come into existence
No I do not but I am simply referencing it as an alternative to the materialist perspective that consciousness can only exist within a brain
and so that when the brain dies then consciousness dies too - which is what evidence shows - and is why it is the natural default position

The non duality that others like Ramu and Dontaskme talk about has either Consciousness as the absolute or one
self as Consciousness arising from a state of nothing where the seer cannot be the seen and everything is illusion

I need to study it more to truly comprehend it so I will have to read their posts in more detail
Post Reply