With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed.

Postby NobodyListens2Genius » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:49 pm

I will try to be as simple and clear as possible so that readers can understand my meaning, rather than getting caught up in details or problems they might see.

Real: It exists despite me. If I were gone it would still be there. It was not created by my imagination. Other perspectives can experience it also.

Imaginary: It exists in my mind. If I were gone it would also be gone. It was created by my imagination and I am the only person that has experienced it.


What we must agree on:

Based on this distinction between Real and Imaginary, I hope we can all agree that if only one person existed, he could never distinguish between what was Real or Imaginary as he could never find a second perspective to confirm what he has seen or thought.

The Story:

Chang1 is alone in the desert his whole life and cannot remember how he came to be. His memory only goes so far. Chang1 comes across a man named Chong2. Chang1 doesn’t know if his friend Chong2 is an imaginary friend or a real friend. Chang1 is there his whole life and never sees another person besides Chong2.

Chang1 realizes he can never be sure if his friend is real or imaginary as he’s never met anyone else who could verify Chong2’s existence. Chong2 seems to think he’s real, but Chang1 is smart enough to doubt, keeping in mind chong2 could be part of his experience and imagination.

Chang1 and Chong2 come across another man in the desert named Chung3. Chang1 thinks: *Finally I can find out if Chong2 is real by asking Chung3!*

But before Chang1 asks Chung3 he realizes that whatever Chung3’s answer is, it wouldn’t verify Chong2’s existence, as Chung3 and Chong2 might BOTH be imaginary.

Chang1 is at a loss. He doesn’t know what to think anymore and starts to doubt everything that he sees, he realizes that without any other verifiable perspectives to confirm what he sees, he can never be sure if anything he thinks or sees is real or imaginary. He realizes that just because he can see it and feel it, this does not confirm its existence in anyway because he does not know if he can trust his own senses, as they too may be imaginary. He knows he can have imaginary senses in dreams so this idea sounds very possible to him. He also knows he can create illusionary scenarios in dreams and believe they are real at the time.

Chang1 then leaves the desert and finds a whole world full of 6 billion other people, but despite their constant confirmation, complexity, and consistency, this is not enough to relieve chang1 of his doubt. He does not know if all 6 billion other people and the world are imaginary or real.

Chang1 then starts to live life believing that everything is imaginary, as he can never confirm its existence, and believing in something with zero confirmation is the same as saying that any illusion you see must be real, even if you are the only one that can see it.

Chang1 then realizes that all ideas he had thought of before, including the ideas of death, beginnings and ends, reasons and even his own logic, are all only ideas that he himself had or experienced. And with no confirmation, as he only has one perspective, he realizes that all of the ideas must be considered as false, until at least one single piece of evidence can point toward them being real.


The end.


In short, how can I know that anything I experience, including this forum, my girlfriend, and other people’s ideas are real or Imaginary?

I only have my perspective and therefore everything I know comes from me.

I cannot think of one single shred of evidence that points toward this experience being Real.

An illusion is still an illusion if it is complex, consistent or convincing.

I can talk to people in dreams, but they are born from me.

My question is, what is something that would point to this reality and the people in it being Real?

You MUST try and come up with this evidence while pretending that you were the only person in existence.

( Think your answer over before posting, as many times I have thought of reasons only to remember my own logic cannot be confirmed.)
NobodyListens2Genius
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Hi,

NobodyListens2Genius wrote:I only have my perspective and therefore everything I know comes from me.


There's a perspective and that perspective is named "me". But that perspective is given and only possible by context. The context is named "other". In your perspective and any possible perspective there's always an other (not me). This can be established universally. The other must be the source of your perspective as well the effect of having one. That's a weird thing alright.

One interesting question would be if one really just would have some perspective? Or could one be a collection of changing and morphing perspectives? How unitary are we actually and can we always tell where something in our perspective is coming from? So can we be sure any perspective is distinctively "ours" if there's no distinct boundary in the first place to discern or establish (unless by assertion or claim)?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Cathy Preston » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:24 am

Have you ever experienced a hallucination?

As for me I'd put Chong2 and Chung3 to work, if they bitched and moaned, definitely real.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby NobodyListens2Genius » Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:34 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

So can we be sure any perspective is distinctively "ours" if there's no distinct boundary in the first place to discern or establish (unless by assertion or claim)?


