Toward an Antidote

[Dave Toast]

Dave, I tried building that and was somewhat successful. I used hollow collapsible and extendable telescopic tubes with tension springs inside, connected by semi-solid sponge balls at the joints, and it works. Each time one of the cubes is pushed inside the center, the opposite edges of the inner cube expand, and the closer ones of the bigger cube collapse, and so on.

I don’t see how this is supposed to be a 4-SD though, and what are the reflective elements in each square? Could you please explain that?

Lol, where did you get that tesseract building gear from? Are you some sort of mad scientist that just had it lying around?

What you've built is a 3D skeletal analogue of a 4D object. You can't see its hyperplanes. That's what those reflective surfaces attempt to illustarate. Watch how they interact in a way impossible in 3D. Most importantly, pay attention to the interaction of the reflected vertices and their connecting lines on the hyperplanes.

[Ataraxia]

Physics doesn't deliberately set out to look for smaller and smaller things, rather it looks for more and more elegant, all-encompassing theories which necessarily involves more and more fundamental considerations. Strings are as fundamental as it gets because they are supposedly in the order of the Planck length and 1D. They offer more elegant theories, like some of the Superstring theories, which can unify General Relativity and QM.

That's right.

But the pursuit of physics(in trying to assemble a "theory of everything") is predicated on the belief that physicalism is true.All I'm really saying is that my suspicion is that a fully unified theory cannot be constructed by man,without the additional consideration to the observer.Consciousness.

The 'universe' cannot be completely reduced to "just substance".

This comes as no news to most people who post on this forum of course.Me,I'm still working through this stuff.

[Dave Toast]

Ok but science is about substance, the manifest. Such non-substance is of no concern to that end.

We're really not that far off on the manifest side of things, all things considered. The experts think it will be done some time in the next decade or two.

[Sapius]

Lol, where did you get that tesseract building gear from? Are you some sort of mad scientist that just had it lying around?

No, Dave, I did not have it lying around, and had to find appropriate materials to build it while I had enough time as a kid and had no worries about when or where my next meal came from.

What you've built is a 3D skeletal analogue of a 4D object. You can't see its hyperplanes. That's what those reflective surfaces attempt to illustrate.

So the reflective surfaces are penetrable by the cube and it still remains a layer. Is it? Since if it could not be penetrated, then layers upon layers would accumulate, and to what extent? Or would it be appropriate if I said that the reflective surface is like a soap bubble, and merges with another once in contact?

Watch how they interact in a way impossible in 3D. Most importantly, pay attention to the interaction of the reflected vertices and their connecting lines on the hyperplanes.

Yes I know that is impossible in 3-D as we experience it, but what exactly is the 4th spatial dimension? What exactly does it achieve? Impossible feats like walking through the wall?

[brokenhead]

Trying to negate the beginninglessness of the Totality by carving a portion out of this Totality and making that beginningless doesn't resolve anything. All it does is procrastinate, at best.

Procrastinate before agreeing with you as I logically must eventually is what you mean. I disagree with that. Consciousness is a "thingy"? Can we at least make it "Thingy?" Maybe what I am saying takes a leap of faith, but since it is not logically inconsistent, I believe it is very possibly true: Consciousness is primal. It had no beginning and was itself uncaused. Everything, including time, space, any kind of "totality" you can imagine or postulate is caused. Causality itself is thus caused in this one I AM. Relent, David.

What the hell is so wrong with emotion if it can help you see the Light? Does your hart not have its own chakra?

[David Quinn]

Trying to negate the beginninglessness of the Totality by carving a portion out of this Totality and making that beginningless doesn't resolve anything. All it does is procrastinate, at best.

Procrastinate before agreeing with you as I logically must eventually is what you mean. I disagree with that. Consciousness is a "thingy"?

At best, it could only ever be a portion of the Totality, which is what makes it a "thing" - i.e. it has boundaries, a beginning/end, and can be distinguished from other things.

Again, the Totality includes everything, by definition. Nothing is excluded from it, not even Consciousness.

Maybe what I am saying takes a leap of faith, but since it is not logically inconsistent, I believe it is very possibly true: Consciousness is primal. It had no beginning and was itself uncaused. Everything, including time, space, any kind of "totality" you can imagine or postulate is caused. Causality itself is thus caused in this one I AM. Relent, David.

You would have to stop asserting self-contradictory claims for me to relent. For example, the assertion that the totality can be caused by something beyond it, or the assertion that causality can be caused. These are nonsense statements.

What the hell is so wrong with emotion if it can help you see the Light? Does your hart not have its own chakra?

Making judgments based on one's emotions leads one to accept things uncritically, to accept self-contradictions as being valid, to become attached to things which aren't true, etc. In other words, it leads a person into damaging his own consciousness.

-

[brokenhead]

Making judgments based on one's emotions leads one to accept things uncritically, to accept self-contradictions as being valid, to become attached to things which aren't true, etc. In other words, it leads a person into damaging his own consciousness.

