Oh why, why, why?!?!??!!!

[David Quinn]

Here is another one of those questions that will stump Laird for all eternity, yet is easy to resolve with a bit of thought:

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

To use an example, why does Laird's subjective consciousness reside in a human body in Tasmania and not, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet? Why did it arise in a male human in 20th century Australia?

-

[mensa-maniac]

Here is another one of those questions that will stump Laird for all eternity, yet is easy to resolve with a bit of thought:

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

To use an example, why does Laird's subjective consciousness reside in a human body in Tasmania and not, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet? Why did it arise in a male human in 20th century Australia?

-

Mensa says: Because his father and mother created Laird's consciousness in the 20th century in Australia, Laird's consciousness was created from both his paternal and maternal inheritances from the beginning of time. Laird, like everyone of today carries the consciousnessess of his forefathers, and foresisters

[Blair]

Why is my hair brown.

Why do I grow whiskers on my face.

Why are my whiskers brown, black, red and grey, whilst my head hair is not.

Why do I like the song New Divide by Linkin Park.

Why do I have an aversion to the number 32.

Why, why??

[guest_of_logic]

Here is another one of those questions that will stump Laird for all eternity, yet is easy to resolve with a bit of thought:

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

To use an example, why does Laird's subjective consciousness reside in a human body in Tasmania and not, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet? Why did it arise in a male human in 20th century Australia?

It's certainly an interesting question, David: more interesting to me though is the question, "Is it possible for my (Laird's) subjective consciousness to have resided in, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet?"

Since you say it is easy to resolve with a bit of thought, perhaps you could explicate that thought for us. I'm interested in where you come from on this question. Having spoken on this topic with Kevin at some length, I can guess, but hearing it from your own mouth, so to speak, would be good.

[David Quinn]

Sorry, I've got better things to do.

-

[jupiviv]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

The question is already answered, as in - "why am I myself, and not anybody else?" The causes of all things lie in themselves.

[mensa-maniac]

Why is my hair brown.

Why do I grow whiskers on my face.

Why are my whiskers brown, black, red and grey, whilst my head hair is not.

Why do I like the song New Divide by Linkin Park.

Why do I have an aversion to the number 32.

Why, why??

Mensa says: From the first man and woman who created life.
You know Prince, I've been meaning to tell you this since you posted your photo here, I know your face, I've seen it before, I don't know where, when, how, or why, I only know I never forget a face.

[Talking Ass]

Mensa writes: "I know your face, I've seen it before, I don't know where, when, how, or why, I only know I never forget a face."

David Berkowitz.

[mensa-maniac]

Mensa writes: "I know your face, I've seen it before, I don't know where, when, how, or why, I only know I never forget a face."

David Berkowitz.

Mensa asks: Who is David Berkowitz? He's not Prince is he? He doesn't have Prince's eyes.

[Kunga]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

Because your brain is in your present body and not anywhere else ? I initially thought "karma" . Maybe that has something to do with it too ....but without a brain (especially the left hemisphere) we would have no sense of "self" or individuality .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

[David Quinn]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

The question is already answered, as in - "why am I myself, and not anybody else?" The causes of all things lie in themselves.

Yes, but why aren't you saying these things in another body? Why did the dice roll in favour of your present body, when your subjectivity could have just as easily ended up somewhere else?

-

[David Quinn]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

Because your brain is in your present body and not anywhere else ? I initially thought "karma" . Maybe that has something to do with it too ....but without a brain (especially the left hemisphere) we would have no sense of "self" or individuality.

That's heading to the right ball park, but why is your subjectivity being generated by the particular brain you are in and not by another brain?

-

[Kelly Jones]

Even if one speculates that consciousness is created by an ongoing fluctuating assemblage of electrochemical signals, and all the other causes we assume make a human bodily organism, one cannot be sure that that's the case. For one's particular consciousness, one can observe millions of patterns within one's subjectivity and see variations in the quality of the contents of that subjectivity, and therefore assume that these are part of the causes for one's own mind. But there cannot be a final answer on this, for the reason that every specific cause, or assemblage of causes, or pattern of causes, that one identifies as necessary to make oneself "me", cannot account for what goes on beyond one's own mind. One cannot really know all the causes. So speculation as to the ways and wherefores of this consciousness is a futile task. All one can do is reach into the logical realm, and know that it is caused.