If I think something, you do not hear my thoughts. If I see it, you do not see my vantage point. The distinction is in "I think therefore I am", only I experience my experience. I've never come across anything that suggested otherwise.
NobodyListens2Genius
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby David Quinn » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:19 pm

NobodyListens2Genius wrote:In short, how can I know that anything I experience, including this forum, my girlfriend, and other people’s ideas are real or Imaginary?

Logic dictates that there is something real about anything that exists, regardless of whether it appears to be a figment of the imagination or not. Thus, reality is utterly everything.

Thus, everything that you experience, whether it be inwardly in your mind or out there in the world, is a direct manifestation of reality.

"Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know."

- Lao Tzu
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:45 am

NobodyListens2Genius wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So can we be sure any perspective is distinctively "ours" if there's no distinct boundary in the first place to discern or establish (unless by assertion or claim)?

If I think something, you do not hear my thoughts. If I see it, you do not see my vantage point. The distinction is in "I think therefore I am", only I experience my experience. I've never come across anything that suggested otherwise.


Is your vantage point that unique, you think? Perhaps I've seen and thought some of it or even everything before, in myself or in others. Who knows. But my point was more that "your" perspective is made up of many elements beyond your "self" like culture, society, circumstance, the weather and what not - the "other" giving rise to you just like you give rise to "other". Any particular mixture might be seen as unique or private if you wish but it's "experience" nevertheless. Experience of "self" and experience of "other". There's no escaping of that vantage point and I see it just like you.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Kunga » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:53 am

NobodyListens2Genius wrote:

If I think something, you do not hear my thoughts. If I see it, you do not see my vantage point. The distinction is in "I think therefore I am", only I experience my experience. I've never come across anything that suggested otherwise.



Ever hear of clarivoyance & clairaudience ?


http://issuu.com/narongt/docs/fdv1
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby movingalways » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:36 am

David Quinn: Logic dictates that there is something real about anything that exists, regardless of whether it appears to be a figment of the imagination or not. Thus, reality is utterly everything.


Logic may dictate that reality is utterly everything, but the dictation of logic does not make logic the reality of utterly everything or utterly everything the reality of logic.

Thus, everything that you experience, whether it be inwardly in your mind or out there in the world, is a direct manifestation of reality.


Logic and emotionalism manifest [the reality of] everything in the duality, but everything in the duality is not Everything [of the Infinite]. "In my Father's house there are many mansions...". Which means that one who is immersed in the Infinite does not claim any one expression to be Its absolute expression. Every expression is a platform for here and now, logic included.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Eric Orwoll » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:00 am

movingalways wrote:Quote:
David Quinn: Logic dictates that there is something real about anything that exists, regardless of whether it appears to be a figment of the imagination or not. Thus, reality is utterly everything.


Logic may dictate that reality is utterly everything, but the dictation of logic does not make logic the reality of utterly everything or utterly everything the reality of logic.

Quote:
Thus, everything that you experience, whether it be inwardly in your mind or out there in the world, is a direct manifestation of reality.


Logic and emotionalism manifest [the reality of] everything in the duality, but everything in the duality is not Everything [of the Infinite]. "In my Father's house there are many mansions...". Which means that one who is immersed in the Infinite does not claim any one expression to be Its absolute expression. Every expression is a platform for here and now, logic included.


Movingalways, have you thought about how exactly the here and now emerge into consciousness out of the infinite?

From a human standpoint, inaccessibility is equivalent to nothingness, so there seems to be no way to confirm experientially whether your thoughts emerge from infinity or nothingness.
I'm with you, but I have to admit some assumptions must be made if you want to avoid solipsism.

NL2G, I think solipsism seems like a striking notion only because so many misunderstand the nature of phenomenal reality. Because we have a word for matter, we seem to believe that the concept of its existence is strait-forward, but when you pry beyond the symbol set, when you ask "What is matter?", you stumble into the same sort of chasm you find with solipsism.

Matter seems to be the manifestation of information.
What does it mean for information to manifest dimensionally?
Is that dimensional manifestation something different than information itself?
Outside of its dimensional manifestation does that information exist?

Matter under the concept of a physical world is the same as mental object-hood under the concept of a mental world.

Mental objects seem to be the manifestation of information.
What does it mean for information to manifest in consciousness?
Is that conscious manifestation something different than the information itself?
Outside of its consciousness manifestation does that information exist?

I think that if we were to ignore the physical/mental duality and treat all being as informational then we could do the same sort of science and philosophy that we are able to do under either concept.
Physical and mental existence are both concepts. All concepts are constructed.