Who said anything about making judgments based on emotions? You do not have a clear grasp of what emotions are. Emotions to you are bad TV shows. If you watch them, they turn your ind into useless crap. In fact, they are TV itself, neither good nor bad for you. To refuse to watch on principle won't kill you, but is silly. There maybe something useful on if you would just learn how to read the schedule and change the channel. You don't need to let TV run your life. Avoiding it altogether gives it more power than it is due.

You didn't respond to my question about the heart chakra. Hint: do not answer in terms of emotion, or you will be missing the point I am trying to make.

How about another analogy instead of the TV one? You don't avoid food poisoning by refusing to eat.

[Beingof1]

David Quinn:

The attempt to posit God as the creator or cause of this uncaused first cause is irrational.

It is a case of wanting the first cause to be both caused and uncaused at the same time.

How is your solution any more rational? Where did the totality come from? Another totality? If all universes are contained by the totality of all things where did this ultimate reality come from?

Saying there is no God - explains nothing.

What is it exactly, that cause and effect is known by to come to this conclusion?

The Totality is everything, by definition, and necessarily includes your postulated Consciousness thingy, assuming that it exists in the first place. Trying to negate the beginninglessness of the Totality by carving a portion out of this Totality and making that beginningless doesn't resolve anything. All it does is procrastinate, at best.

Each thing possesses a power to become what its form has set as its end. There is, in all things, a dynamic striving for its end result including the universe. Such is the nature and essence of the universe.The difference layed between potential and actual. The difference between seed and plant, man and boy, and girl and woman.

If the universe is actual that has emerged from potential, there could be no movement forming actual if there was not a neccessary actual from whence it came. A string of dominoes, that only has the potential to move if there is another domino moving.

Nothing can be transformed from a state of potential by something that is also potential. It must be actual. You cannot have an effect greater than the cause. The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.

If you go back into infinity with only potential, you have infinite regress which is not logical, it must be actual. If there is only a potential universe that is in a state of infinite effect, it does not imply with accuracy at all an actual universe.

What is actual? My perception and state of consciousness. This is fundamental and the starting point as only perception can and will experience the material. You cannot start with the whole and hope to have any chance of success. You must start with what is true in all possible worlds.

My experience of consciousness.

Therefore; consciousness is the actual -> potential -> actual universe. Perfect balance of equal actuality and therefore consistent. Reality maintains its consistence when we begin with what we know is conscious. If we begin with what we know is not conscious, we skew our perception. It is our perception that we begin with at all times, why not start there instead?

At best, it could only ever be a portion of the Totality, which is what makes it a "thing" - i.e. it has boundaries, a beginning/end, and can be distinguished from other things.

Again, the Totality includes everything, by definition. Nothing is excluded from it, not even Consciousness.

So you ignore the very thing you are examining the totality with to come to this conclusion?

Please tell us, what is the boundry and the beginning and end of your consciousness? Do you recall a time you were not? Do you remember beginning? Has anyone, ever, in the history of mankind witnessed the beginning of consciousness?

Distinguish your consciousness from something else for us so we all have a clear example.

If you are experiencing only "one" universe and "one" reality, that by definition, logic, observation, and experience is the singularity of the universe of itself and excludes your "one" from being a subset of the universe.

In other words; your reality is not a subset of the universe - it is the experience of the universe itself.

You would have to stop asserting self-contradictory claims for me to relent. For example, the assertion that the totality can be caused by something beyond it, or the assertion that causality can be caused. These are nonsense statements.

What is contradictory is the idea that your consciousness is somehow a subset of the universe. Why are you having such a difficult time with something so simple a child understands?

All things are contained within consciousness - this is absolute and cannot be overturned.

[brokenhead]

All things are contained within consciousness - this is absolute and cannot be overturned.

And this in no way contradicts the law of Cause and Effect.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn:

The attempt to posit God as the creator or cause of this uncaused first cause is irrational.

It is a case of wanting the first cause to be both caused and uncaused at the same time.

How is your solution any more rational? Where did the totality come from? Another totality? If all universes are contained by the totality of all things where did this ultimate reality come from?

Saying there is no God - explains nothing.

Saying there is a God also explains nothing.

In truth, there is nothing to explain. The Totality, by its very nature, cannot come from anywhere. If you think it can, then you misunderstand the Totality.

The Totality is everything, by definition, and necessarily includes your postulated Consciousness thingy, assuming that it exists in the first place. Trying to negate the beginninglessness of the Totality by carving a portion out of this Totality and making that beginningless doesn't resolve anything. All it does is procrastinate, at best.

Each thing possesses a power to become what its form has set as its end. There is, in all things, a dynamic striving for its end result including the universe. Such is the nature and essence of the universe.The difference layed between potential and actual. The difference between seed and plant, man and boy, and girl and woman.

On the contrary, nothing possesses the power to determine its future form. Take a seed, place it on a dish inside a vacuum, and then observe for eternity its inability to turn into a plant.