It's exactly the same investigation Laird is struggling with in believing that the Totality cannot be a mystery. And, again, it touches on why pure reason (ie. logical deduction) can be used to answer that same investigation. If Robert and Nat could see that one's subjectivity is still a part of the Totality, they would have no problem seeing that pure reason is itself a flowering of the Tao, and stop building false conceptions.

...

[Kunga]

why is your subjectivity being generated by the particular brain you are in and not by another brain?

Karma. After death, human beings are again dying to be born again.....Laird was watching his parents making love before he was concieved...his conciousness was allowed to enter during conception due to past karmic connections . Hard to concieve...i know.....

[Kelly Jones]

why is your subjectivity being generated by the particular brain you are in and not by another brain?

Karma. After death, human beings are again dying to be born again.....Laird was watching his parents making love before he was concieved...his conciousness was allowed to enter during conception due to past karmic connections . Hard to concieve...i know.....

I bet if you think back over your own forty to fifty years of life, you'll realise how many "chains of events" were set off by chance encounters and pure luck. In other words, your life isn't reincarnating "Kunga" but millions and billions and zillions and quadrillions and megatopsidrillions of different lives, moment-by-moment. There is no single long linear Kunga life-stream going back to prehistory. Rather, there's a chaos of countless interactions in all directions, involving absolutely everybody and all consciousnesses.

"Laird" hasn't been one consistent quality of consciousness, for instance. "He" pops up in infinitely different forms and personalities. The Buddhist idea of a stream of consciousness literally passing from one bodily organism into another (after a span spent in the bardo realms) after the death of the previous organism, is total bullshit and a misreading of the Buddha's real meaning: the psychological influence of delusional thoughts, from one moment to the next, within one's own mind, and from person to person.


...

[Kunga]

i don't know Kelly...it's all a bit fuzzy to me really...i can't call people liars that have claimed to be reborn...and those that know how to transfer their consciousness (phowa). i am not skeptical about these things...how can we truly know without experiencing it for ourselves...or at least having the recollection...but if there is this so-called consciousness...and if "we" are all part of this consciousness...it obviously is repeating itself in this illusion of life.


The Buddha includes belief in rebirth and kamma in his definition of right view, and their explicit denial in wrong view.


Phowa has many different meanings; in Tibetan it means "transferring consciousness." The highest form is known as the phowa of the dharmakaya which is meditation on the great perfection. When you do Dzogchen meditation, there's no need to transfer anything, because there's nothing to transfer, no place to transfer it, nor anyone to do it. That's the highest, and greatest phowa practice.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm not disputing karma. I'm disputing the false interpretation of what it is. Consciousness can't be transferred. That should be obvious. What can happen is one can influence others, or be influenced. That's not transferring consciousness.

When someone enlightened helps another person to have enlightened insights, it influences them. While nothing has been transferred, the understanding of the first person can affect the second, leading to them having their own, original, unique taste of "Buddha consciousness".


...

[jupiviv]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

The question is already answered, as in - "why am I myself, and not anybody else?" The causes of all things lie in themselves.

Yes, but why aren't you saying these things in another body? Why did the dice roll in favour of your present body, when your subjectivity could have just as easily ended up somewhere else?

-

For that same reason.

[guest_of_logic]

Sorry, I've got better things to do.

Oh, well, please, by all means carry on with those better things.

[jufa]

Here is another one of those questions that will stump Laird for all eternity, yet is easy to resolve with a bit of thought:

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

To use an example, why does Laird's subjective consciousness reside in a human body in Tasmania and not, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet? Why did it arise in a male human in 20th century Australia?

-

You have given the answer and it is because of ones subjective consciousness which is exact in length, breadth, and height according to the pattern of thinking which infiltrates and dominates ones mind. All variables are subject to a subjective consciousness' preference of likeness and images.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[David Quinn]

Here is another one of those questions that will stump Laird for all eternity, yet is easy to resolve with a bit of thought:

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

To use an example, why does Laird's subjective consciousness reside in a human body in Tasmania and not, say, an Indian's body in Calcutta, or in a Roman's body in Constantinople 1600 years ago, or in a being in the far-flung future on another planet? Why did it arise in a male human in 20th century Australia?

You have given the answer and it is because of ones subjective consciousness which is exact in length, breadth, and height according to the pattern of thinking which infiltrates and dominates ones mind. All variables are subject to a subjective consciousness' preference of likeness and images.

