It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

[chowkit74]

Generally speaking, the mental consciousness is known as the perceiver, while the object or matter is known as perception. Essentially, it is the perceiver’s mind, as a non-physical faculty integrating into the five physical faculties, namely eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, that provides observation and interpretation; as a result, the emergence of conditional phenomena. If the vibratory frequencies of the perceiver are lower than the perception, the cascading events are regarded as impossible. In a nutshell, the scope of the object’s frequency should be within the subject’s frequency horizon field; without it, observation would never be possible.

[Darkneos]

Proof:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind

This is bad logic. Number 4 is a HUGE assumption that has no backing. How do you know mind is knowing?

Number 2 is just a repetition of 1 not a new point. Number 3 is an assumption that doesn’t follow from the first two. If anything number 1 is wrong because otherwise you’d never learn anything. Nevermind the contradiction that knowing the unknowable is unknowable.

Number 5 is again another assumption that is tenuous at best. Same with number 6. Finally number 7 doesn’t follow from anything.

At BEST you can say the external world is uncertain which is all you or anyone can say. But this isn’t a proof, it’s just….terrible. Everything is just an assumption or leap that doesn’t follow into each other along with a flawed definition of mind.

[Darkneos]

Then how do I know what you wrote and when you submitted your post by looking at my computer screen, which is part of the "outside" world?

The paradox here is that the 'I' that wants to know is a temporal object in Awareness. This I/dream-object cannot comprehend/know the subject, much like an object in space cannot grasp space.

You want to 'know' the non-dual IT while this requires the dualistic position of knower/known. Say that this would be possible; that you would know IT, then what would know the 'knower' while the knower is 'doing' the knowing?


All use of metaphor requires thought. In other words it is nothing but mind AKA the thinking process. What is pointed at here with words/mind, extends outside the mind. The mind is here in the same position as the object in space; it cannot 'grasp' THAT in which it appears.

This is the horizon that the mind cannot look beyond and here an intuitive leap confirms that if thoughts appear, they appear to something that cannot be brought into focus as it is THAT what does/is the focusing.

This Awareness is Self-Shining, no outside knower can know IT

IT is not some-thing to be known by some-one. IT is the knowing that cannot be known. In essence you are that Knowing.

This is just spiritual nonsense that was disproven long ago by modern neuroscience

[Darkneos]

Generally speaking, the mental consciousness is known as the perceiver, while the object or matter is known as perception. Essentially, it is the perceiver’s mind, as a non-physical faculty integrating into the five physical faculties, namely eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, that provides observation and interpretation; as a result, the emergence of conditional phenomena. If the vibratory frequencies of the perceiver are lower than the perception, the cascading events are regarded as impossible. In a nutshell, the scope of the object’s frequency should be within the subject’s frequency horizon field; without it, observation would never be possible.

More nonsense, again. Frequencies don’t work like that, neither though sound or other waves.

People really need to stop invoking things they don’t understand.

[popeye1945]

Nothing can be known outside of subjective consciousness.

[Darkneos]

Nothing can be known outside of subjective consciousness.

Not true.

[Belinda]

It's not possible for you to know the world outside your mind because there is no world outside your mind.(And other experiencers' minds).

[Darkneos]

It's not possible for you to know the world outside your mind because there is no world outside your mind.(And other experiencers' minds).

Not true, again.

Like was said before the only thing you can say is that it is uncertain. Saying it doesn’t exist requires proof you don’t have.

Not to mention your statement would negate the existence of other experiencers, including you. So you are pretty much telling the forum you don’t exist.
Why does this question always yield dumb responses.

[Darkneos]

Then how do I know what you wrote and when you submitted your post by looking at my computer screen, which is part of the "outside" world?

The paradox here is that the 'I' that wants to know is a temporal object in Awareness. This I/dream-object cannot comprehend/know the subject, much like an object in space cannot grasp space.

You want to 'know' the non-dual IT while this requires the dualistic position of knower/known. Say that this would be possible; that you would know IT, then what would know the 'knower' while the knower is 'doing' the knowing?


All use of metaphor requires thought. In other words it is nothing but mind AKA the thinking process. What is pointed at here with words/mind, extends outside the mind. The mind is here in the same position as the object in space; it cannot 'grasp' THAT in which it appears.

This is the horizon that the mind cannot look beyond and here an intuitive leap confirms that if thoughts appear, they appear to something that cannot be brought into focus as it is THAT what does/is the focusing.

This Awareness is Self-Shining, no outside knower can know IT

IT is not some-thing to be known by some-one. IT is the knowing that cannot be known. In essence you are that Knowing.

I isn’t a temporal object unawareness it literally is the body/brain thinking it. You’re operating on the outdated notion that consciousness is somehow separate from the body and creates it when modern neuroscience has disproven this.

Any claim to knowledge is a cognitive event, meaning it is this “mind” you refer to. It can grasp that which appears otherwise we wouldn’t have society as it is.

There isn’t some mystical knowing beyond us, it’s all your brain. But I know this “knowing” you talk about and it’s not truth but just a vibe. If you can’t explain it then how can you know it, how can you even know if it’s true? You don’t, because it’s just a vibe and not truth. Though I think he did a good job of proving you wrong.

[Darkneos]

So, you're talking to yourself?
And I'm not trying to be cute or dismissive. It's more like I'm checking in to see if you believe this or it's more of a thought experiment (and one that I didn't write, for example)

Do I believe it? It's a logic proof! I know it, like I know 2+2=4. It's not a thought experiment, its a proof!

And no, it does not follow from "The world is my mind" to "I am talking to myself". It simply means other people (and their minds) are in my mind, and obviously hidden somehow. Just like my subconscious only in a deeper way. We need to start thinking realistically about the mind and not magically like that the brain is made of non-mental physical stuff and then magically the mind appears out of it. That is very faith based and illogical.

Uhh no, it’s faith based to believe the mind makes anything. We have evidence that the brain creates mind and is made of non mental stuff. It just sounds like you want magic to be real rather than accept what is. It’s also hilarious calling that illogical when you refer to other people as hidden in your mind.

Also your proof sucks. Point 7 is literally just a massive logical leap from a bunch of “I don’t knows” and number 4 is just thrown out there without any backing. Your logic doesn’t follow. The most you could ever say is that it’s all uncertain.

TLDR: your argument is effectively “I don’t know therefor all is mind”. Utterly retarded.

[Dontaskme]

I isn’t a temporal object unawareness it literally is the body/brain thinking it. You’re operating on the outdated notion that consciousness is somehow separate from the body and creates it when modern neuroscience has disproven this.

Any claim to knowledge is a cognitive event, meaning it is this “mind” you refer to. It can grasp that which appears otherwise we wouldn’t have society as it is.

I / brain / you / are all temporal objects known ..and that which is known, knows nothing.

There is nothing separating this knowing from what is known, there is no separation between the awareness of something and that which is being awared of, it's the same unitary function. Both the subject and object are one in the same instant of recognition by the only knowing there is, which is this immediate not-knowing.

There isn’t some mystical knowing beyond us, it’s all your brain. But I know this “knowing” you talk about and it’s not truth but just a vibe. If you can’t explain it then how can you know it, how can you even know if it’s true? You don’t, because it’s just a vibe and not truth. Though I think he did a good job of proving you wrong.

The only truth is Y(our) truth.

Say what you like, it's your truth, it's your vibe, your jive.

[Darkneos]

I isn’t a temporal object unawareness it literally is the body/brain thinking it. You’re operating on the outdated notion that consciousness is somehow separate from the body and creates it when modern neuroscience has disproven this.

Any claim to knowledge is a cognitive event, meaning it is this “mind” you refer to. It can grasp that which appears otherwise we wouldn’t have society as it is.

I / brain / you / are all temporal objects known ..and that which is known, knows nothing.

There is nothing separating this knowing from what is known, there is no separation between the awareness of something and that which is being awared of, it's the same unitary function. Both the subject and object are one in the same instant of recognition by the only knowing there is, which is this immediate not-knowing.

There isn’t some mystical knowing beyond us, it’s all your brain. But I know this “knowing” you talk about and it’s not truth but just a vibe. If you can’t explain it then how can you know it, how can you even know if it’s true? You don’t, because it’s just a vibe and not truth. Though I think he did a good job of proving you wrong.

The only truth is Y(our) truth.

Say what you like, it's your truth, it's your vibe, your jive.

Factually incorrect. That which is known knows something, otherwise nothing you see before you would be possible. Subject and object aren’t one and the same as obviously they are different. There is a separation between awareness and the object of awareness, obviously. You can measure this with distance.

You can say what you like but “your truth” isn’t exactly truth. You can say you can fly but that’s obviously not true. You can say the earth is flat but that’s not true either.

Your rhetoric is just empty mysticism that can’t support itself so it escapes to alleged “unknowbability” because that’s really all you have. Just assertions and no logic.

Like I said, I’ve met your kind before and you avoid questioning your “wisdom” because you know it’s BS. Even this little comeback is just empty. Everyone sees it for what it is but you.

Just because this is philosophy of mind doesn’t mean you can just throw assertions with not backing like OP.

Pretty sure the other guy throughly disproved you and showed how ignorant you are.

[Darkneos]

As I explained we know what awareness/consciousness is, an emergent function of the brain. No brain no consciousness.

The age of mysticism is over, it’s time to grow up.

[Dontaskme]

Factually incorrect. That which is known knows something.

Factually incorrect.

That which is known, knows nothing.

You just don't know that yet, but you will if you dig deeper into the truth of this.

[Darkneos]

Factually incorrect. That which is known knows something.

Factually incorrect.

That which is known, knows nothing.

You just don't know that yet, but you will if you dig deeper into the truth of this.

Again, empty.

Like I said, you have nothing. He saw it and so do I. Just empty appeals to “dig deeper” or “you just do get it”. That’s code for “I have nothing to back up my view except a feeling that I can’t be sure is true or not.”

You’re just wrong and the world around us is proof of that. That which is known knows.

As I said, mysticism is dead and it had its time. Modern science is showing how wrong it truly was.