If the universe is actual that has emerged from potential, there could be no movement forming actual if there was not a neccessary actual from whence it came. A string of dominoes, that only has the potential to move if there is another domino moving.

Nothing can be transformed from a state of potential by something that is also potential. It must be actual. You cannot have an effect greater than the cause. The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.

None of this is relevant. Even if a potential state for what we call the "universe" had once existed, it would still have been part of the Totality.

If you go back into infinity with only potential, you have infinite regress which is not logical, it must be actual. If there is only a potential universe that is in a state of infinite effect, it does not imply with accuracy at all an actual universe.

Since boundaries between things are illusory, the beginninglessness of the Totality doesn't form an infinite regression. Instead, it is an expression of its actual timelessness.

What is actual? My perception and state of consciousness. This is fundamental and the starting point as only perception can and will experience the material. You cannot start with the whole and hope to have any chance of success. You must start with what is true in all possible worlds.

My experience of consciousness.

I can't see that it means anything to say that your experience of consciousness is true in all possible worlds. It would be like saying that the tree outside your window is true in all possible worlds.

Therefore; consciousness is the actual -> potential -> actual universe. Perfect balance of equal actuality and therefore consistent. Reality maintains its consistence when we begin with what we know is conscious. If we begin with what we know is not conscious, we skew our perception. It is our perception that we begin with at all times, why not start there instead?

Perception and consciousness are certainly very important, but there are other things to consider as well, such as reflections on the nature of the Whole. If you don't take these other things into consideration, if you only focus on your own consciousness, then you run the risk of falling into the insane view that the entire universe exists inside your own consciousness.

At best, it could only ever be a portion of the Totality, which is what makes it a "thing" - i.e. it has boundaries, a beginning/end, and can be distinguished from other things.

Again, the Totality includes everything, by definition. Nothing is excluded from it, not even Consciousness.

So you ignore the very thing you are examining the totality with to come to this conclusion?

Please tell us, what is the boundry and the beginning and end of your consciousness? Do you recall a time you were not?

Yes, everything before 1964.

The beginning and end of my consciousness occurs at the limits of my perception at any given moment. In this case, the limit stretches back to 1964 and extends no further.

Do you remember beginning? Has anyone, ever, in the history of mankind witnessed the beginning of consciousness?

No one really knows when World War 2 started, but that doesn't mean it didn't arise. It is very difficult to track down the beginning of anything that arises, let alone consciousness.

Distinguish your consciousness from something else for us so we all have a clear example.

My consciousness isn't your consciousness. Nor is it a rock's consciousness.

If you are experiencing only "one" universe and "one" reality, that by definition, logic, observation, and experience is the singularity of the universe of itself and excludes your "one" from being a subset of the universe.

In other words; your reality is not a subset of the universe - it is the experience of the universe itself.

It is certainly my experience of the universe, but I don't presume to think that when I die and my consciousness becomes extinguished that the entire universe will cease to be.

For your own sake, you better pray that I stay in good health!

You would have to stop asserting self-contradictory claims for me to relent. For example, the assertion that the totality can be caused by something beyond it, or the assertion that causality can be caused. These are nonsense statements.

What is contradictory is the idea that your consciousness is somehow a subset of the universe. Why are you having such a difficult time with something so simple a child understands?

All things are contained within consciousness - this is absolute and cannot be overturned.

While consciousness is a necessary condition for existence, it doesn't mean that all of existence is dependent upon my own individual consciousness. To think it does would be a case of egotism gone mad.

-

[brokenhead]

While consciousness is a necessary condition for existence, it doesn't mean that all of existence is dependent upon my own individual consciousness.

No, not yours and not mine.

[Dan Rowden]

Name a thing that isn't a product of one's own consciousness.

[brokenhead]

Name a thing that isn't a product of one's own consciousness.

The real question is, name something that isn't a product of some consciousness. Don't obfuscate. David clearly says that the Totality does not depend on one's own consciousness.

[Dan Rowden]

That's true enough, the Totality certainly doesn't (not being a thing that exists), but in what sense are you saying that a "thing" can exist independent of your consciousness? I'm simply asking you to name something. If you can I'll shut up.

[Carl G]

There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.

[skipair]

There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.

This is an assumption if you haven't directly experienced it yourself. I wouldn't spend much energy doubting you either, but I don't know 100%.

Like a jury, it falls under the category of "best guess".

[Sapius]

In truth, there is nothing to explain.

True, but there IS something to understand; ironically, the understanding of "nothing" that requires an explanation, at least to a Self, to ultimately realize that there wasn’t anything really missing to begin with; and what a complete nothing it is indeed!

[Sapius]

That's true enough, the Totality certainly doesn't (not being a thing that exists), but in what sense are you saying that a "thing" can exist independent of your consciousness? I'm simply asking you to name something. If you can I'll shut up.

This is a totally different question than...

Name a thing that isn't a product of one's own consciousness

However; how about all that you did yesterday, or will do today and tomorrow, is not dependent on my consciousness. In that sense, your consciousness itself is independent of my consciousness.