That's the best answer yet. Yes, the resolution of the issue lies in the false assumptions that the question makes. In particular, the assumption that each subjective consciousness is identical and interchangeable. But just as no two leaves are ever alike, so too no subjective consciousnesses are ever alike. Each is peculiar to the particular circumstances from which it arises.

-

[Anders Schlander]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

our consciousness must adhere to whatever it percieves, if what it perceives is the same as before, there is no change. No change means no change in perception, and no change in perception means no change in any particular body. Thus, it is impossible for consciousness to inhabit two different bodies. That would require two different states of consciousness. Our consciousness could well inhabit two bodies, but if they were the same kinds of consciousness they wouldn't be percieving anything different. There wouldn't actually be a fat guy, and a thin guy, if there was a fat guy in one, there'd be a fat guy in the other.

Something I was inclined to ask myself when i was younger: why do this 'self' unique in this body, with a life of it's own, exist here, and not in another guy in africa? Then i wondered, and the guy in Africa, wouldn't he ask why does this 'self' unique in this body, exist here, and not in the rich west?

But that's because there is no inherently existing soul, our perceptions are caused and can't be traced back anywhere definite, and some perceptions that are caused become burning hells, and suffering, and some become heavens of delight, the world causes young africans to experience intense hunger, aswell as young boys to have crazy thoughts about why they are born in their family rather than a rich ones family.

Why is the tree a tree, and not just empty air, over empty barren lands? why is the tree a tree, and not a fox?

[Gurrb]

ah the notorious 'why am i me' question. it cannot be answered because meaning in life is necessary for it to be answered. why are we human? why are we aware of our existence?

man has created god in such a way that god has created man. clearly, here the 'egg' came before the 'chicken', even though the chicken was merely an idea. potentiality.

how do i know you are thinking beings like i am? or simply just a manifestation of my own consciousness that are fabrications of an internal, bounded world.

[David Quinn]

ah the notorious 'why am i me' question. it cannot be answered because meaning in life is necessary for it to be answered.

Ah, another one whose favourite pose is being stumped. Don't worry, it looks very sexy.

If the answer is causation (and at root, there cannot be any other answer than this), then no meaning in life is needed. In fact, the very reality of causation (the answer) eliminates all meaning (the supposed necessity).

-

[jufa]

Why does one's subjective consciousness inhabit a particular body and not another?

our consciousness must adhere to whatever it percieves, if what it perceives is the same as before, there is no change. No change means no change in perception, and no change in perception means no change in any particular body. Thus, it is impossible for consciousness to inhabit two different bodies. That would require two different states of consciousness. Our consciousness could well inhabit two bodies, but if they were the same kinds of consciousness they wouldn't be percieving anything different. There wouldn't actually be a fat guy, and a thin guy, if there was a fat guy in one, there'd be a fat guy in the other.

Something I was inclined to ask myself when i was younger: why do this 'self' unique in this body, with a life of it's own, exist here, and not in another guy in africa? Then i wondered, and the guy in Africa, wouldn't he ask why does this 'self' unique in this body, exist here, and not in the rich west?

But that's because there is no inherently existing soul, our perceptions are caused and can't be traced back anywhere definite, and some perceptions that are caused become burning hells, and suffering, and some become heavens of delight, the world causes young africans to experience intense hunger, aswell as young boys to have crazy thoughts about why they are born in their family rather than a rich ones family.

Why is the tree a tree, and not just empty air, over empty barren lands? why is the tree a tree, and not a fox?

Our consciousness, that which is sometimes claimed to be independent of Life's conscious omniety, is a mixture of man ancient ancestors thought passed onward unto the generations of the eternal moment of awareness by continuously calling to remembrance, from out of the soul, those ancient thought which have been kept alive by thinking of the old and new subjective things conscious remembers because the law of reciprocity has never alters and its principles and patterns of indoctrination has never been eliminated.

Ones percepts also does not alter the pattern and principle of "as a man thinkest in his heart, so is he." So ones thinking is the adhesive which attach the thought one thinks. This activity is what make up man's covering within and without because man cannot separate what is subjective within, from that which the object of visions which create the image which man is in his heart of thought.

Subjective consciousness is of no power but the power to placate individual minds of thinking thoughts into matter which forms all the variables thought images within the hall of ones soul.

And because the moment of living is a continuum of living, change is inevitable. Nothing in the univers of matter is stagnant.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa