Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 3/17/2020 at 8:10 PM, iCenozoic said:

I agree that events occur independent of observation. Just as an event can occur on the opposite side of a wall where it is unobserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

Quote

In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

If the only way you can know of anything is  by being conscious of it, then how could you possibly come to know of "objective factors" that are independent of consciousness?

What makes you assert this?"

You come to know them by experiencing and being conscious of them. Much like we come to know of the existence of a rock by seeing it and being aware of it. 

It's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3. What we know, we know by, through, in and with consciousness.  "

"we arrive at the conclusion that reality is nothing but consciousness, or consciousness is nothing but reality."

I think that there is more to this.

I'll try to rephrase and shorten your proposal:

1. What we know, we know through our consciousness.

2. Therefore, what we know is consciousness and consciousness is what we know.

Feel free to clarify on how you relate reality to knowledge.

 

I would say that,

There are things that exist, that are real, that we are not conscious of and do not know. For example, 1000 years ago, nobody had knowledge of the Andromeda Galaxy, nobody was aware of it or conscious of it. But it existed none the less. And even now, there are real things that are beyond our consciousness.

Therefore, reality is not consciousness, as there are real things beyond our consciousness that we do not know of.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 000 said:

Do you think that a tree does not fall in the woods because it is unobserved?

The point of my post is to state that the world keeps spinning and would keep spinning, even if none of us were here to observe it. The world wouldn't just disappear if none of us were conscious of it. Things exist beyond what we are conscious of and beyond our consciousness.

On your post though,

If we read your own link:

"This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. "

"The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect."

Meaning that, it isn't consciousness that is altering wave functions, rather it is interaction of photons between the observer and the wave, that alters wave functions. The wave functions otherwise exist and operate independently of consciousness. 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

Meaning that, it isn't consciousness that is altering wave functions, rather it is interaction of photons between the observer and the wave, that alters wave functions. The wave functions otherwise exist and operate independently of consciousness. 

image.thumb.png.94e5cc972b5862eb97a1c9e2247a82ce.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 000 said:

image.thumb.png.94e5cc972b5862eb97a1c9e2247a82ce.png

People's... indecisiveness, is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. I don't think that people should turn to quantum mechanics to justify multi-state ideas, given the current state of the field. It's much easier to turn to what we do understand, such as a tree falling in the woods, to base our world view on.

The tree does in fact, still fall, even if we aren't present to see or to hear it. It doesn't disappear from existence or get stuck in some quazi split and not split or falling and not falling state. Nor does our consciousness stop the tree from falling or cause it to fall. We aren't professor Xavier from the X-Men, this isn't a cartoon. The world operates independently from our awareness.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

You come to know them by experiencing and being conscious of them. Much like we come to know of the existence of a rock by seeing it and being aware of it. 

It's just the way it is.

And so, is the same true for dreams?

I am not a solipsist, but you might have to consider how you can possibly circumvent a solipsist with what you are assuming about the nature of reality.  


 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

 

I would say that,

There are things that exist, that are real, that we are not conscious of and do not know.

how would you know this if you only know what you know by, in, and through consciousness?

Quote

For example, 1000 years ago, nobody had knowledge of the Andromeda Galaxy, nobody was aware of it or conscious of it. But it existed none the less. And even now, there are real things that are beyond our consciousness.

that “Andromeda Galaxy existed a 1000 years ago” is essentially consciousness  of a present thought of “a galaxy” and a present thought of “past”.  But no matter what thoughts there are about the past there is always only what there is consciousness of right now.  To say that there are many nows can be true only conceptually or in thought.  There is a thought about many nows, and this is only true because there is consciousness of it now (in a non-conceptual and real way)..  

Quote

Therefore, reality is not consciousness, as there are real things beyond our consciousness that we do not know of.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

And so, is the same true for dreams?

I am not a solipsist, but you might have to consider how you can possibly circumvent a solipsist with what you are assuming about the nature of reality.  

Even dreams, I think depend on experiences.

I don't think dreams are any different than thoughts or memories. I can day dream and can think of a unicorn running through my living room, right now. 

The thought depends on experience though.

Someone could ask: where did the original unicorn thought come from, if awareness is grounded in experience, senses, memories etc.? We can’t know of a physical unicorn, so how could we have memories of it, or thoughts of it?

The dreams that originally included unicorns, presumably would have originated from real life experiences that someone had with horses and horned animals like rhinos or maybe cephalopod shells or something (we can't know exactly where it originated because it originated beyond our personal consciousness (mine and yours, whatever the plural is). Naturally, we have thoughts about horses. The thought is just awareness of them. The thought is not them and they do not depend on the thought. I am aware of them, but their existence doesn't depend on my awareness.

But my awareness of them, does actually depend on their existence. But after they are gone, I have that stored information in my mind. And so I can replay that experience over and over, long after they're gone.

The dream of a unicorn depends on stored information, information gathered from experience with a horse.

But the memory, the stored information, is not the horse. The horses are independent of my stored information. And independent of me.

How do we come to know of awareness itself? Are we aware of awareness through experiences? How do we know that we are aware of things?

I think that we can experience responsiveness in ourselves. We can experience our own awareness. If you're involved in a car accident, you might have PTSD. And you can experience your own response to that repitition of memories. You can see yourself and feel yourself responding. You can see that you're aware.

But the awareness itself isn't necessarily something beyond us. The unicorn or the car crash (the memory and thought and dream) isn't beyond myself. It doesn't exist outside of me. It's just a response to something I've experienced.

A rock responds when hit with a hammer, but the response isn't beyond itself. The response simply is. People just store those responses and replay them. 

There's my attempt. I don't know what a solipsist is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"that “Andromeda Galaxy existed a 1000 years ago” is essentially consciousness  of a present thought of “a galaxy” and a present thought of “past”.  But no matter what thoughts there are about the past there is always only what there is consciousness of right now.  To say that there are many nows can be true only conceptually or in thought.  There is a thought about many nows, and this is only true because there is consciousness of it now (in a non-conceptual and real way)."

 

sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  I agree that our thoughts are in the present time. That's all I can gather from your statement.

I will say that, it is my assumption that I am not a brain in a glass jar. I do believe that I had a glass of milk and toast for breakfast some 24 hours ago. I faithfully believe that these events physically occurred.

it is also my assumption and blind Faith, that we do not live in the matrix , with ideas implanted into our brains. Although this could be true.

I also do not believe in last tuesdayism. Although maybe we were created last Tuesday. I cannot know the truth of any of these. 

to be honest, I can't even truly know if what I see is real. But I have to live my life, assuming that what I see is real, otherwise I'd be terrified of mundane occurrences such as going for a walk outside.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"that “Andromeda Galaxy existed a 1000 years ago” is essentially consciousness  of a present thought of “a galaxy” and a present thought of “past”.  But no matter what thoughts there are about the past there is always only what there is consciousness of right now.  To say that there are many nows can be true only conceptually or in thought.  There is a thought about many nows, and this is only true because there is consciousness of it now (in a non-conceptual and real way)."

 

sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  I agree that our thoughts are in the present time. That's all I can gather from your statement.

There is no past more than our memories or thoughts.  There is no future more than our imagination and thoughts.  There is only now.  

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I will say that, it is my assumption that I am not a brain in a glass jar. I do believe that I had a glass of milk and toast for breakfast some 24 hours ago. I faithfully believe that these events physically occurred.

Even the assumption or possibility that you might possibly be a brain in a glass is nothing but a thought that there is consciousness of.  The assumption that there is an “outside” to what you know, a border to what you know, a limit to your knowing, and consequently a limit to who you are, are nothing but thoughts that there is consciousness of.  The fact that you are on the inside of “a possible outside world” (which you call objective) is nothing but a thought that you are conscious of right now.  It carries absolutely no weight with respect to letting you know about who you really are, or about your knowing, or your consciousness.  That there is an inside (subjective side - that which is apparently ‘inside’ the brain) and an outside (objective side - that which is apparently ‘outside’ the brain) Is nothing but a story a bunch of thoughts of which there is consciousness or awareness of.  What is this awareness in which all sensations, all thoughts, all feelings, arise in, by, through and with.  That awareness or consciousness or knowing through which you know your feelings, thoughts, and sensations cannot possibly be dependent on them, but rather they are dependent on it.  

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

it is also my assumption and blind Faith, that we do not live in the matrix , with ideas implanted into our brains. Although this could be true.

Why don’t you just believe in what there is certitude of?  Why does this not suffice?  Why choose to believe in things which exist independent of consciousness? Why choose to believe that consciousness is limited and dependent on an external world?  Why believe that consciousness is an emergent property?  All these beliefs themselves depend on consciousness.  Why are you interested in your beliefs?  Shouldn’t you be more interested in that though which, by which and in which these beliefs come about and go?   

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

to be honest, I can't even truly know if what I see is real. But I have to live my life, assuming that what I see is real, otherwise I'd be terrified of mundane occurrences such as going for a walk outside.

What do you know for certain?  

This is why I am starting from scratch.  I am starting from the most basic certitudes. And I am checking everything else against these basic axiomatic certitudes.  

1. There certainly is something real (a reality) that is present and is now.  The reason why there is apodeictic certitude about there being reality (or something real) is because reality (that which is real) is inherently that which there is certitude of.  In other words, what makes reality real is the certitude there is in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

There is no past more than our memories or thoughts.  There is no future more than our imagination and thoughts.  There is only now.  

Even the assumption or possibility that you might possibly be a brain in a glass is nothing but a thought that there is consciousness of.  The assumption that there is an “outside” to what you know, a border to what you know, a limit to your knowing, and consequently a limit to who you are, are nothing but thoughts that there is consciousness of.  The fact that you are on the inside of “a possible outside world” (which you call objective) is nothing but a thought that you are conscious of right now.  It carries absolutely no weight with respect to letting you know about who you really are, or about your knowing, or your consciousness.  That there is an inside (subjective side - that which is apparently ‘inside’ the brain) and an outside (objective side - that which is apparently ‘outside’ the brain) Is nothing but a story a bunch of thoughts of which there is consciousness or awareness of.  What is this awareness in which all sensations, all thoughts, all feelings, arise in, by, through and with.  That awareness or consciousness or knowing through which you know your feelings, thoughts, and sensations cannot possibly be dependent on them, but rather they are dependent on it.  

Why don’t you just believe in what there is certitude of?  Why does this not suffice?  Why choose to believe in things which exist independent of consciousness? Why choose to believe that consciousness is limited and dependent on an external world?  Why believe that consciousness is an emergent property?  All these beliefs themselves depend on consciousness.  Why are you interested in your beliefs?  Shouldn’t you be more interested in that though which, by which and in which these beliefs come about and go?   

What do you know for certain?  

This is why I am starting from scratch.  I am starting from the most basic certitudes. And I am checking everything else against these basic axiomatic certitudes.  

1. There certainly is something real (a reality) that is present and is now.  The reason why there is apodeictic certitude about there being reality (or something real) is because reality (that which is real) is inherently that which there is certitude of.  In other words, what makes reality real is the certitude there is in it.  

I accept an outside world, perhaps because I appreciate what my perceptions show me. 

I could deny it all, or simply ignore it, but it's all too interesting.

If I denied the reality of anything beyond myself, I wonder if I'd have any reason to "live". What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I accept an outside world, perhaps because I appreciate what my perceptions show me. 

I could deny it all, or simply ignore it, but it's all too interesting.

If I denied the reality of anything beyond myself, I wonder if I'd have any reason to "live". What do you think?

The whole concept of an an outside AND an inside is simply just that, a concept or thought.  You are not inside of an outside to begin with.  This whole conceptual dichotomy is itself something one is conscious of.

There are two ways of being interested in the things of your perceptions.  One way is to believe that they are real in and of themselves (that they are more than what they appear to be).  This involves having false beliefs about what they are!

The other is to accept them for what they are (namely, an appearance and only an appearance).  We should not seek to disregard them by any any means.  But we shouldn’t believe anything more than what they are.  This is the right way to be interested in the things of our perception.  When you are interested in them in this way, you begin to notice its fundamental reality (by, in and through which it appears to be), which is nothing but Indivisible, Boundless, Ever-present Consciousness.  

This second way of being interested in things is another way of being content and truly happy -  this is called enlightenment (fyi).


 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The whole concept of an an outside AND an inside is simply just that, a concept or thought.  You are not inside of an outside to begin with.  This whole conceptual dichotomy is itself something one is conscious of.

There are two ways of being interested in the things of your perceptions.  One way is to believe that they are real in and of themselves (that they are more than what they appear to be).  This involves having false beliefs about what they are!

The other is to accept them for what they are (namely, an appearance and only an appearance).  We should not seek to disregard them by any any means.  But we shouldn’t believe anything more than what they are.  This is the right way to be interested in the things of our perception.  When you are interested in them in this way, you begin to notice its fundamental reality (by, in and through which it appears to be), which is nothing but Indivisible, Boundless, Ever-present Consciousness.  

This second way of being interested in things is another way of being content and truly happy -  this is called enlightenment (fyi).


 

 

And how do you know that these are false beliefs? That an outside world exists beyond the inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

And how do you know that these are false beliefs? That an outside world exists beyond the inside?

 I am saying that “there is an inside” is a mere belief.  And I am also saying that “there is an outside” is a mere belief.  This entire dichotomy of inside and outside is merely conceptual.  To have the thought that they are real in an of themselves is There is no inside and outside except as thoughts there is consciousness of.  

 
 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

 I am saying that “there is an inside” is a mere belief.  And I am also saying that “there is an outside” is a mere belief.  This entire dichotomy of inside and outside is merely conceptual.  To have the thought that they are real in an of themselves is a belief.  There is no inside and outside except as thoughts of which there is consciousness of.  

Typos edited^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Typos edited^

I suppose the question still remains. Though I'd just rephrase it to ask, how do you know that there is no inside or outside, nor anything beyond your conscious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I suppose the question still remains. Though I'd just rephrase it to ask, how do you know that there is no inside or outside, nor anything beyond your conscious?

Well, I am not denying an inside or an outside.  All I am saying is that the inside and outside  are concepts or thoughts.  And when you believe that the inside and outside are  actually real outside of consciousness and that they are not just mere thoughts, then this belief itself is just another thought within consciousness.  

So, 

this is one level:

you have a thought about inside and outside.

second level:

then you have a thought that the inside and outside are independent of consciousness (that inside and outside are actual realities).  

Both levels are nothing but thoughts.  You have thoughts compounded upon more basic thoughts.  

direct experience tells us this.  That our beliefs are nothing but thoughts.  Thoughts don’t do anything.  They don’t point to anything outside itself.  They don’t “refer” to anything.  Attributing reference to thought(s) is itself another thought.  

 

 


 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, I am not denying an inside or an outside. "

Well, we aren't here to simply discuss possibilities. Do you believe that there is an inside and outside or not? Or is the question meaningless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

"Well, I am not denying an inside or an outside. "

Well, we aren't here to simply discuss possibilities. Do you believe that there is an inside and outside or not? Or is the question meaningless?

It is a sensible question. I don’t “believe” there is an inside or an outside.  
belief would be the second level.  (Refer to my post above where I discuss two levels)
I am just at level one: I.e. I simply just see the “inside” and “outside” as mere concepts.  I am not at the second level (which is belief in those concepts.  At the second level there is a compounding of not just the mere thoughts of “inside” and “outside” but also of the thought that “inside” and “outside” are independent of consciousness / that they are real in and of themselves.  When you have this thought (If the second level), this is now a belief thought.   
 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

It is a sensible question. I don’t “believe” there is an inside or an outside.  
belief would be the second level.  (Refer to my post above where I discuss two levels)
I am just at level one: I.e. I simply just see the “inside” and “outside” as mere concepts.  I am not at the second level (which is belief in those concepts.  At the second level there is a compounding of not just the mere thoughts of “inside” and “outside” but also of the thought that “inside” and “outside” are independent of consciousness / that they are real in and of themselves.  When you have this thought (If the second level), this is now a belief thought.   
 

 

 

So you don't believe in an inside and outside, nor are you denying their potential existence.

You simply don't know? Maybe nobody knows.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

So you don't believe in an inside and outside, nor are you denying their potential existence.

You simply don't know? Maybe nobody knows.

There aren’t actual potential existence(s). There is just simply that which is right now.  A potential existence (if anything) is simply what exists as a thought right now.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

There aren’t actual potential existence(s). There is just simply that which is right now.  A potential existence (if anything) is simply what exists as a thought right now.  

So it's not possible for there to be an external world beyond an internal consciousness?

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

So it's not possible for there to be an external world beyond an internal consciousness?