The informational reality of your mental objects cannot be denied. David was right, there is something real about anything that exists. The informational content of your perceived mental/physical objects exists insofar as they appear in your consciousness, at least.

The underlying assumptions for or against solipsism are:
1- for solipsism- Information only exists when I'm looking at it
2- against solipsism- Information exists whether I perceive it or not.

Because of the incredible consistency of mathematical truth I tent toward the second assumption, due to its extra explanatory value.
Eric Orwoll
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Beingof1 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:28 pm

Eric:

Matter seems to be the manifestation of information.


Information requires consciousness. The means do not matter. You can write a sentence on a chalkboard, paper, computer or in the sand but it takes consciousness to decipher and transmit the information.

What does it mean for information to manifest dimensionally?


It means; you cannot, under any circumstances, have information manifest anywhere at anytime without a consciousness transceiver to have information in the first place.

Is that dimensional manifestation something different than information itself?


No - but how do you know that?

Outside of its dimensional manifestation does that information exist?


Yes but spread to infinity.

Mental objects seem to be the manifestation of information.


They are, but you need a mind to know that.

What does it mean for information to manifest in consciousness?


What does it mean for consciousness to manifest information?

Is that conscious manifestation something different than the information itself?


No - they are one and the same.

Outside of its consciousness manifestation does that information exist?


Where is the "outside" of consciousness?

The informational content of your perceived mental/physical objects exists insofar as they appear in your consciousness, at least.


The problem is; you, like most, think you are a human body. That certainly is a 'concept' that would lead you to the supposition that there is an outside somewhere. Reality however, does seem to protest the contrary.

Could you point out the dividing or point where the 'outside' begins and clear this up?

The underlying assumptions for or against solipsism are:
1- for solipsism- Information only exists when I'm looking at it
2- against solipsism- Information exists whether I perceive it or not.

Because of the incredible consistency of mathematical truth I tent toward the second assumption, due to its extra explanatory value.


This is the logical fallacy known as the False Dilemma.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby movingalways » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:39 am

Eric Forwell: I'm with you, but I have to admit some assumptions must be made if you want to avoid solipsism.


Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality, but logical assumptions without identity attachment are but logic farts in the wind. For example, it is a logical assumption that the ground of thought that causes attachment to matter is also the ground of thought that causes release from attachment to matter. And from this one logical assumption of being caused of the ground to be attached and being caused of the ground to be detached, it can be logically assumed that once detachment takes place that the ground causes another world of Understanding. And when that world of Understanding is done, yet another world is caused for Understanding, and another...

To make logical assumptions about the nature of reality such as I have made above is to exist on reality's surface; however, to realize the truth of these logical assumptions, one must experience these assumptions - one must believe with all one's being in their premise. In other words, they must become the life and death of I Am.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Eric Orwoll » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:29 am

Beingof1 wrote:Information requires consciousness. The means do not matter. You can write a sentence on a chalkboard, paper, computer or in the sand but it takes consciousness to decipher and transmit the information.


I've seen this thrown around but I've yet to see a justification for why information requires consciousness. Here, you are simply making an unbacked claim.

True: It takes consciousness to decipher and transmit the information. That is to say, it is the process of consciousness to differentiate information into a form readable by consciousness. This does not, however, imply that the information itself does not exist undifferentiated outside of consciousness. (Neither have I proven that it does, as that too may be unprovable- hence my point about the central assumption of solipsism)

Beingof1 wrote:Quote:
What does it mean for information to manifest dimensionally?


It means; you cannot, under any circumstances, have information manifest anywhere at anytime without a consciousness transceiver to have information in the first place.


It seems like you might be missing my point. The manifestation/differentiation of information certainly exists- as it is the constituent material of thought; you're saying that that is the only place information manifests.
I'm saying eliminate the concepts of consciousness or physicality because they are unprovable and ultimately do not add much to a description of reality. The informational content of your thoughts surely exist, I say leave it at that. There's no need to construct a concept of a consciousness. My problem with the construction of the idea 'consciousness' is that it implies a consistency of identity which is itself unproven. It's a straw house built on sand.

thought=the experience of information
'I think therefore I am' is false. The concept of an identity containing thought needs further proof.
'I think therefore thought exists' is true.
I think therefore the experience of information exists.