[brokenhead]

That's true enough, the Totality certainly doesn't (not being a thing that exists), but in what sense are you saying that a "thing" can exist independent of your consciousness? I'm simply asking you to name something. If you can I'll shut up.

In what sense can a thing exist independent of my own consciousness? Who's asking you to shut up? I see where you are going with this. Every single thing, thought, notion, nuance, property, you name it, that I can indicate has in fact met with my consciousness at some point, and what I believe to be a tree is in fact a tree in my own consciousness - at least in mine. Everything I know is limited by my own consciousness - and delimited as well. But if we agree that there are things that exist independent of my consciousness - as David rightly says there must be - my question is just this: is there anything independent of any consciousness? Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever?

[Steven]

Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever?

Shut your eyes.

[Leyla Shen]

However; how about all that you did yesterday, or will do today and tomorrow, is not dependent on my consciousness. In that sense, your consciousness itself is independent of my consciousness.

But you (and others) are necessarily positing consciousness as a product of ego, rather than the other way around; ego is a product of consciousness.

[Kevin Solway]

The following text is is copied from the old servers
-------------------------------------------------------


Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 03:13 pm


Leyla Shen wrote:

Sapius wrote:

However; how about all that you did yesterday, or will do today and tomorrow, is not dependent on my consciousness. In that sense, your consciousness itself is independent of my consciousness.

But you (and others) are necessarily positing consciousness as a product of ego, rather than the other way around; ego is a product of consciousness.

Selam, Leyla.

I don't know what you exactly mean. At least I don't see any difference between 'consciousness' and 'ego'. For me, 'ego' = the ‘I’ = 'consciousness' (or ‘awareness’ for that matter), which does not require absolutely any reasoned awareness to be what it is, and is not the same as what I discussed with you quite a long time ago - the ‘false-ego’, which involves reasoning (the conclusions do not really matter either way since the “I” (ego) itself does remain in any case), and all that stuff of 'inherently existing', and the likes, including attachments to any thing including ones own thoughts and values, is what I call a ‘false-ego’. It is the attachments one has to let go, the ‘ego’ ( I ) however remains, effectively changing just the perspective of the ‘I’, hence accommodating absolutely all perspectives without any real prejudice; no real anger or anxiety would remain, replacing that with compassion towards All and the Self included, and so on.

BTW, it does not really matter to me how others define the 'ego', but I don't really have to define it any ways, to be exactly what I am.

_________________
---------
-------------------------------------

Message by Nick Treklis
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 03:47 pm


Carl G wrote:

There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.

No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place. Ultimately nothing exists independently of anything. The simple fact that we can make a distinction between your consciousness and a tree means they are causually dependent upon eachother for their existence. Your consciousness has limits which don't include the tree, and the tree has limits which don't include your consciousness.

-------------------------------------

Message by Leyla Shen
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 07:53 pm


Aleyküm selam, Sapius:

OK. So, as you define them, self, ego and consciousness are one and the same. Returning, then, to the question that sparked my participation on this thread, anyone who knows Dan and is affected by whatever he did yesterday, might do today and tomorrow, is necessarily dependent on Dan (and vice versa) for the existence of those things that result/ed from his doings yesterday, today and tomorrow. Otherwise, they’d be just like you---nothing he did yesterday, today or tomorrow would exist as things (that is, as particular limitations and boundedness-es, whether temporal or physical or mental); they would only be an idea of possibilities in your mind---and for that, yes, you are dependent on Dan's existence.

10 years from now, thanks to the spacetime continuum, you might yet find yourself subject to something Dan caused 5 years ago (a lot less it its travelling at the speed of light). So, you see, interdependence isn’t necessarily a question of direct sensory effects of a particular, bounded (i.e., limited) consciousness in the top far left corner of spacetime on another particular, bounded consciousness in the bottom right corner of spacetime...

_________________
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

-------------------------------------

Message by Dan Rowden
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 08:30 pm

You are all but a pigment of my colorful imagination.


-------------------------------------


Message by Carl G
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 12:53 am


Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:

There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.

No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place.

This has nothing to do with my imagination. There are "products" which exist of which I am completely unaware and do not imagine.

Ultimately nothing exists independently of anything.

Ultimately, yes. Duh. In that sense the word 'independent' has no meaning. Neither does the word 'my', as in 'my consciousness.' But as long as we are speaking of things, there are obviously some of which I am unaware, thus exist independent of my consciousness, meaning, they are not included in my awareness.

The simple fact that we can make a distinction between your consciousness and a tree means they are causually dependent upon eachother for their existence.

I wasn't speaking of causal connection. Obviously everything is connected. Apparently we aren't defining 'consciousness' the same way.

Your consciousness has limits which don't include the tree, and the tree has limits which don't include your consciousness.

Right. Exactly my point. Thus it is fair to say one exists independent of the other, in terms of awareness (though not in terms of ultimate connection, obviously).

_________________
Carl


-------------------------------------

Message by Nick Treklis
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 02:05 am


Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:

There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.

No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place.

This has nothing to do with my imagination. There are "products" which exist of which I am completely unaware and do not imagine.

Ultimately this is just a guess on our part, but even if we assume it to be true, and reasonably so, you are still conscious of the idea that there is a group of things that you have not yet perceived or imagined. So these things, although not imagined or perceived directly, are still in the realm of your consciousness. We can call this group of things the unimaginable or imperceivable.


------------------------

Message by Carl G
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 03:22 am

Yup, all things are connected. Ultimately all 'things' are one.

I'm still thinking we have a difference in definition of 'consciousness,' and, ultimately, I don't think that's worth arguing.

_________________
Carl

-------------------------------------

Message by Beingof1
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:10 am


David Quinn:

Being:
Where did the totality come from? Another totality? If all universes are contained by the totality of all things where did this ultimate reality come from?

Saying there is no God - explains nothing.

David:
Saying there is a God also explains nothing.

In truth, there is nothing to explain. The Totality, by its very nature, cannot come from anywhere. If you think it can, then you misunderstand the Totality.

I could say the same thing:

In truth, there is nothing to explain. God, by its very nature, cannot come from anywhere. If you think it can, then you misunderstand God.

This is the very point I was making. If we begin with what is a concept that we imagine is outside of our consciousness, we will end up in contradiction.

Being:
Each thing possesses a power to become what its form has set as its end. There is, in all things, a dynamic striving for its end result including the universe. Such is the nature and essence of the universe.The difference layed between potential and actual. The difference between seed and plant, man and boy, and girl and woman.

David:
On the contrary, nothing possesses the power to determine its future form. Take a seed, place it on a dish inside a vacuum, and then observe for eternity its inability to turn into a plant.

You just made my point with a very good example. The seed has the 'potential' to become a plant. You just merely robbed it of its necessary causes. If you toss the seed back into the earth, we will quickly see the potential remained.

The seed is not stripped of its potential by isolation, it is still an actual seed. The plant however, is not actual.

You must have an actual seed to have an actual plant. You cannot have a potential plant without an actual seed.

Being:
If the universe is actual that has emerged from potential, there could be no movement forming actual if there was not a neccessary actual from whence it came. A string of dominoes, that only has the potential to move if there is another domino moving.

Nothing can be transformed from a state of potential by something that is also potential. It must be actual. You cannot have an effect greater than the cause. The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.

David:
None of this is relevant. Even if a potential state for what we call the "universe" had once existed, it would still have been part of the Totality.

This mysterious "Totality" that you speak of seems to retreat into mysticism when examined.

I can directly point to my Totality - examine it, describe it, experience it, and answer all questions by what is self evident by it. I can also direct you to what is your self evident experience, so you can see it for yourself.

That is truth.

Being:
If you go back into infinity with only potential, you have infinite regress which is not logical, it must be actual. If there is only a potential universe that is in a state of infinite effect, it does not imply with accuracy at all an actual universe.

David:
Since boundaries between things are illusory, the beginninglessness of the Totality doesn't form an infinite regression. Instead, it is an expression of its actual timelessness.

Didn't you say above: " Take a seed, place it on a dish inside a vacuum, and then observe for eternity its inability to turn into a plant"?

You used a set of boundaries to try and make your point - now they evaporate into a mystical omni "Totality". Which is it?

I can answer - its so easy, a child can do it. Once you understand there is nothing outside of consciousness, there is no question that cannot be answered with what is obvious.. Ask me the question, I dare ya. It is the beauty (of which many here will role their eyes) of truly understanding the message of Christ. Not orthodox jibberish, but the actual meaning and paradigm.

Being:
What is actual? My perception and state of consciousness. This is fundamental and the starting point as only perception can and will experience the material. You cannot start with the whole and hope to have any chance of success. You must start with what is true in all possible worlds.

My experience of consciousness.

David:
I can't see that it means anything to say that your experience of consciousness is true in all possible worlds. It would be like saying that the tree outside your window is true in all possible worlds.

Who is it that is observing the tree? Who is it that is examining all possible worlds? What tree in all possible worlds?

If you prefer; what is it that is examining all possible worlds?

No matter where you go - there you are. You cannot make youself go away, no matter how hard you try. You keep trying to take yourself out of the equation and it leads to contradiction on top of unresolved angst.

Being:
Therefore; consciousness is the actual -> potential -> actual universe. Perfect balance of equal actuality and therefore consistent. Reality maintains its consistence when we begin with what we know is conscious. If we begin with what we know is not conscious, we skew our perception. It is our perception that we begin with at all times, why not start there instead?

David:
Perception and consciousness are certainly very important, but there are other things to consider as well, such as reflections on the nature of the Whole. If you don't take these other things into consideration, if you only focus on your own consciousness, then you run the risk of falling into the insane view that the entire universe exists inside your own consciousness.

