jupiviv wrote:for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function.
You're avoiding the core of the point entirely, it doesn't matter if there is a continuation of what we refer to as a wall in that sense alone, the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing. Form being transient doesn't mean there is no form. "Properties", like qualities, are not actually things, but are abstracts. Qualities may indeed be permanent, such as the quality of impermanence, but we cannot point to the idea "impermanence" or even the idea of what a "wall" is and say that it's an unchanging aspect of form. All appearances in consciousness are constantly wavering, and the relative consistency of worldly things doesn't change the fact. Even thinking and speaking of truth, even if it were an eternal truth, is a completely transient occurrence.
jupiviv wrote:If thoughts are constantly changing then a single thought will occur just *once*. It can't be related to any other thought or applied to any subject matter beyond that which exists precisely at the moment of its occurrence.
You just made that up. Why must a thought only occur once if they're constantly changing? Can a similar thought not arise? That reasoning doesn't make sense in reality. I can have a thought which appears for a brief moment and then a very similar one over again, every time it is transient, despite its 'reappearance'. But It's not actually the same thing, the thought isn't some permanent entity hiding out on the sidelines waiting to pop in again.
jupiviv wrote:The fact that thoughts or concepts occur within consciousness doesn't refute them.
No but if you investigate them, much is revealed. Try not to work with generalities and blanket statements. You straw manned what I said, which was that thoughts in regard to the metaphysical or ultimate nature of reality are rarely indicative of any actual truth of reality. And also that you can't transcend or contradict the nature of consciousness- even in concept- with an aspect consciousness.
jupiviv wrote:consciousness is a finite thing and therefore has a beginning and an end.
Do you even read what you write or contemplate it at all? You're just making an assumed premise and therefore an assumed conclusion.
jupiviv wrote:Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely that bodily death is the end of our consciousness
In most cases people attempt to use evidence to go beyond the boundary of what it actually reveals; to make assumed conclusions based on nothing more than inference. Faulty reasoning based on fundamentally flawed metaphysical foundations. There is in fact zero evidence that bodily death is the end of our consciousness, just as there is zero evidence that the body is the metaphysical seat of consciousness. The evidence only reveals their close current relationship, it certainly doesn't show any "end" to consciousness itself.
You don't even realize it but, whenever you refer to the body you're actually only referring to- in fact you're only capable of referring to- an aspect of consciousness, an appearance. You're not referring to some mind-independent body, you're only referencing your sensations, your feelings, and so on.
jupiviv wrote:lies within the domain of science
More proof of your intellectual disability! Your entire metaphysical understanding is based on a pathetic cheat, an avoidance. You need a crutch and you pretend that your reasoning is independent! Are you a scientist Jup? Have you undertaken scientific studies of the body? No, "Those scientists, those other men, those
other philosophers,
they've looked into this,
they've let me know what is reasonable and unreasonable. There's a whole history surrounding all of this."
You're entire life you've just sheepishly followed along with what is popular, what you've heard is certain and obvious. It's so ingrained in you that the moment you hear anything familiar you'll instantly have a predisposition toward it, if it's unpopular and sounds disagreeable, you'll dismiss it, if it's popular and sounds agreeable, you'll accept it. Yet you don't realize you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm telling you that the mind which is not entirely deluded by prejudiced is extremely rare, and it's unlikely you've got one. You need to go back to the beginning, you need to do it all yourself.
jupiviv wrote:and occur only within consciousness, you are denying their reality.
See your wording there? "
only within consciousness". You've already made two assumptions. Firstly that there is that which is "external" to consciousness (despite the fact that the nature of existence as you know it is limited to those aspects of what we refer to as consciousness). Secondly that things are arising "within" consciousness, as if it were some space, perhaps in the head, rather than simply a reference to the various senses, thoughts, etc. Finally, that you believe you've ever even referred to anything which was not a manifestation of consciousness. Whenever you speak of a thing you've seen, you're speaking of a collection of sensations, not the object you imagine to exist "out there".
You shouldn't read and think of what you see as something which you need to write a rebuttal too based on your previously stated 'position', you should spend time in contemplation of it. Also know that if anything I only ever have good intentions, mutually beneficial intentions. I only say so in case your reasoning in regard to absolute truth is still subtly fused with your emotion or personhood. Most people are so strongly swayed by the appearance of the speaker, and appearances in general, that logic plays almost no role. There's no listening in these cases. This sort of thinking can remain very subtle and is very powerful, blinding even. Perhaps if I bribe that 'part' of you things will go more smoothly. Maybe I can show reason to your worldly self before I can get through. You said you worked at Cisco right? Do you enjoy doing so, or what would be an ideal life in your eyes? Try to be honest.