As a mere thought, yes.  There is a thought of "an external world", a thought about "internal consciousness" and a thought about "possibility".  Possibility, in general, is nothing more than a mere thought. 

What is the nature of "possibility"? It is nothing more than a thought about what could be real. 

Now, according to our first axiom, reality (what is real) is THAT WHICH NECESSARILY IS (it necessarily has to be directly present and it necessarily has to be right now).  So, there is no such thing as "could be real" (except as a mere thought) because if something "could be real" it implies that

1. it may not necessarily be,

2. It is not necessarily directly present. 

3. It is not necessarily right now.

Only consciousness fits the above criteria.  Only consciousness necessarily is (it necessarily is directly present, and it necessarily is right now).

Although consciousness itself is reality (what is real), objects of consciousness are not in themselves reality (or what is real).  

 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

As a mere thought, yes.  There is a thought of "an external world", a thought about "internal consciousness" and a thought about "possibility".  Possibility, in general, is nothing more than a mere thought. 

What is the nature of "possibility"? It is nothing more than a thought about what could be real. 

Now, according to our first axiom, reality (what is real) is THAT WHICH NECESSARILY IS (it necessarily has to be directly present and it necessarily has to be right now).  So, there is no such thing as "could be real" (except as a mere thought) because if something "could be real" it implies that

1. it may not necessarily be,

2. It is not necessarily directly present. 

3. It is not necessarily right now.

Only consciousness fits the above criteria.  Only consciousness necessarily is (it necessarily is directly present, and it necessarily is right now).

Although consciousness itself is reality (what is real), objects of consciousness are not in themselves reality (or what is real).  

Some things I may never understand. It's been interesting none the less ethereal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Some things I may never understand. It's been interesting none the less ethereal. 

It might be because I am not as lucid and clear in expressing myself.

Do you accept all or some of the following statements (what I would say are axioms).

1. there is a reality

2. this reality is certainly known.

3. It is directly present

4. It is right now.

5. It is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

It might be because I am not as lucid and clear in expressing myself.

Do you accept all or some of the following statements (what I would say are axioms).

1. there is a reality

2. this reality is certainly known.

3. It is directly present

4. It is right now.

5. It is one.

Sure. I'd say that I accept them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Sure. I'd say that I accept them all.

 

1. there is a reality.  (Consciousness is real)

2. this reality is certainly known.  (You are certainly conscious)

3. It is directly present (consciousness is directly present to you)

4. It is right now. (You are conscious right now)

5. It is one. (Consciousness is the same consciousness no matter what you are conscious of)

If we you accept that then we can say that reality is consciousness. 
 

If you feel that there could be something more than consciousness that is real, you have to ask if you are certain about this or if this is a mere possibility that could be true.  If it is the latter then it doesn’t fit the criteria of what reality is (which is something you know to be for certain).  
 

if you feel that by asserting that reality is consciousness we are limiting reality to yourself as a limited entity, then don’t worry because this is not what the above axioms imply.  It seems this is what you are most concerned about.

To cut right to the chase:  this reality which is consciousness is not limited to you as an individual entity (this is because, truly, you are not an individual entity or person.  If you were an individual entity you would be an object of your own consciousness.  This is not to say that you don’t have thoughts about yourself as an individual entity or person (you probably do have thoughts about yourself as a person, but you should know that they are simply thoughts about who you are, they are not really who you are).  In reality you are that which is conscious of the all thoughts (including thoughts which you have of yourself).  In fact you are your own consciousness that is conscious of your thoughts.  And in as much as you are your own consciousness you are, in fact, object-less.  Now, being object-less, this consciousness that you are, is borderless, universal, eternal, and unchanging.

Who I really am, and who you really are, are identical.  We are both the same consciousness that is aware whatever it is aware of.  The reality of each and every single thing is identical.  Each different thing is a wave in the same Ocean of Consciousness.  Or to use another analogy:

When you dream, you become someone else who Ina a different world.  As a different person in the dream you dream of your car, your employer, your neighbor and your house.  Now who you are, in your dream, your employer, your cat, your neighbor, and your house are nothing but different modes of One Dreamer (That which is Dreaming).  There is One dreamer that appears as different entities and individuals and persons. Each entity in the dream is in some sense the Dreamer and is not the Dreamer.  This is just like each wave of the ocean. Each wave is, in some sense the Ocean and is, in another sense, not the Ocean.  

So, what I am saying is that reality is One Dreamer that is dreaming everything else, and as such, the things it dreams is the dreamer in some sense and is not the dreamer in another sense.  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

1. there is a reality.  (Consciousness is real)

2. this reality is certainly known.  (You are certainly conscious)

3. It is directly present (consciousness is directly present to you)

4. It is right now. (You are conscious right now)

5. It is one. (Consciousness is the same consciousness no matter what you are conscious of)

If we you accept that then we can say that reality is consciousness. 
 

If you feel that there could be something more than consciousness that is real, you have to ask if you are certain about this or if this is a mere possibility that could be true.  If it is the latter then it doesn’t fit the criteria of what reality is (which is something you know to be for certain).  
 

if you feel that by asserting that reality is consciousness we are limiting reality to yourself as a limited entity, then don’t worry because this is not what the above axioms imply.  It seems this is what you are most concerned about.

To cut right to the chase:  this reality which is consciousness is not limited to you as an individual entity (this is because, truly, you are not an individual entity or person.  If you were an individual entity you would be an object of your own consciousness.  This is not to say that you don’t have thoughts about yourself as an individual entity or person (you probably do have thoughts about yourself as a person, but you should know that they are simply thoughts about who you are, they are not really who you are).  In reality you are that which is conscious of the all thoughts (including thoughts which you have of yourself).  In fact you are your own consciousness that is conscious of your thoughts.  And in as much as you are your own consciousness you are, in fact, object-less.  Now, being object-less, this consciousness that you are, is borderless, universal, eternal, and unchanging.

Who I really am, and who you really are, are identical.  We are both the same consciousness that is aware whatever it is aware of.  The reality of each and every single thing is identical.  Each different thing is a wave in the same Ocean of Consciousness.  Or to use another analogy:

When you dream, you become someone else who Ina a different world.  As a different person in the dream you dream of your car, your employer, your neighbor and your house.  Now who you are, in your dream, your employer, your cat, your neighbor, and your house are nothing but different modes of One Dreamer (That which is Dreaming).  There is One dreamer that appears as different entities and individuals and persons. Each entity in the dream is in some sense the Dreamer and is not the Dreamer.  This is just like each wave of the ocean. Each wave is, in some sense the Ocean and is, in another sense, not the Ocean.  

So, what I am saying is that reality is One Dreamer that is dreaming everything else, and as such, the things it dreams is the dreamer in some sense and is not the dreamer in another sense.  

 

What would you say to the idea that we are not objectless but rather are of all objects? That is what universal means, or does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

What would you say to the idea that we are not objectless but rather are of all objects? That is what universal means, or does it?

Do you mean we are the sum of all objects?

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Do you mean, we are all objects?

Well, consciousness would be what is universal or eternal, and thus would be not objectless, but all objects, including us. Or "us", if we were to think of ourselves as individuals.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Well, consciousness would be what is universal or eternal, and thus would be not objectless, but all objects, including us. Or "us", if we were to think of ourselves as individuals.

So "the sum of all objects."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 12:09 AM, eThErEaL said:

How can awareness go through any kind of process (like evolution) if consciousness is “immediate” and “instant”.  Just examine the way you are conscious, it doesn’t “take time”, it just is.  It is just there.  It already is.  The moment one treats consciousness as a thing he makes the fallacy of objectifying it (treating it as an object).  It doesn’t even belong to “people”.  It is not even something that people “have”.  Consciousness is conscious of people, and as such, consciousness is prior to people.  In fact, nothing can possibly exist without consciousness being conscious of it.  What I am saying doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, but it certainly does disprove the possibility of consciousness evolving!  :)

This actually makes sense to me now, or at least I think it does. 

It's not to be confused with a materialistic understanding of the theory of evolution, but rather means something more along the lines that, truth isn't really something that evolves. Whereas biological evolution might be something along the lines of maybe an expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

So "the sum of all objects."?

Well, it would be the sum of everything, not really just objects. I don't know if I would use the word "sum". Sum might imply distinguished parts that are independent of one another. It would simply be everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that consciousness would or could exist without objects. What would consciousness be without objects? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...