What is this universe that exists outside? Could you point to the clear line of demarkation between your consciousness and the universe? This way, we can all see the obvious insanity of attempting to experience reality.

What is insane is attempting to look at the 'whole and universe' from a third person perspective.

You can do this if you pretend you are not yourself. If you cannot be what you are, you can imagine yourself being someone else. You can even imagine yourself being in another universe. You can imagine the whole, being someone else, and pretend the whole exists as something apart from your consciousness.

Only in this way, can you claim to be somewhere you are not, be someone or something you are not, and a universe that is not here.

This is rational?

What do you get when you crossbreed an elephant with a kangaroo?
Big holes, all over Australia.

David:
At best, it could only ever be a portion of the Totality, which is what makes it a "thing" - i.e. it has boundaries, a beginning/end, and can be distinguished from other things.

Again, the Totality includes everything, by definition. Nothing is excluded from it, not even Consciousness.

Being:
So you ignore the very thing you are examining the totality with to come to this conclusion?

Please tell us, what is the boundry and the beginning and end of your consciousness? Do you recall a time you were not?

David:
Yes, everything before 1964.

The beginning and end of my consciousness occurs at the limits of my perception at any given moment. In this case, the limit stretches back to 1964 and extends no further.

I asked if you could recall a time you were not. You can recall your birth then? You can recall a date in time that limits your perception?

Please describe the moment you first became aware. This will be a breakthrough for all of mankind that has never before been realized.

The student and the teacher:
"Master, how many lives have you lived"?
"As many times as I have been born."
"How many times have you been born"?
"I cannot remember."

Being:
Do you remember beginning? Has anyone, ever, in the history of mankind witnessed the beginning of consciousness?

David:
No one really knows when World War 2 started, but that doesn't mean it didn't arise. It is very difficult to track down the beginning of anything that arises, let alone consciousness.

It is not difficult, it is impossible.
Any process has no beginning and no end, do the math.

Being:
Distinguish your consciousness from something else for us so we all have a clear example.

David:
My consciousness isn't your consciousness. Nor is it a rock's consciousness.

Where do I exist then? How do you know I am here? Where is this rock?

If I am outside of your consciousness, are you aware of my existence? Can you tell us how my consciousness is not in your field of awareness?

Being:
If you are experiencing only "one" universe and "one" reality, that by definition, logic, observation, and experience is the singularity of the universe of itself and excludes your "one" from being a subset of the universe.

In other words; your reality is not a subset of the universe - it is the experience of the universe itself.

David:
It is certainly my experience of the universe, but I don't presume to think that when I die and my consciousness becomes extinguished that the entire universe will cease to be.

Can you tell us what happens when you die? This way, we can all know of certitude, what the experience was like for you.

For your own sake, you better pray that I stay in good health!

I have and will continue to do so. I have spent some time in meditation for every single person I have spoke with at this forum. As I have told you before, regardless our discussions, I believe you are a blessing to this world and consider you a kindred spirit.

It is why I take the time to talk with you - I do think you push away truth to preserve the image of a sage. I believe you are wise and pure in your intent as you are willing to push yourself beyond mediocrity and have my respect for this journey.

I mean this in no way as a dis as most in this world have not touched or come close to your understanding. I would say; let all go, including the image you have of yourself as a sage.

The understanding comes into full realization that you can only transcend and expand, not be wrong or right. Clarity brings greater understanding than all past sages. Including Gautama, Jesus, and Lao Tzu. If we cannot transcend these past wise sages, we are stuck in mediocrity and a system of beliefs.

Come up hither.

Being:
What is contradictory is the idea that your consciousness is somehow a subset of the universe. Why are you having such a difficult time with something so simple a child understands?

All things are contained within consciousness - this is absolute and cannot be overturned.

David:
While consciousness is a necessary condition for existence, it doesn't mean that all of existence is dependent upon my own individual consciousness. To think it does would be a case of egotism gone mad.

Look at your statement here, think about what you just said.

What is maddening is to be trapped in a physical body. If you lose 5 pounds, are you less of a whole human? Do you experience less of reality by losing weight? Is your consciousness diminished in experience exausting itself with starts and stops by less weight in the body?


Leyla Shen:

But you (and others) are necessarily positing consciousness as a product of ego, rather than the other way around; ego is a product of consciousness.

BINGO - bing friggin oh.

We have a winner folks.

Thank you Leyla

-------------------------------------


Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:21 am


Leyla;

anyone who knows Dan and is affected by whatever he did yesterday, might do today and tomorrow, is necessarily dependent on Dan (and vice versa) for the existence of those things that result/ed from his doings yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Sure… those particular things that are interactively present at any given causal moment of “Dan’s” particular consciousness, but what has that got to do with the times when you go shopping and Dan is taking a bath?

Otherwise, they’d be just like you---nothing he did yesterday, today or tomorrow would exist as things (that is, as particular limitations and boundedness-es, whether temporal or physical or mental); they would only be an idea of possibilities in your mind---and for that, yes, you are dependent on Dan's existence.