Information may very well only manifest in differentiated form through thought, I have no alternative system for the differentiation of information which I might examine. But I fail to see how one might say with certainty that information can manifest in no other form than thought.

Beingof1 wrote:Quote:
Outside of its dimensional manifestation does that information exist?


Yes but spread to infinity.


Based on this, we agree on the essence of the matter. The point of contention must be our definitions of consciousness and information.


Beingof1 wrote:Quote:
The informational content of your perceived mental/physical objects exists insofar as they appear in your consciousness, at least.


The problem is; you, like most, think you are a human body. That certainly is a 'concept' that would lead you to the supposition that there is an outside somewhere. Reality however, does seem to protest the contrary.

Could you point out the dividing or point where the 'outside' begins and clear this up?


I do not think that I'm a human body as I see no usefulness in the construct of a physical reality. I think that I am the experience of information. And I don't really think that "I" in the sense of a persistent identity exist at all. I only use "I" as a reference to the experience of information.

Inside of experience is differentiated/limited/finite reality. Outside of experience is undifferentiated/unlimited/infinite reality.
Eric Orwoll
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Eric Orwoll » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:36 am

movingalways wrote:
Eric Forwell: I'm with you, but I have to admit some assumptions must be made if you want to avoid solipsism.


Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality, but logical assumptions without identity attachment are but logic farts in the wind. For example, it is a logical assumption that the ground of thought that causes attachment to matter is also the ground of thought that causes release from attachment to matter. And from this one logical assumption of being caused of the ground to be attached and being caused of the ground to be detached, it can be logically assumed that once detachment takes place that the ground causes another world of Understanding. And when that world of Understanding is done, yet another world is caused for Understanding, and another...

To make logical assumptions about the nature of reality such as I have made above is to exist on reality's surface; however, to realize the truth of these logical assumptions, one must experience these assumptions - one must believe with all one's being in their premise. In other words, they must become the life and death of I Am.


I don't know how I can convey my meditative experience of truth in text, so I'm going to continue to make logical assumptions on this forum if that's alright.
Eric Orwoll
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Dennis Mahar » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:29 am

I think that I am the experience of information


can we distinguish between an electron a mind conceived of and a mind conceiving of an electron.
the former uncertain, the latter certain.

world put together brick by brick.
invented.
consensual reality.
painting by numbers.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby David Quinn » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:49 am

movingalways wrote:
David Quinn: Logic dictates that there is something real about anything that exists, regardless of whether it appears to be a figment of the imagination or not. Thus, reality is utterly everything.

Logic may dictate that reality is utterly everything, but the dictation of logic does not make logic the reality of utterly everything or utterly everything the reality of logic.

No one is saying that it does.


movingalways wrote:
Thus, everything that you experience, whether it be inwardly in your mind or out there in the world, is a direct manifestation of reality.

Logic and emotionalism manifest [the reality of] everything in the duality, but everything in the duality is not Everything [of the Infinite]. "In my Father's house there are many mansions...". Which means that one who is immersed in the Infinite does not claim any one expression to be Its absolute expression. Every expression is a platform for here and now, logic included.

True, logic is just one of countlesss things that Nature creates. At the same time, though, logic is the only thing out of all these countless other things that has the ability to determine truth. And those who take logic seriously in all aspects of their lives become enlightened.


movingalways wrote:Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality

No, they don't. If you're making assumptions then you are already leaving logic behind. The sign of a quality thinker is his knowing how to reason his way into reality without making any assumptions at all.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Beingof1 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:13 pm

Eric:

Beingofone:
Information requires consciousness. The means do not matter. You can write a sentence on a chalkboard, paper, computer or in the sand but it takes consciousness to decipher and transmit the information.

Eric;
I've seen this thrown around but I've yet to see a justification for why information requires consciousness. Here, you are simply making an unbacked claim.


Unbacked? If it is void of justification, then it should be a simple matter to point to information outside of consciousness and overturn this stunningly obvious premise.

True: It takes consciousness to decipher and transmit the information. That is to say, it is the process of consciousness to differentiate information into a form readable by consciousness. This does not, however, imply that the information itself does not exist undifferentiated outside of consciousness. (Neither have I proven that it does, as that too may be unprovable- hence my point about the central assumption of solipsism)


It most certainly does prove that no information exists 'outside' of consciousness because there exists no information without consciousness. This is a tautology and self evident. You cannot demonstrate a single bit of information that exists outside of consciousness. What can we draw from this experiential reality?