It doesn’t matter to me what exists for Dan when I am not around, and vice versa. All I know for sure is that Dan has no idea of WHAT I ate for breakfast, eggs or pizza, or did I eat breakfast at all. Either eggs or pizza that I eat depend on MY consciousness, not Dan’s. As far as his particular daily activities go, whatever particular thing he does is not dependant on my consciousness alone because it never enters MY consciousness unless I am aware of it, and vice versa.

How logical is it to say that the egg that Dan ate yesterday was dependant on my consciousness when I am not even aware if he did eat at all? For all I know, he MIGHT (which is a calculated guess) eat a single mean a day, for I’m told (again I’m not too sure about it) that he does not have much regular income, and yet, I’m not aware of what exactly he eats or drinks, so the kind of burger (may be a Barramundi fillet burger) or the beer he enjoys is not dependant on MY consciousness, and that is the point.

10 years from now, thanks to the spacetime continuum, you might yet find yourself subject to something Dan caused 5 years ago (a lot less it its travelling at the speed of light). So, you see, interdependence isn’t necessarily a question of direct sensory effects of a particular, bounded (i.e., limited) consciousness in the top far left corner of spacetime on another particular, bounded consciousness in the bottom right corner of spacetime...

You mean billiard ball type causality? I think you are mixing two different views, philosophical and scientific, which could be related but not one and the same thing.

Why do you stop at Dan then? You see, what I do may be subject to what Dan caused 10 years ago, and that further depends on what David caused 12 years ago, what Kevin caused 15 years ago, what Carl… what Gandhi… what Hitler… what Bozo… result, infinite regress of a billiard ball causality. When talking of the All, as in causal connections, then in that sense absolutely all things are interdependent, but then too, not in a linear sense, but in an abstractly instantaneous sense which is not actually bound by linear time, so whatever any particular consciousness is aware of, totally depends on what that particular consciousness is aware of in and off any particular causal moment; so since I am not aware of what Dan had for breakfast yesterday, nor am I aware of his daily activities, they are not dependant on my particular consciousness, but that does not mean his eggs did not exist at all, FOR HIM, and I KNOW that if he did indeed eat eggs, then they must have interdependently existed for him, irrelevant of my consciousness not being aware of his eggs at that instant.

For a further example... I was not aware that Dan was myopic...

Dan: You are all but a pigment of my colorful imagination.

Now I know, so is his condition now dependant on my consciousness? ;-D

-------------------------------------

Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:39 am

BO1 to David;

Can you tell us what happens when you die? This way, we can all know of certitude, what the experience was like for you.

My memory of individual consciousnesses is not that great, but was it you who had an out of body, near death experience? Or was it someone else? I know Michael (Mikiel sp?) is one.

_________________
---------
-------------------------------------


Message by brokenhead
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:55 am


Sapius wrote:
You mean billiard ball type causality? I think you are mixing two different views, philosophical and scientific, which could be related but not one and the same thing.

This is precisely the problem with philosophy, IMO. It's a little too slick on this point. Can we agree that the scientific causality is a special case of the philosophical notion? That the latter includes the former? I'm saying this because it is fruitful to be more rigorous with this idea. It is not at all clear that any two events or things are causally connected, despite WOTI. I think this idea is a severe philosophical flaw. It would mean the scientific method is never logically valid. I think that researchers - the good ones - take into account the limits of precision in any given scientific experiment via the error matrix. which is a mathematical device for keeping track of all the unknown things that necessarily creep into a physical experiment in which things are measured. Scientists therefore make statements such as "A is observed to be true to one part in ten thousand."

What I am getting at here is trying to define things better.

Why do you stop at Dan then?

Exactly. Let's not. Let's not assume anyone's consciousness must be causally related to anyone else's. Shorn of this assumption, my question stands: is it possible for a thing to exist that is not dependent on anyone's consciousness?

-------------------------------------

Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 05:39 am


BH;

Going back to one of your posts… in my experience…

is there anything independent of any (particular) consciousness?

Yes. Otherwise, we can through out logic and reasoning, along with any and all abstract rational conclusions we arrive at.

Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever?

No, but I would rather say ‘awareness’ since I can logically deduce a cow awareness, (unless you call that ‘cow consciousness’), and it works just as well for a cow that is “rationally” conscious of its environment and hence is able to coherently react accordingly, although it may have limitations as far as abstract rationality is concerned.

_________________
---------
-------------------------------------

Message by Leyla Shen
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 09:33 am

Sapius:

Well, if you want it expressed succinctly in lateral terms: “your consciousness” is dependent on the limitations that separate it from “other consciousness-es.” Otherwise, you’d be omniscient.

I’m not fixed on thinking in linear or lateral terms, personally. Not knowing what Dan had for breakfast, if anything, is merely one such limitation, in an abstractly instantaneous way.

And, by the way, I don’t stop at Dan. He is but a mere rhetorical device to me as I am a shade of pink to him (nice pun, by the way, Dan).

Also, thanks to the genius who invented cordless phones, Dan telephoned me from his bathtub and asked for a rubber duck, which is why I went shopping.


brokenhead wrote:
Exactly. Let's not. Let's not assume anyone's consciousness must be causally related to anyone else's. Shorn of this assumption, my question stands: is it possible for a thing to exist that is not dependent on anyone's consciousness?


Is it possible for a thing to exist without form?

A blind man and a not blind man walking in a field. Not blind man sees tree (form) and walks around it--the tree exists. Blind man doesn’t see tree and so walks into it, hurting himself (form)--the tree exists. Do their respective descriptions of the form of this thing determine its existence, or does its appearance in their consciousness?

Earthquake happens in US; people hurt, buildings damaged. I hear about it on the news in Australia. If an earthquake happened and there were no people hurt and buildings damaged and other effects in and across the world, what is an earthquake? What meaning does it have?

_________________
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

-------------------------------------

Message by Shahrazad
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 11:41 am

Also, thanks to the genius who invented cordless phones, Dan telephoned me from his bathtub and asked for a rubber duck, which is why I went shopping.

What happened to Dan's old rubber ducky?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-------------------------------------

Message by brokenhead
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 05:43 pm

Sapius wrote:

Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever
No, but I would rather say ‘awareness’ since I can logically deduce a cow awareness, (unless you call that ‘cow consciousness’), and it works just as well for a cow that is “rationally” conscious of its environment and hence is able to coherently react accordingly, although it may have limitations as far as abstract rationality is concerned.?

Why muddy the waters, Sapius? Let's forget the cow for a minute and concentrate on the term "consciousness." Same question: Is it possible for a thing to exist independent of consciousness?


-------------------------------------

[Sapius]

BH: Why muddy the waters, Sapius? Let's forget the cow for a minute and concentrate on the term "consciousness." Same question: Is it possible for a thing to exist independent of consciousness?

OK. Then define ‘consciousness’.

[brokenhead]

Consciousness = sentience. Strictly non-bovine.

[Sapius]

Leyla;

Well, if you want it expressed succinctly in lateral terms: “your consciousness” is dependent on the limitations that separate it from “other consciousness-es.” Otherwise, you’d be omniscient.

Good point, and another subtle thing to be looked into is that your point also points to the impossibility of an omniscient consciousness. You see, even if one consciousness is fully aware of another and is in perfect tuning, then it wouldn’t be ANOTHER so to speak, for it wouldn’t be able to differentiate at all, and would be conscious of any other thing other than the other consciousness.

On the other hand, if one form had two or more consciousness-es, then we would call that split personalities, and generally they do not operate at the same time, and one personality is not aware of another either. Hence, a single universal consciousness is not possible, and if it were, it could not be aware of any other consciousness to be benevolent or whatever towards it to begin with. The universal consciousness would necessarily have to have boundaries, a particular form, to interact with any other, hence not omniscient, because UC too could not be fully aware of what another consciousness experiences.

Also, thanks to the genius who invented cordless phones, Dan telephoned me from his bathtub and asked for a rubber duck, which is why I went shopping.

Well, good, but what you did not mention, since you were not aware I guess, is that while he called you from his tub, he was actually imagining you shopping in the nude and masturbating. Surely your particular consciousness was not involved in such an act. Was it? ;)

Is the brand of shampoo he was using at the time dependant on your consciousness? Was it the pigment of his imagination that was reflected in the bathroom tiles around him, or was it subject to your consciousness? Was the model and make of the cordless phone also dependant on your consciousness? You see, I could go on and on in this fashion to the depths of molecular structure as sensed by him; there can be so many things for him that are not necessarily dependent on your particular consciousness.


If I may…

Is it possible for a thing to exist without form?

No.

A blind man and a not blind man walking in a field. Not blind man sees tree (form) and walks around it--the tree exists. Blind man doesn’t see tree and so walks into it, hurting himself (form)--the tree exists. Do their respective descriptions of the form of this thing determine its existence, or does its appearance in their consciousness?

Are you asking when exactly does a tree itself acquire a form? That when exactly does a tree pop into existence as the blind AND the not blind men approach?

Earthquake happens in US; people hurt, buildings damaged. I hear about it on the news in Australia. If an earthquake happened and there were no people hurt and buildings damaged and other effects in and across the world, what is an earthquake? What meaning does it have?

Same… Earthquake… by definition as they say. We can logically deduce that the eruption and earthquake in Pompeii did not happen yesterday, but when it did, it was exactly that, although I wasn’t there at the time. We have sensors and satellites monitoring the world today, and earthquakes happen every three minutes or so, and I'm told almost 98% of them happen in uninhabited areas, of which the major portion lies under the sea. Now don’t tell me that those depended on your consciousness just because I just told you now.

Shahrazad;

What happened to Dan's old rubber ducky?

You too went out shopping rubber duckies for him?!! Lucky Dan! :D