Therefore; all information is contained by consciousness is the irreducible result of pure logic.


Beingofone:
It means; you cannot, under any circumstances, have information manifest anywhere at anytime without a consciousness transceiver to have information in the first place.

Eric:
It seems like you might be missing my point. The manifestation/differentiation of information certainly exists- as it is the constituent material of thought; you're saying that that is the only place information manifests.


If you could point out information that exists outside of the mind - I will change my entire philosophy. Until then, I will have to go with what is self evident experience.

I'm saying eliminate the concepts of consciousness or physicality because they are unprovable and ultimately do not add much to a description of reality.


This is the entire problem. You cannot, under any circumstances, eliminate consciousness in order to drive a thought experiment placing you outside of consciousness.Consciousness is not a "concept." Consciousness defies all concepts.You cannot escape consciousness and peer into the universe as a third party.

What you just said is illogical to the extreme. You may only experience consciousness no matter how hard you try to escape it.

The informational content of your thoughts surely exist, I say leave it at that. There's no need to construct a concept of a consciousness.


Then stop doing it. It is not me constructing a concept - it is you. You keep trying to escape consciousness and make the claim it is possible. Give us a single example and we will all follow. If you cannot then you need to rethink your premise.

My problem with the construction of the idea 'consciousness' is that it implies a consistency of identity which is itself unproven. It's a straw house built on sand.


Your premise that you can escape consciousness is the concept built on sand. You cannot, under any circumstances, escape the experience of consciousness.

You consistently experience consciousness, consistently process all information and consistently flow in a stream of consciousness. It is the obvious.

thought=the experience of information
'I think therefore I am' is false. The concept of an identity containing thought needs further proof.
'I think therefore thought exists' is true.
I think therefore the experience of information exists.


"I think therefore the experience of information exists." Look at this again and tell me what you see of your own words?

Information may very well only manifest in differentiated form through thought, I have no alternative system for the differentiation of information which I might examine. But I fail to see how one might say with certainty that information can manifest in no other form than thought.


You fail to see because you fail to look.

Inside of experience is differentiated/limited/finite reality. Outside of experience is undifferentiated/unlimited/infinite reality.


Can you show us the outside of your experience and demonstrate a single bit of evidence?
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:41 pm


It's very hard to define any existence outside the realm of experience and interpretation. There always will be uncertainty about what lies between the experience and its causes. The famous example being that we cannot know if our (experienced, mapped) universe runs inside a giant computer or not. That computer might generate some self-contained set of experiences and laws to our "mind" in finest mathematical detail and make it seem real as much as desired while there would only be clever non-mathematical devices creating holographic illusions out there and nothing else - like the Matrix movie portrayed so dramatically. This possibility cannot be excluded logically so one can only conclude that experience equals reality while consistency maps truth. Then it's simply the experience or consciousness experiencing its own capacity, which can be mapped and can generate the phenomenon of meaning.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5024
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Eric Orwoll » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:26 am

Beingof1, I think I'll narrow this down to the issue of consciousness we've been discussing. These long, yet shallow, back and forths rarely produce any new understanding.

I often find in arguments that the real point of divergence is definition.
For me, consciousness refers to the identity which contains thought.
I can refer to 'my consciousness'- which is the sum of thought in my brain from birth to death- or I can refer to 'my thought' which is isolated syntactical arrangement. Thought doesn't imply a persistent identity, whereas consciousness seems to.

When I say that consciousness is a construct, I say that persistent identity-not thought- is a construct. The idea of consciousness is just the idea of thoughts strung together by identity.

A thought contains information. A thought is defined by the information it contains. At any one point in time a thought has one syntactically arranged informational constituency. I say that those momentary identities of thought are real, thus thought is not a concept. It is not derived from reality, it is the one given. We know thoughts exist because they are our experience.

We have the perception of selfhood, or an identity of consciousness, due to memory. Memory is the impression of a past thought. Within the syntactical arrangement of information which defines a singular thought there may be an element which contains a representation of a temporally separate thought reality. This impression, in thought, of a connection with temporally disconnected region of reality is not prima facia evidence for the existence of a contiguous identity- memory exists in the present. We infer the existence of past thought from memory- memory is not past thought itself.

I have more to say, but I'd like to give you the chance to respond to this first.
Eric Orwoll
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby movingalways » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:40 am

David Quinn
movingalways
movingalways wrote:
Quote:
David Quinn: Logic dictates that there is something real about anything that exists, regardless of whether it appears to be a figment of the imagination or not. Thus, reality is utterly everything.


Logic may dictate that reality is utterly everything, but the dictation of logic does not make logic the reality of utterly everything or utterly everything the reality of logic.


No one is saying that it does.


Then why sing the singular song of logic? Unless I have missed something in the six or so years I have been a member of this forum.

David Quinn:
movingalways:
movingalways wrote:
Quote David Quinn:
Thus, everything that you experience, whether it be inwardly in your mind or out there in the world, is a direct manifestation of reality.


Logic and emotionalism manifest [the reality of] everything in the duality, but everything in the duality is not Everything [of the Infinite]. "In my Father's house there are many mansions...". Which means that one who is immersed in the Infinite does not claim any one expression to be Its absolute expression. Every expression is a platform for here and now, logic included.


True, logic is just one of countlesss things that Nature creates. At the same time, though, logic is the only thing out of all these countless other things that has the ability to determine truth. And those who take logic seriously in all aspects of their lives become enlightened.


Enlightened to the ways of Nature, yes, which includes the entire spectrum of conditioned consciousness. The question I have for you is: Are you a natural man or a spiritual man?

David Quinn:
movingalways wrote:
Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality


No, they don't. If you're making assumptions then you are already leaving logic behind. The sign of a quality thinker is his knowing how to reason his way into reality without making any assumptions at all.


Where you assume Nature to be the Totality of Reality, I do not.

To be a spiritual man, one does have to leave the realm of logical [natural] thinking behind so he can enter the realm of spiritual [transformational] thinking. Logical thinking determines the truth of A = A, however, logical thinking cannot transform one into the truth of A = A.

And, in order to move from logical to spiritual [I am thinking] assumptions about the nature of A = A do have to be made. Perhaps assumptions as a term is a poor choice. What I am trying to get across is that one must be willing to break completely free of conventional and natural thinking if one desires to be the living Word of A = A. Jesus is the perfect example of one who made that transition from the determination of truth to being the living Word of Truth, the living Word of the metaphor of Self.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby movingalways » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:47 am

Eric Orwoll wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Eric Orwell: I'm with you, but I have to admit some assumptions must be made if you want to avoid solipsism.


Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality, but logical assumptions without identity attachment are but logic farts in the wind. For example, it is a logical assumption that the ground of thought that causes attachment to matter is also the ground of thought that causes release from attachment to matter. And from this one logical assumption of being caused of the ground to be attached and being caused of the ground to be detached, it can be logically assumed that once detachment takes place that the ground causes another world of Understanding. And when that world of Understanding is done, yet another world is caused for Understanding, and another...

To make logical assumptions about the nature of reality such as I have made above is to exist on reality's surface; however, to realize the truth of these logical assumptions, one must experience these assumptions - one must believe with all one's being in their premise. In other words, they must become the life and death of I Am.


I don't know how I can convey my meditative experience of truth in text, so I'm going to continue to make logical assumptions on this forum if that's alright.


You don't need my permission to be who you are.

There is a way to convey one's meditative experience of truth in Word. Check out the thought pattern of Jesus. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life was not just idle chatter.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Eric Orwoll » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:30 am

movingalways wrote:
Eric Orwoll wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Eric Orwell: I'm with you, but I have to admit some assumptions must be made if you want to avoid solipsism.


Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality, but logical assumptions without identity attachment are but logic farts in the wind. For example, it is a logical assumption that the ground of thought that causes attachment to matter is also the ground of thought that causes release from attachment to matter. And from this one logical assumption of being caused of the ground to be attached and being caused of the ground to be detached, it can be logically assumed that once detachment takes place that the ground causes another world of Understanding. And when that world of Understanding is done, yet another world is caused for Understanding, and another...

To make logical assumptions about the nature of reality such as I have made above is to exist on reality's surface; however, to realize the truth of these logical assumptions, one must experience these assumptions - one must believe with all one's being in their premise. In other words, they must become the life and death of I Am.


I don't know how I can convey my meditative experience of truth in text, so I'm going to continue to make logical assumptions on this forum if that's alright.


You don't need my permission to be who you are.

There is a way to convey one's meditative experience of truth in Word. Check out the thought pattern of Jesus. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life was not just idle chatter.


I know that there's a way to convey my direct experience of truth to myself in writing, but I doubt anyone else would take the same meaning out of it that I would. Just look at how grossly Jesus has been misinterpreted.
Eric Orwoll
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Bobo » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:48 pm

It's not consciouness that must confirm reality, but it's reality that must confirm consciouness.

Could chong2 deny chang1's reality?
Can chong2 confirm chang1's counsciouness?
User avatar
Bobo
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby David Quinn » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:14 pm

movingalways wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Logic may dictate that reality is utterly everything, but the dictation of logic does not make logic the reality of utterly everything or utterly everything the reality of logic.

No one is saying that it does.

Then why sing the singular song of logic?

To break down the many barriers that people have erected against it.

The path to enlightenment is: the full and free use of logic + intuition + courage + the whole-hearted desire to truly understand. Nothing can be accomplished if any of these components is absent.


movingalways wrote: The question I have for you is: Are you a natural man or a spiritual man?

Is there a difference?


movingalways wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Assumptions do indeed have to be made about the nature of reality

No, they don't. If you're making assumptions then you are already leaving logic behind. The sign of a quality thinker is his knowing how to reason his way into reality without making any assumptions at all.

Where you assume Nature to be the Totality of Reality, I do not.

"Nature" is just a label given to the totality of reality. Other labels could be "God", or "Tao", or "The Infinite". Again, these are just labels and nothing more. Let's call it "Fwull", if you want.


To be a spiritual man, one does have to leave the realm of logical [natural] thinking behind so he can enter the realm of spiritual [transformational] thinking. Logical thinking determines the truth of A = A, however, logical thinking cannot transform one into the truth of A = A.

That's right. It is not enough to think logical, one has to become logical.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:53 am

Just look at how grossly Jesus has been misinterpreted.


He's never been misinterpreted.
He can only ever be interpreted.
He is individually interpreted.
There are 40 thousand billion interpretations.
He doesn't exist in and of himself.

He is a Language House an ego sits inside of,
the ego puts him on like a pretty dress, a bit of lipstick,
'feels' spiritually special,

It's a look borrowed from the culture that in some quarters 'looks good'.

a collection of ego's hook up together in a herd and seek to dominate,
he is a power/control weapon.

an ego trip.

if ego's weren't so desparate for 'meaning',
for inauthentic winning formulas,
for high moral ground status,
if ego's could admit their inauthenticity,
meaning making could be way more thrilling as an activity.
the menu is open for possibility,
it's just that the same old rubbish keeps getting served up.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Postby Beingof1 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:02 pm

Eric Orwoll wrote:Beingof1, I think I'll narrow this down to the issue of consciousness we've been discussing. These long, yet shallow, back and forths rarely produce any new understanding.

I often find in arguments that the real point of divergence is definition.
For me, consciousness refers to the identity which contains thought.


What then, contains the identity?

I can refer to 'my consciousness'- which is the sum of thought in my brain from birth to death


Who is the "I" that refers to consciousness that is containing this "I" ?

No - consciousness cannot be just thought. The reason; is there ever a moment in your experience that thought pauses? If it does, consciousness then is the source of thought and therefore transcends thought.

-
or I can refer to 'my thought' which is isolated syntactical arrangement. Thought doesn't imply a persistent identity, whereas consciousness seems to.


See above

When I say that consciousness is a construct, I say that persistent identity-not thought- is a construct. The idea of consciousness is just the idea of thoughts strung together by identity.


You are talking about thought and then describe it as consciousness. It is true that identity is constructed from memory linked with inferred thought. No matter how long or deep one looks however, this "I" that you speak of is seen as the illusion. "I"/ - not"I" is a concept and creates separation. Once the concept evaporates the experience of reality ensues. Reality is the absence of separation.

A thought contains information. A thought is defined by the information it contains. At any one point in time a thought has one syntactically arranged informational constituency. I say that those momentary identities of thought are real, thus thought is not a concept. It is not derived from reality, it is the one given. We know thoughts exist because they are our experience.


Experience = consciousness.

We have the perception of selfhood, or an identity of consciousness, due to memory. Memory is the impression of a past thought. Within the syntactical arrangement of information which defines a singular thought there may be an element which contains a representation of a temporally separate thought reality. This impression, in thought, of a connection with temporally disconnected region of reality is not prima facia evidence for the existence of a contiguous identity- memory exists in the present. We infer the existence of past thought from memory- memory is not past thought itself.

I have more to say, but I'd like to give you the chance to respond to this first.


I agree. "I" is a construct.
Beingof1
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests