The nature of consciousness

[Russell Parr]

Russell:

Well in my opinion, phrases like "infinite energy" and "infinite set" shouldn't even be stated. It creates a false impression; that there are multiple infinites (unless we're talking about mathematical concepts, rather than Ultimate Reality). There is only one Infinite.

8. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.

This is what I meant when I said if you isolate one part of the syllogism, it leads to diffusion of the entire construct.

It is like designing an aircraft, looking at only part of blueprints and saying it will never fly because it has only one wing.

You missed my point.

1. Consciousness is obviously caused.

Caused by what?

1) That which isn't consciousness

Could you point to that which is not contained by consciousness so we can see the line of demarcation between what is consciousness and what is not?

No, I cannot point to something that which is beyond my consciousness because it would necessarily have to be within my field of consciousness. However, I recognize that my field is limited by distance, time, my sensory apparatuses, etc.

2) its constituents.

Is your experience of consciousness a whole? Have you ever had a divided consciousness?

Every conscious experience is complete within itself. This doens't mean that it encompases the whole of reality, however.

Did you cause the universe?

No. Did you?

Yes.

Causality is related to what is perceived. There has never been a casual link that has not been perceived. That is a universal constant.

Could you identify a causal link of somekind void of perception?

No, for the same reasons mentioned above. Causality comes first; consciousness, and the perceptions of consciousness are secondary, that is, are only part of the causality that permeates the entirety of Reality. That which is beyond consciousness is, by definition, imperceptible. The whole, which includes the imperceivable that things come from, as well as the things that come to exist by way of perception, is the eternal Tao, or Ultimate Reality.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

You missed my point.

That for me to say the infinite is infinite is to imply there are two infinities?

Was that your point?

Could you point to that which is not contained by consciousness so we can see the line of demarcation between what is consciousness and what is not?

No, I cannot point to something that which is beyond my consciousness because it would necessarily have to be within my field of consciousness. However, I recognize that my field is limited by distance, time, my sensory apparatuses, etc.

If your consciousness is limited by distance could you give us that distance and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by time could you tell us when consciousness ends and begins and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by the senses could you tell us which of the senses limit your consciousness?

Is your experience of consciousness a whole? Have you ever had a divided consciousness?

Every conscious experience is complete within itself. This doens't mean that it encompases the whole of reality, however.

If every conscious experience is a whole and complete; It means it is a singularity - do you agree?

Do you experience reality?

Yes.
Causality is related to what is perceived. There has never been a casual link that has not been perceived. That is a universal constant.
Could you identify a causal link of somekind void of perception?


No, for the same reasons mentioned above. Causality comes first; consciousness, and the perceptions of consciousness are secondary, that is, are only part of the causality that permeates the entirety of Reality. That which is beyond consciousness is, by definition, imperceptible. The whole, which includes the imperceivable that things come from, as well as the things that come to exist by way of perception, is the eternal Tao, or Ultimate Reality.

You are holding a concept in your own consciousness called Tao or ultimate reality and saying that this concept exists outside of your consciousness - that is not logical. Think it through Russell.

You are saying in essence; There exists things that I cannot perceive yet I am perceiving them all at the same time.

The only Tao that exists is the one you are experiencing.

[Russell Parr]

That for me to say the infinite is infinite is to imply there are two infinities?

Was that your point?

Well you didn't say that.

If your consciousness is limited by distance could you give us that distance and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by time could you tell us when consciousness ends and begins and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by the senses could you tell us which of the senses limit your consciousness?

As for distance, my consciousness is limited by how far I can see, smell, hear, reach, taste, feel. As for time, consciousness, as with all things, exists in the moment of perception. As for what senses limit my consciousness, that would be all of them. If we include thought, that is limited by what I am able to think about in any given moment.

If every conscious experience is a whole and complete; It means it is a singularity - do you agree?

Sure.

Yes.You are holding a concept in your own consciousness called Tao or ultimate reality and saying that this concept exists outside of your consciousness - that is not logical. Think it through Russell.

You are saying in essence; There exists things that I cannot perceive yet I am perceiving them all at the same time.

The only Tao that exists is the one you are experiencing.

The concept of the Tao is not the Tao. The Tao is eternal. I, however, am not. The Tao is the Tao whether I am experiencing it or not.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

Well you didn't say that.

I will assume you understand then

If your consciousness is limited by distance could you give us that distance and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by time could you tell us when consciousness ends and begins and prove your statement?
If your consciousness is limited by the senses could you tell us which of the senses limit your consciousness?


As for distance, my consciousness is limited by how far I can see, smell, hear, reach, taste, feel.

Does a blind person have limited consciousness?

If you were deprived of all five senses would you be less of a person? How much consciousness would you still experience?

As for time, consciousness, as with all things, exists in the moment of perception.

And could you point out the first moment of perception? Can you remember your first moment of awareness? Can science or anyone point to the first moment of perceptual awareness?

As for what senses limit my consciousness, that would be all of them. If we include thought, that is limited by what I am able to think about in any given moment.

If you are aware of your senses and thought who exactly is aware of your thought and senses?

If every conscious experience is a whole and complete; It means it is a singularity - do you agree?

Sure.

Singularity:
1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual
2. a point where all parallel lines meet
3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist
5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

In other words, if your consciousness is a whole/singularity it is the point (a point is infinite) in which all lines intersect and all wave patterns collapse.
Your consciousness does not appear in space or time yet it is the only experience where all senses (as you said above) thoughts, and awareness takes place.

Let me know if that needs more explanation or we need to flesh it out.

You skipped this absolutely essential question. Without a definition of reality that we both can agree on this entire conversation is moot.

Beingof1 asked:
Do you experience reality?

Being:
Yes. You are holding a concept in your own consciousness called Tao or ultimate reality and saying that this concept exists outside of your consciousness - that is not logical. Think it through Russell.

You are saying in essence; There exists things that I cannot perceive yet I am perceiving them all at the same time.

The only Tao that exists is the one you are experiencing.

Russell:
The concept of the Tao is not the Tao. The Tao is eternal. I, however, am not. The Tao is the Tao whether I am experiencing it or not.

In order for you to say anything about the Tao at all you must be able to have some experience of it otherwise you are quoting Lao Tzu and cannot possibly know what it means.

[Russell Parr]

Does a blind person have limited consciousness?

His is more limited than an unblind person's.

If you were deprived of all five senses would you be less of a person? How much consciousness would you still experience?

I'd still be a person, just one that only had thought left. I'd probably atrophy and die in a short amount of time, I'd imagine. Then there wouldn't even be thought, and therefore no consciousness.

And could you point out the first moment of perception? Can you remember your first moment of awareness? Can science or anyone point to the first moment of perceptual awareness?

This is a good question. It's impossible to draw the line where anything begins or ends, in absoluteness, but we do it for convenience anyway. This leads to the truth that nothing, including consciousness, absolutely exists in itself. Consciousness only appears to exist, that is, it appears to be something separate from the rest of Reality.

I know that you take these observations as proof that consciousness must not be limited by the body. But I beg to differ, because consciousness must always have realm or field that it is observing, and "the rest" that it isn't observing. This is the inherent duality of consciousness. If it could observe the All simultaneously, including itself, then there would be no duality, or the "ten thousand things". The very word "observe", which is the movement, or action of consciousness, implies duality. Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

If you are aware of your senses and thought who exactly is aware of your thought and senses?

uh...

Singularity:
1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual
2. a point where all parallel lines meet
3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist
5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

In other words, if your consciousness is a whole/singularity it is the point (a point is infinite) in which all lines intersect and all wave patterns collapse.
Your consciousness does not appear in space or time yet it is the only experience where all senses (as you said above) thoughts, and awareness takes place.

Let me know if that needs more explanation or we need to flesh it out.

My consciousness is a single part of reality, so it is a singularity in itself. This doesn't make it the whole of reality.

You skipped this absolutely essential question. Without a definition of reality that we both can agree on this entire conversation is moot.

Beingof1 asked:
Do you experience reality?

I skipped it because it seems rhetorical and utterly obvious.. but if you insist.. yes.

In order for you to say anything about the Tao at all you must be able to have some experience of it otherwise you are quoting Lao Tzu and cannot possibly know what it means.

Same to you bud.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

*Slaps forehead*

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

*Head Collaspes Inward*

[Beingof1]

Russell:

Being:
Does a blind person have limited consciousness?

Russell:
His is more limited than an unblind person's.

Being:
If you were deprived of all five senses would you be less of a person? How much consciousness would you still experience?

Russell:
I'd still be a person, just one that only had thought left. I'd probably atrophy and die in a short amount of time, I'd imagine. Then there wouldn't even be thought, and therefore no consciousness.

In all of nature, consciousness is a whole, there is no exception. That is because consciousness is fractal.

Since you are not a bird, does the experience of not flying make your consciousness less of a whole?

If you close your eyes, does your experience of consciousness become less? If you then open your eyes, does your consciousness become more?

Because a bat uses sound to discern its environment, does that mean it is deprived of a 'whole' consciousness or is it the other way around? Since you use your eyes to discern your environment does that mean your consciousness is less than a whole?

When you were a child, you had a smaller body, does that mean you had less than a 'whole' consciousness? If you lose weight, are you less than a whole consciousness?

If you lose a finger in an accident, are you less of a whole consciousness?

Certainly if you are blind that does diminish the experience of sight but that does not mean your experince is less than a 'whole' consciousness. You are still a 'whole' and that has always been true from every memory.

It is logically, experientially and perceptually impossible to be less than a 'whole' consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the singularity and the absolute. No matter how hard you try you can never escape your consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the ultimate reality. No matter how many senses you are deprived of you can never experience less than a whole consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the 'whole and never less than a 'whole.' No matter how many things or concepts you percieve they are always contained by your consciousness and therefore: your consciousness is never less than a 'whole'.

Thought experiment:
Look around where you are at and start counting the objects. You will quickly see there is a literal infinite amount of objects you can count and therefore; your consciousness is aware of an infinite amount of things and all in a finite amount of time. That means your consciousness is performing the hypertask of a literal infinite amount of perceptual awareness in a constant state of transcendence.

The reason it appears the field of consciousness is finite is because of thought. We only think of one word or image at a time and thought is indeed finite but the field of awareness contains - present tense - an infinite amount of things. Therefore consciousness awareness is infinite.

I arrived here through logic but the experince of awareness is beyond logic - just sayin

This is true whether you have your eyes open or closed because when thought is absent - the infinite field is manifest.

Being:
And could you point out the first moment of perception? Can you remember your first moment of awareness? Can science or anyone point to the first moment of perceptual awareness?

Russell:
This is a good question. It's impossible to draw the line where anything begins or ends, in absoluteness, but we do it for convenience anyway.

BINGO - all and everything is in a constant state of process and therefore transcendence. We only arbitrarily point to a beginning and end for function. This includes your consciousness. Therefore; your consciousness had no beginning.

Thought experiment:
If you could stop time - who would be observing reality in stasis?

This leads to the truth that nothing, including consciousness, absolutely exists in itself. Consciousness only appears to exist, that is, it appears to be something separate from the rest of Reality.

Consciousness does not exist because it does not appear in the time-space continuum. The continuum appears within consciousness.

It appears separate because we animate a physical body. The mind extends beyond the physical body.

I know that you take these observations as proof that consciousness must not be limited by the body. But I beg to differ, because consciousness must always have realm or field that it is observing, and "the rest" that it isn't observing. This is the inherent duality of consciousness.

This is a very good question. It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenatrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experince duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

If it could observe the All simultaneously, including itself,

Consciousness cannot observe itself - that is why you and I are here. That is why you have a physical body.

then there would be no duality, or the "ten thousand things". The very word "observe", which is the movement, or action of consciousness, implies duality. Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

Well said but you take it to mean consciousness is not the singularity and it means just that.

It is like a monk who is in a cave meditating for 20 years and then has the desire to meet other people. before meeting other people all he had was himself. Out from the impersonal became the personal when the critical mass of expansion had arrived. God created God to observe himself.

The infinite literally acheived the impossible - it limited itself.

If you are aware of your senses and thought who exactly is aware of your thought and senses?

uh...

Yes?

My consciousness is a single part of reality, so it is a singularity in itself. This doesn't make it the whole of reality.

If your reality is a singularity there can be no other reality because there is no such thing as a partial reality and therefore; consciousness is fractal or the whole in every part and the part in every whole.

This tells us that our consciousness is not divided or separate but is a unified field as are the cells in your body making uo the unified and singular Russell. From top to bottm - from God to the omeba - all interconnected like the internet just looking at different webpages on the very same internet.

[Russell Parr]

In all of nature, consciousness is a whole, there is no exception. That is because consciousness is fractal.

Since you are not a bird, does the experience of not flying make your consciousness less of a whole?

If you close your eyes, does your experience of consciousness become less? If you then open your eyes, does your consciousness become more?

Because a bat uses sound to discern its environment, does that mean it is deprived of a 'whole' consciousness or is it the other way around? Since you use your eyes to discern your environment does that mean your consciousness is less than a whole?

When you were a child, you had a smaller body, does that mean you had less than a 'whole' consciousness? If you lose weight, are you less than a whole consciousness?

If you lose a finger in an accident, are you less of a whole consciousness?

Certainly if you are blind that does diminish the experience of sight but that does not mean your experince is less than a 'whole' consciousness. You are still a 'whole' and that has always been true from every memory.

It is logically, experientially and perceptually impossible to be less than a 'whole' consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the singularity and the absolute. No matter how hard you try you can never escape your consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the ultimate reality. No matter how many senses you are deprived of you can never experience less than a whole consciousness and therefore; consciousness is the 'whole and never less than a 'whole.' No matter how many things or concepts you percieve they are always contained by your consciousness and therefore: your consciousness is never less than a 'whole'.

Every thing is "whole" within itself. If you separated a thing into parts or fractions, each part is a "complete whole" in itself. But this "wholeness" can't be somehow be expanded and applied to the entirety of reality. You are doing this with consciousness.

Thought experiment:
Look around where you are at and start counting the objects. You will quickly see there is a literal infinite amount of objects you can count and therefore; your consciousness is aware of an infinite amount of things and all in a finite amount of time.

False. One can only be aware of finite amount of things in any span of time. Counting to infinity is impossible. Also, "infinite amount" is a logical impossibility. Amounts can only refer to finites. There is only one Infinite, it and is boundless.

The reason it appears the field of consciousness is finite is because of thought. We only think of one word or image at a time and thought is indeed finite but the field of awareness contains - present tense - an infinite amount of things. Therefore consciousness awareness is infinite.

The field of awareness clearly contains only a finite amount because awareness changes in each moment. When you leave one room and go to another, or go outside, your awareness changes. You are no longer aware of the things before. Therefore awareness is finite.

Thought experiment:
If you could stop time - who would be observing reality in stasis?

Observation is an action, and all actions require time, which is the measurement of causality. Therefore causality is more fundamental than observation.

Consciousness cannot observe itself - that is why you and I are here. That is why you have a physical body.

If consciousness cannot observe itself, then it is limited.

The belief that you exhibit is born of the ego's desire to live forever. It is very comforting to believe that consciousness is transcendent of the finite life of the flesh, but this goes against nature, and is an expression of a displeasure with God. Let it go, Being!

[Beingof1]

Russell:

Every thing is "whole" within itself. If you separated a thing into parts or fractions, each part is a "complete whole" in itself. But this "wholeness" can't be somehow be expanded and applied to the entirety of reality. You are doing this with consciousness

The difference is all things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means. Consciousness is not a 'thing' as it contains all things you can possibly measure. There is not a single exception.

All things are a 'whole' decided on completely by consciousness as a choice within your field of awareness - there is no exception.

Consciousness is 'doing' the measuring and yet it has no physical dimensions because all things you measure are contained by it. You can certainly see the effects of consciousness such as measuring the electrical current strength in the brain but this is true of all things and therefore; all things are the effect of consciousness. Every single thing has an electrical charge that can be measured.

Did you know that at the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg there is an explosion of light and electricity? Your thought is an electromagnetic function.

Does the brain exist withing the mind or does the mind exist withing the brain?

You can perceive your brain and using logic, therefore; the brain exists within the mind.

Look around where you are at and start counting the objects. You will quickly see there is a literal infinite amount of objects you can count and therefore; your consciousness is aware of an infinite amount of things and all in a finite amount of time.


False. One can only be aware of finite amount of things in any span of time. Counting to infinity is impossible.

I know counting to infinity is impossible - that is the second time you have brought this up. That is the entire purpose of the thought experiment.

Lets use logic - if you are not aware of an infinite amount of things - can you count the finite number of things you are aware of and overturn this point?

Also, "infinite amount" is a logical impossibility. Amounts can only refer to finites. There is only one Infinite, it and is boundless.

That is why there is Pi that signifies an infinite 'amount' of points. Can you have an unlimited amount of things? A triangle has 3 points and a circle has an unlimited amount of points. The amount of points in the function Pi are "boundless." I fail to see what you mean?

Russell - is the Totality all things? Does the Totality contain all things? Are there an unlimited amount of things? Can you have a "boundless" amount of things?

Now; you can abandon logic by saying there are no words to identify what we are discussing - or we can use words that do.

You tell me what things and the infinite are so I can use the language you feel comfortable with.

The field of awareness clearly contains only a finite amount because awareness changes in each moment. When you leave one room and go to another, or go outside, your awareness changes. You are no longer aware of the things before. Therefore awareness is finite.

If awareness changes in each moment that is more evidence that your consciousness is infinite (I will use the word you are OK with once you tell me what that is).

If your consciousness can never exaust itself in thought, experience, awareness and flux - it requires an infinite amount or "boundless" amount of energy for this dynamic.

If your consciousness never ceases to change - using logic - it requires a "boundless" amount of energy.

Thought experiment:
If you could stop time - who would be observing reality in stasis?


Observation is an action, and all actions require time, which is the measurement of causality. Therefore causality is more fundamental than observation.

It was not a catch all experiment - it is only designed to give perspective.

Time cannot be measured it can only be tracked because of relativity. Mass, velocity and observation all 'morph' time.

Therefore Time is thought in motion or the electrons updating the data because of relativity.

Consciousness cannot observe itself - that is why you and I are here. That is why you have a physical body.


If consciousness cannot observe itself, then it is limited.

Russell said:

If it could observe the All simultaneously, including itself, then there would be no duality, or the "ten thousand things". The very word "observe", which is the movement, or action of consciousness, implies duality. Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

You either need to clarify this or pick a position.

Can the Totality observe itself? If it cannot - according to your reasoning - the Totality is limited.

The belief that you exhibit is born of the ego's desire to live forever. It is very comforting to believe that consciousness is transcendent of the finite life of the flesh, but this goes against nature, and is an expression of a displeasure with God. Let it go, Being!

You could not be farther from the truth when examining what motivates me.

[Russell Parr]

(Conversation continued from another thread, which started [http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 39#p155939]here.[/url])

Russell:

Every thing is "whole" within itself. If you separated a thing into parts or fractions, each part is a "complete whole" in itself. But this "wholeness" can't be somehow be expanded and applied to the entirety of reality. You are doing this with consciousness

The difference is all things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means. Consciousness is not a 'thing' as it contains all things you can possibly measure. There is not a single exception.

All things are a 'whole' decided on completely by consciousness as a choice within your field of awareness - there is no exception.

Consciousness is 'doing' the measuring and yet it has no physical dimensions because all things you measure are contained by it. You can certainly see the effects of consciousness such as measuring the electrical current strength in the brain but this is true of all things and therefore; all things are the effect of consciousness. Every single thing has an electrical charge that can be measured.

Did you know that at the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg there is an explosion of light and electricity? Your thought is an electromagnetic function.

Consciousness is measured by the whole of its observation in any given moment.

Does the brain exist withing the mind or does the mind exist withing the brain?

You can perceive your brain and using logic, therefore; the brain exists within the mind.

Yes, the "mind in the brain" is an empirical finding, and the "brain in the mind" is affirmed by logic.

False. One can only be aware of finite amount of things in any span of time. Counting to infinity is impossible.

I know counting to infinity is impossible - that is the second time you have brought this up. That is the entire purpose of the thought experiment.

Lets use logic - if you are not aware of an infinite amount of things - can you count the finite number of things you are aware of and overturn this point?

I'll give you that. A better point would be to say that consciousness is limited by that which it is not observing. There may be an infinite within consciousness, but let's not neglect the infinite beyond. Within consciousness the Infinite is "converted" into an arrayment of colors, sounds, smells, etc.. Beyond consciousness is the Infinite unconverted, that is, the nondual realm, or the "void". Causality undermines all of this. Where consciousness is caused, so are the appearances perceived by consciousness.

Also, "infinite amount" is a logical impossibility. Amounts can only refer to finites. There is only one Infinite, it and is boundless.

That is why there is Pi that signifies an infinite 'amount' of points. Can you have an unlimited amount of things? A triangle has 3 points and a circle has an unlimited amount of points. The amount of points in the function Pi are "boundless." I fail to see what you mean?

Pi is a mathematical concept, which applies to empiricism, and belongs to the "infinite within." Good point.

Russell - is the Totality all things? Does the Totality contain all things? Are there an unlimited amount of things? Can you have a "boundless" amount of things?

I can accept using the term "amount" in describing the nature of the "infinite within". Beyond consciousness, however, there's nothing that the concept of "amount" can apply to.

Now; you can abandon logic by saying there are no words to identify what we are discussing - or we can use words that do.

You tell me what things and the infinite are so I can use the language you feel comfortable with.

Hopefully my adjustments in this thread adds some clarity to my points.

If your consciousness can never exaust itself in thought, experience, awareness and flux - it requires an infinite amount or "boundless" amount of energy for this dynamic.

Consciousness uses only the amount of energy needed to perform its purpose.

If your consciousness never ceases to change - using logic - it requires a "boundless" amount of energy.

Consciousness is always changing, and it comes and goes.

Time cannot be measured it can only be tracked because of relativity. Mass, velocity and observation all 'morph' time.

Therefore Time is thought in motion or the electrons updating the data because of relativity.

Time is causality in motion, and is measured by way of relativity.

If consciousness cannot observe itself, then it is limited.

If it could observe the All simultaneously, including itself, then there would be no duality, or the "ten thousand things". The very word "observe", which is the movement, or action of consciousness, implies duality. Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

You either need to clarify this or pick a position.

Can the Totality observe itself? If it cannot - according to your reasoning - the Totality is limited.

I didn't contradicted myself. I was pointing out that consciousness cannot be the Totality because then dualism, as in the experience of self and other, would be impossible.

We can be at one with the Infinite, we cannot be the Infinite.

The belief that you exhibit is born of the ego's desire to live forever. It is very comforting to believe that consciousness is transcendent of the finite life of the flesh, but this goes against nature, and is an expression of a displeasure with God. Let it go, Being!

You could not be farther from the truth when examining what motivates me.

I've no doubt you have a righteous cause or good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled!

[Beingof1]

Russell,
Thank you for sticking to the issues. This, in my experience is rare. It is refreshing to have a discussion where we are endeavouring to uncover truth. Discussions and debates need to be (I cannot emphasize this point enough) about uncovering the truth not about proving who is right. If we stick to the what rather than who is right, it keeps perception clear and the truth surfaces. The mistake most make is becoming personally invested in their world veiw and it then becomes an issue of self worth. That is the trick of the ego.

Most are so caught up in reinforcing their own position or model of the universe they have constructed in their mind, it is like weening them off of the tit for milk. Whining, name calling and stomping of the feet is not a logical argument.

Once again; I honor your straight and forward approach to these issues.

Except for the one comment at the very end - brace yourself - sarcastic comment is now loading :)

Consciousness is measured by the whole of its observation in any given moment.

You are still trying to measure consciousness by time. When you look at your watch is that a empiracle universal constant? No it is not because the clock in Greenwich and Denver stretch time at differing rates. These atomic clocks need to be recalibrated every year because - observation, mass and velocity all morph time.

Where is the bound on the information in the universe? Where is the event horizon? Every time a particle changes properties (spin) the information is enhanced by its interaction with another particle, or energy/information is transferred/changes to form new information - it is created.

The infinite never stops creating new information - that is why a "moment" in Time is infinite. A moment on time determines not only the future but also the past. I will say more about this in my next answer.

let me repeat a previous statement that is supplemental. You did not address this point:

I said:
It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenatrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experince duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

Beingof1:
Does the brain exist withing the mind or does the mind exist withing the brain?
You can perceive your brain and using logic, therefore; the brain exists within the mind.

Russell:
Yes, the "mind in the brain" is an empirical finding, and the "brain in the mind" is affirmed by logic.

Not just a deduction from logic but observation as well. The brain is clearly within the mind. There is no scientific/empiracle evidence that can locate the mind within the body because the body is an effect of consciousness.

How far out from your body does your mind stretch?

I'll give you that. A better point would be to say that consciousness is limited by that which it is not observing. There may be an infinite within consciousness, but let's not neglect the infinite beyond. Within consciousness the Infinite is "converted" into an arrayment of colors, sounds, smells, etc.. Beyond consciousness is the Infinite unconverted, that is, the nondual realm, or the "void". Causality undermines all of this. Where consciousness is caused, so are the appearances perceived by consciousness.

Thank you Russell - you are wise to acknowledge logic.

If one does not know something or has not considered something it does not make them smart or dumb - it just means new information has been introduced. If one is wise the self image is sublimated and 'brought under control' for the greater good of Truth.

This is a compliment to you of the highest order.


A point in mathematics is infinite because it is tied to the One space I refered to previously. If you have two points on a piece of paper you have interconnection between these two points as there is no line connecting these two points.

A tangent is the farthest reach of a point for intersecting the infinite. A point or zero is infinite.
http://imgarcade.com/1/internally-tange ... real-life/

You see; to be infinite means there is no event horizon where the information suddenly stops at the train station because the expansion rate of the infinite is identical to the information made available. To be infinite means what was impossible yesterday is possible today.

The infinite is in a constant state of pushing all limits, exceeding all bounds and making impossibilities possible.

I can accept using the term "amount" in describing the nature of the "infinite within". Beyond consciousness, however, there's nothing that the concept of "amount" can apply to.

If it is true for one infinity it is true of infinity as there is only one and cannot be another. What you are seeing is the interconnected singular infinity. As I said before, it is thought that is finite.

I only use the word 'amount' for identification not definition.

In order to have reality you must have a system that looks like this:
Actual frequency/information ---> Potential reality ---> Actual modulated reality

Aristotle was right. This is a circle and nonlocal.

Example:
You can have a string of dominoes that have the potential to all fall down but you must have actual energy to push the first. This leads to information and energy or the actual reality out from potential.

What we are measuring is the amount in bits for each dominoe and unless you see the actual frequency, you will result in infinite regression of cause and effect which is not logical.

If you need more clarity on this let me know.

Hopefully my adjustments in this thread adds some clarity to my points.

Thanks

I didn't contradicted myself. I was pointing out that consciousness cannot be the Totality because then dualism, as in the experience of self and other, would be impossible.

Ah - the self - that is a discussion all in itself.

I would say we have a body but ultimately I am the universe.

We can be at one with the Infinite, we cannot be the Infinite.

What is the difference?

I've no doubt you have a righteous cause or good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled!

You are a big poopy pants.

[Beingof1]

Russell,
Could you provide a link and explanation in your OP so that others can get some context?

Thank you sir

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Beingof1 your words are in my opinion not very good words for representing truth (If that is your intention).

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with any of this:

"Where is the bound on the information in the universe? Where is the event horizon? Every time a particle changes properties (spin) the information is enhanced by its interaction with another particle, or energy/information is transferred/changes to form new information - it is created."


Absolutely nothing
natta
zilch
zero relation
Completely off topic, entirely unrelated to ultimate truth- and you don't even understand why.



P.S. Please don't reply with something annoying, or if it is annoying, make it funny.

P.P.S. Russell doesn't seem to know what he's talking about at the moment either.

[Beingof1]

Beingof1 your words are in my opinion not very good words for representing truth (If that is your intention)

If you speak to everyone the same - you are speaking to most of them wrong.

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with any of this:

"Where is the bound on the information in the universe? Where is the event horizon? Every time a particle changes properties (spin) the information is enhanced by its interaction with another particle, or energy/information is transferred/changes to form new information - it is created."

If there is no frame of reference - of course it means nothing to you.

Absolutely nothing
natta
zilch
zero relation
Completely off topic, entirely unrelated to ultimate truth- and you don't even understand why.

Go ahead - give us all a sample of what real truth words look like. It is easy to criticize, anyone can do that.

It takes great skill to communicate truth - give us a sample of your skill in showing us all real ultimate truth.

We wait for your searing wisdom that will take us all to truth.

Knock yourself out big daddy...

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No thanks.

[Beingof1]

Russell,

Are we done? If we are I will go back to what I was doing before.

[Russell Parr]

Russell,

Are we done? If we are I will go back to what I was doing before.

We can be whenever you'd like. I was just taking my time.

You are still trying to measure consciousness by time.

You are still trying to measure the Totality with your consciousness!

When you look at your watch is that a empiracle universal constant? No it is not because the clock in Greenwich and Denver stretch time at differing rates. These atomic clocks need to be recalibrated every year because - observation, mass and velocity all morph time.

Where is the bound on the information in the universe? Where is the event horizon? Every time a particle changes properties (spin) the information is enhanced by its interaction with another particle, or energy/information is transferred/changes to form new information - it is created.

The infinite never stops creating new information - that is why a "moment" in Time is infinite. A moment on time determines not only the future but also the past. I will say more about this in my next answer.

All this remains in the realm of the attributable, that is, within the conscious field. It doesn't account for the non-dualistic, formless, unattributable aspect of the Infinite. Where this is no consciousness, there are no electrons, time, energy, particles, etc.

What you don't understand is that consciousness is relativity. You cannot separate these. Consciousness is the existence of "self and other", and cannot be shown to be otherwise.

let me repeat a previous statement that is supplemental. You did not address this point:

If I skip responding to a segment of your post, it's not because I'm avoiding it, but because my point against it is made elsewhere anyway.

I'll indulge you this time:

I said:
It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenatrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experince duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

Causality alone is fundamental, it alone persists. As stated before, consciousness is demonstrably limited by time and space.

Beingof1:
Does the brain exist withing the mind or does the mind exist withing the brain?
You can perceive your brain and using logic, therefore; the brain exists within the mind.

Russell:
Yes, the "mind in the brain" is an empirical finding, and the "brain in the mind" is affirmed by logic.

Not just a deduction from logic but observation as well. The brain is clearly within the mind. There is no scientific/empiracle evidence that can locate the mind within the body because the body is an effect of consciousness.

How far out from your body does your mind stretch?

As stated before, consciousness is the experience of "self and other." It is relativity. Empirically, any and every possible experience of consciousness is linked to the existence of a host. There are no mystical experiences, be it astral-projection, out of body, near death, etc. that overturn this.

A point in mathematics is infinite because it is tied to the One space I refered to previously. If you have two points on a piece of paper you have interconnection between these two points as there is no line connecting these two points.

A tangent is the farthest reach of a point for intersecting the infinite. A point or zero is infinite.
http://imgarcade.com/1/internally-tange ... real-life/

You see; to be infinite means there is no event horizon where the information suddenly stops at the train station because the expansion rate of the infinite is identical to the information made available. To be infinite means what was impossible yesterday is possible today.

The infinite is in a constant state of pushing all limits, exceeding all bounds and making impossibilities possible.

Again, none of this addresses the formless, unobserved realm, or the "infinite beyond".

I can accept using the term "amount" in describing the nature of the "infinite within". Beyond consciousness, however, there's nothing that the concept of "amount" can apply to.

If it is true for one infinity it is true of infinity as there is only one and cannot be another. What you are seeing is the interconnected singular infinity. As I said before, it is thought that is finite.

I only use the word 'amount' for identification not definition.

In order to have reality you must have a system that looks like this:
Actual frequency/information ---> Potential reality ---> Actual modulated reality

Aristotle was right. This is a circle and nonlocal.

Example:
You can have a string of dominoes that have the potential to all fall down but you must have actual energy to push the first. This leads to information and energy or the actual reality out from potential.

What we are measuring is the amount in bits for each dominoe and unless you see the actual frequency, you will result in infinite regression of cause and effect which is not logical.

If you need more clarity on this let me know.

Ditto.

Ah - the self - that is a discussion all in itself.

I've been describing the nature of the self plenty.

I would say we have a body but ultimately I am the universe.

That's your ego talking!

We can be at one with the Infinite, we cannot be the Infinite.

What is the difference?

One can be at one the Infinite by ceasing clinging to the "world of things".

One cannot be the Infinite because "being" exists only within the realm of relativity.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

We can be whenever you'd like. I was just taking my time.

Me 2 - I have limited time but I am enjoying our discussion.

[jupiviv]

Russell, I have a question. Why do you insist on adhering to this notion of a dual and non-dual aspect to the All, and consciousness somehow having the edge over non-consciousness within the "illusory" dual aspect? To wit (from your first post in this thread):

There may be an infinite within consciousness, but let's not neglect the infinite beyond. Within consciousness the Infinite is "converted" into an arrayment of colors, sounds, smells, etc.. Beyond consciousness is the Infinite unconverted, that is, the nondual realm, or the "void". Causality undermines all of this. Where consciousness is caused, so are the appearances perceived by consciousness.

Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

Anyone who honestly analyses your position impartially will lose no time in pointing out that the distinction between the illusory conscious/dual realm and the authentic non-dual realm is blatantly contradictory. Furthermore, the sub-distinction in the conscious/dual realm into consciousness and non-consciousness does not make sense.

Since you've started a thread on consciousness, maybe you should explain from scratch what you believe consciousness really is. Just for the record.

[Russell Parr]

Russell, I have a question. Why do you insist on adhering to this notion of a dual and non-dual aspect to the All, and consciousness somehow having the edge over non-consciousness within the "illusory" dual aspect? To wit (from your first post in this thread):

There may be an infinite within consciousness, but let's not neglect the infinite beyond. Within consciousness the Infinite is "converted" into an arrayment of colors, sounds, smells, etc.. Beyond consciousness is the Infinite unconverted, that is, the nondual realm, or the "void". Causality undermines all of this. Where consciousness is caused, so are the appearances perceived by consciousness.

Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

Anyone who honestly analyses your position impartially will lose no time in pointing out that the distinction between the illusory conscious/dual realm and the authentic non-dual realm is blatantly contradictory. Furthermore, the sub-distinction in the conscious/dual realm into consciousness and non-consciousness does not make sense.

You make a good point, I sometimes erroneously attribute the quality of "ultimate" to the non-dual realm beyond consciousness over the dualistic realm of within it. It is a bad habit I've picked up over the years of ridding myself of the belief in things. In reality, the dual and the non-dual realms are both illusory, as in, both are merely appearances.

Since you've started a thread on consciousness, maybe you should explain from scratch what you believe consciousness really is. Just for the record.

I don't think that is necessary. To start from scratch would be to say that the experience of consciousness is utterly obvious. From there, the nature of its existence and function have been addressed aplenty so far.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

You are still trying to measure consciousness by time.


You are still trying to measure the Totality with your consciousness!

Nope - I am the one that challenged you to demonstrate the measurements of the dimensions of consciousness. You ignored that and now you bring it up as evidence against - it is clearly evidence that the absolute you are looking for is your very own consciousness.

Lets use logic - if consciousness is physical, it must be measurable (as you propose). What are the dimensions? Where does this 'bigger' reality begin and your consciousness end?

If consciousness cannot be measured - using logic - it cannot be a 'thing' as all 'things' can be measured by conceptual means.

All this remains in the realm of the attributable, that is, within the conscious field. It doesn't account for the non-dualistic, formless, unattributable aspect of the Infinite. Where this is no consciousness, there are no electrons, time, energy, particles, etc.

What you don't understand is that consciousness is relativity. You cannot separate these. Consciousness is the existence of "self and other, and cannot be shown to be otherwise.

If there is self/other - again using logic - where does your 'self' begin and end? Where is the line of demarcation? Where does your self end and things, formless and unattributable aspect of the Infinite begin?

If, as you claim, there is a self and other, you must be able to separate them logically as self/other is a logical claim. If you are going to make a logical claim it must be supported by evidence.

Reality is the absence of separation.

*I*/not*I* is a concept that does not exist other than a concept. When the concept *I*/not*I* evaporates so does the separation and the infinite field is manifest as the reality it truly is.

All things - no exception - exist within the field known as consciousness that is interpenetrating 'all things' whether objectively or subjectively. Nothing 'happens' outside.

Being said:
It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenatrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experince duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

Russell:
Causality alone is fundamental, it alone persists. As stated before, consciousness is demonstrably limited by time and space.

You did not address the point. You just repeated your belief without a single underpinning, example or evidence.

I gave the evidence and logic for my conclusion. What you did was pulled The Wizard of Oz trick - "because I say so and that is that."

If you cannot support your position - it is flawed and that is the great joy of logic in that it rids us of all of our beliefs.

I will repeat my evidence that you apparently skipped over:

Being:
The difference is all things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means. Consciousness is not a 'thing' as it contains all things you can possibly measure. There is not a single exception.

All things are a 'whole' decided on completely by consciousness as a choice within your field of awareness - there is no exception.

Consciousness is 'doing' the measuring and yet it has no physical dimensions because all things you measure are contained by it. You can certainly see the effects of consciousness such as measuring the electrical current strength in the brain but this is true of all things and therefore; all things are the effect of consciousness. Every single thing has an electrical charge that can be measured.

Did you know that at the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg there is an explosion of light and electricity? Your thought is an electromagnetic function.

Beingof1:
Does the brain exist withing the mind or does the mind exist withing the brain?
You can perceive your brain and using logic, therefore; the brain exists within the mind.

Russell:
Yes, the "mind in the brain" is an empirical finding, and the "brain in the mind" is affirmed by logic.

Being:
Not just a deduction from logic but observation as well. The brain is clearly within the mind. There is no scientific/empiracle evidence that can locate the mind within the body because the body is an effect of consciousness.

How far out from your body does your mind stretch?

Russell;
As stated before, consciousness is the experience of "self and other." It is relativity. Empirically, any and every possible experience of consciousness is linked to the existence of a host. There are no mystical experiences, be it astral-projection, out of body, near death, etc. that overturn this.

I did not use a single example of "mystical experiences, be it astral-projection, out of body, near death, etc." - I used logic, pure and simple.

This is the logical fallacy known as the strawman. Now, in all honesty I have used evidence of this nature before but not once in this conversation. In this discussion I am using only what is self evident and logical and you know that is true.

I do not have a bone in my nose and wave a magic wand - well maybe a magic wand but I promise not to use it because that would not be fair :)

You avoided the question - again? I asked "How far out from your body does your mind stretch"?

Are you going to answer this question?
That makes at least two evasions so far.

Being
A point in mathematics is infinite because it is tied to the One space I refered to previously. If you have two points on a piece of paper you have interconnection between these two points as there is no line connecting these two points.

A tangent is the farthest reach of a point for intersecting the infinite. A point or zero is infinite.
http://imgarcade.com/1/internally-tange ... real-life/

You see; to be infinite means there is no event horizon where the information suddenly stops at the train station because the expansion rate of the infinite is identical to the information made available. To be infinite means what was impossible yesterday is possible today.

The infinite is in a constant state of pushing all limits, exceeding all bounds and making impossibilities possible.


Russell:
Again, none of this addresses the formless, unobserved realm, or the "infinite beyond".

Really? I did not talk about "infinite means there is no event horizon" and "The infinite is in a constant state of pushing all limits, exceeding all bounds and making impossibilities possible."

Really? Nothing at all to do with "the formless, unobserved realm, or the "infinite beyond""?

Really? How mystifying...

Russell:
I can accept using the term "amount" in describing the nature of the "infinite within". Beyond consciousness, however, there's nothing that the concept of "amount" can apply to.

Being;
If it is true for one infinity it is true of infinity as there is only one and cannot be another. What you are seeing is the interconnected singular infinity. As I said before, it is thought that is finite.

I only use the word 'amount' for identification not definition.

In order to have reality you must have a system that looks like this:
Actual frequency/information ---> Potential reality ---> Actual modulated reality

Aristotle was right. This is a circle and nonlocal.

Example:
You can have a string of dominoes that have the potential to all fall down but you must have actual energy to push the first. This leads to information and energy or the actual reality out from potential.

What we are measuring is the amount in bits for each dominoe and unless you see the actual frequency, you will result in infinite regression of cause and effect which is not logical.

If you need more clarity on this let me know.

Russell:
Ditto.

The point is if you have infinite potential you never arrive at actual. Cause and effect cannot be the answer logically because you have infinite potential (the dominoe example) strecthing back to infinity which results in infite regression which is not logical.

To answer that cause and effect is the answer for it all is like a Christian fundamentalist that claims the Bible is the word of God.

It goes something like this:
"The Bible is the Word of God."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Bible says so."

"Causality stretches to the infinite."
"How do you know"?
"Because I was caused to say that."

Same answer - same fundamentalist beliefsystem - just different concepts of God

The train has to stop at the station at some point.

I've been describing the nature of the self plenty.

I have seen you say that but again, you provide no evidence.

Demonstrate the "self" please so I know what it is you identify as the "self."

Being:
I would say we have a body but ultimately I am the universe.

Russell:
That's your ego talking!

What would the ego do without the problem of the universe???

One can be at one the Infinite by ceasing clinging to the "world of things".

One cannot be the Infinite because "being" exists only within the realm of relativity.

You sound like me :)

The only reality and infinity is the one you have experinced - this cannot be overturned and is the most pure form of logic.

One is already one with the infinite but the persistent belief in separation has created wars, hate, delusion, sickness, greed and suffering of untold imagination.

The end is just a concept seeded into your mind by society and the belief in self/other.

When it comes to evidence be open to thinking.

When it comes to being be open to infinity.

[Russell Parr]

Nope - I am the one that challenged you to demonstrate the measurements of the dimensions of consciousness. You ignored that and now you bring it up as evidence against - it is clearly evidence that the absolute you are looking for is your very own consciousness.

Lets use logic - if consciousness is physical, it must be measurable (as you propose). What are the dimensions? Where does this 'bigger' reality begin and your consciousness end?

If consciousness cannot be measured - using logic - it cannot be a 'thing' as all 'things' can be measured by conceptual means.

I've already demonstrated it, but you won't, can't, or refuse to understand. My consciousness is limited by that which I am not conscious of. For example, I have no idea what's going on in Timbuktu right now. I don't know what atoms smell like. I don't know what the core of Pluto sounds like. These are all currently beyond the limits of my consciousness.

If there is self/other - again using logic - where does your 'self' begin and end? Where is the line of demarcation? Where does your self end and things, formless and unattributable aspect of the Infinite begin?

If, as you claim, there is a self and other, you must be able to separate them logically as self/other is a logical claim. If you are going to make a logical claim it must be supported by evidence.

"Self" is the source of consciousness, from which our thoughts and senses emanate. "Other" is all else; the things we sense and interact with.

Reality is the absence of separation.

*I*/not*I* is a concept that does not exist other than a concept. When the concept *I*/not*I* evaporates so does the separation and the infinite field is manifest as the reality it truly is.

All things - no exception - exist within the field known as consciousness that is interpenetrating 'all things' whether objectively or subjectively. Nothing 'happens' outside.

Reality is what it appears to be in the moment. I'll agree with the rest.

Causality alone is fundamental, it alone persists. As stated before, consciousness is demonstrably limited by time and space.

You did not address the point. You just repeated your belief without a single underpinning, example or evidence.

I gave the evidence and logic for my conclusion. What you did was pulled The Wizard of Oz trick - "because I say so and that is that."

If you cannot support your position - it is flawed and that is the great joy of logic in that it rids us of all of our beliefs.

The proof of what I said is plain and obvious. You just simply refuse to see my perspective.

I will repeat my evidence that you apparently skipped over:

Being:
The difference is all things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means. Consciousness is not a 'thing' as it contains all things you can possibly measure. There is not a single exception.

All things are a 'whole' decided on completely by consciousness as a choice within your field of awareness - there is no exception.

Consciousness is 'doing' the measuring and yet it has no physical dimensions because all things you measure are contained by it. You can certainly see the effects of consciousness such as measuring the electrical current strength in the brain but this is true of all things and therefore; all things are the effect of consciousness. Every single thing has an electrical charge that can be measured.

Did you know that at the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg there is an explosion of light and electricity? Your thought is an electromagnetic function.

There is no need to repeat yourself. I acknowledge everything you're saying, it is just unnecessary to respond to every last bit of it to get my point across.

I did not use a single example of "mystical experiences, be it astral-projection, out of body, near death, etc." - I used logic, pure and simple.

This is the logical fallacy known as the strawman. Now, in all honesty I have used evidence of this nature before but not once in this conversation. In this discussion I am using only what is self evident and logical and you know that is true.

Do you use evidence of that nature as proof of your claims? If so, it isn't exactly a strawman then. My point is the same either way.

You avoided the question - again? I asked "How far out from your body does your mind stretch"?

Are you going to answer this question?
That makes at least two evasions so far.

I'm not evading anything. Most, if not all of your questions are related and point towards the same thing. It is pointless to address them all. I've answered them over and over, in different ways. Just because you reiterate a question doesn't make my previous answers inapplicable.

Really? Nothing at all to do with "the formless, unobserved realm, or the "infinite beyond""?

Yes, really. Everything you address doesn't account for it. In fact, you portray that it isn't there. If the universe is consciousness, as you say, then there is no formlessness.

The point is if you have infinite potential you never arrive at actual. Cause and effect cannot be the answer logically because you have infinite potential (the dominoe example) strecthing back to infinity which results in infite regression which is not logical.

To answer that cause and effect is the answer for it all is like a Christian fundamentalist that claims the Bible is the word of God.

It goes something like this:
"The Bible is the Word of God."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Bible says so."

"Causality stretches to the infinite."
"How do you know"?
"Because I was caused to say that."

Same answer - same fundamentalist beliefsystem - just different concepts of God

The train has to stop at the station at some point.

Yawn.

I have seen you say that but again, you provide no evidence.

Demonstrate the "self" please so I know what it is you identify as the "self."

Already did.

You sound like me :)

The only reality and infinity is the one you have experinced - this cannot be overturned and is the most pure form of logic.

One is already one with the infinite but the persistent belief in separation has created wars, hate, delusion, sickness, greed and suffering of untold imagination.

The end is just a concept seeded into your mind by society and the belief in self/other.

When it comes to evidence be open to thinking.

When it comes to being be open to infinity.

Tell me about it.

[Beingof1]

I've already demonstrated it, but you won't, can't, or refuse to understand. My consciousness is limited by that which I am not conscious of. For example, I have no idea what's going on in Timbuktu right now. I don't know what atoms smell like. I don't know what the core of Pluto sounds like. These are all currently beyond the limits of my consciousness.

You do not know how your brain works either, right? Do you know how your body regulates the temperature in a closed mechanical/electrical/chemical system at 98.6 degrees but your consciousness is not doing that? According to your reasoning, your heart is not beating and you are not breathing unless you explicitly think about it.

This is how you - it is you - " won't, can't, or refuse to understand."

Let me think here; consciousness designed your brain, body and central nervous system of which is at the bare minimum 10,000 more times complex than a space shuttle - which you could not hope to design - but you are absolutely positive - I am the one not getting it?

Your consciousness is able to design the blueprints to construct a biological machine before it existed that allows you to think about consciousness but you know what its limitations are?

What else is your consciousness aware of that your finite thought is not aware of? Every particles velocity and position in the entire universe but if you cannot manage to get this stepping stone - you will never be able to keep up when I try explain to you that.

If there is self/other - again using logic - where does your 'self' begin and end? Where is the line of demarcation? Where does your self end and things, formless and unattributable aspect of the Infinite begin?

If, as you claim, there is a self and other, you must be able to separate them logically as self/other is a logical claim. If you are going to make a logical claim it must be supported by evidence.

"Self" is the source of consciousness, from which our thoughts and senses emanate. "Other" is all else; the things we sense and interact with.

You said everything that is not consciousness was the cause and now you say the "self."

You are not able to systematically control your blood pressure but you are so absolutely sure you know that this mysterious "self" designed consciousness? You do not even know how your brain and central nervous system processed the concept "self" but you claim to know what this is.

Sounds like your "self" is God - just sayin

You now have a choice - you can abandon logic and cling to your beliefs or you can accept the stunningly obvious.

Blue pill or red pill?

Being:
Reality is the absence of separation.

*I*/not*I* is a concept that does not exist other than a concept. When the concept *I*/not*I* evaporates so does the separation and the infinite field is manifest as the reality it truly is.

All things - no exception - exist within the field known as consciousness that is interpenetrating 'all things' whether objectively or subjectively. Nothing 'happens' outside.

Russell:
Reality is what it appears to be in the moment. I'll agree with the rest.

If you agree with the rest, then using logic - you agree that reality is a unified field then? It is the absence of separation?

The proof of what I said is plain and obvious. You just simply refuse to see my perspective.

Uh huh

Being:
The difference is all things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means. Consciousness is not a 'thing' as it contains all things you can possibly measure. There is not a single exception.

All things are a 'whole' decided on completely by consciousness as a choice within your field of awareness - there is no exception.

Consciousness is 'doing' the measuring and yet it has no physical dimensions because all things you measure are contained by it. You can certainly see the effects of consciousness such as measuring the electrical current strength in the brain but this is true of all things and therefore; all things are the effect of consciousness. Every single thing has an electrical charge that can be measured.

Did you know that at the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg there is an explosion of light and electricity? Your thought is an electromagnetic function.

Russell:
There is no need to repeat yourself. I acknowledge everything you're saying, it is just unnecessary to respond to every last bit of it to get my point across.

I beg to differ, it is obvious to me you either are not aware of what is essential or are deliberate in avoidance of what is. I know you skipped much of my posting and only what is critical do I bring back to the discussion - that is not going to change.

being:
I did not use a single example of "mystical experiences, be it astral-projection, out of body, near death, etc." - I used logic, pure and simple.

This is the logical fallacy known as the strawman. Now, in all honesty I have used evidence of this nature before but not once in this conversation. In this discussion I am using only what is self evident and logical and you know that is true.

Russell:
Do you use evidence of that nature as proof of your claims? If so, it isn't exactly a strawman then. My point is the same either way.

So you use another strawman (a logical fallacy) to support your original strawman? That you "know" of my experiences? And since you "know" my experience you introduce it as me using it as evidence when I have not mentioned it a single time in this discussion nor used it as evidence?

What kind of logic is that?

If I have not used this as evidence a single time in this thread (though you have used mystical insight) and that means you are having trouble with the logic and are hoping to discredit me with a strawman. I am using pure and unfiltered logic - you brought up mysticism, astral projection and so on. I do not need it because I have logic for proof but apparently you do since you brought it up.

Being:
You avoided the question - again? I asked "How far out from your body does your mind stretch"?

Are you going to answer this question?
That makes at least two evasions so far.

Russell:
I'm not evading anything. Most, if not all of your questions are related and point towards the same thing. It is pointless to address them all. I've answered them over and over, in different ways. Just because you reiterate a question doesn't make my previous answers inapplicable.

Uh huh - sure you are answering.

Yup yup yup

Really? Nothing at all to do with "the formless, unobserved realm, or the "infinite beyond""?

Yes, really. Everything you address doesn't account for it. In fact, you portray that it isn't there. If the universe is consciousness, as you say, then there is no formlessness.

This is why you need to address the questions I ask as you are not keeping up.

I did not account for formlessness? Really?

Let me jog your memory:

Being said:
It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenetrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experience duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

The point is if you have infinite potential you never arrive at actual. Cause and effect cannot be the answer logically because you have infinite potential (the dominoe example) strecthing back to infinity which results in infite regression which is not logical.

To answer that cause and effect is the answer for it all is like a Christian fundamentalist that claims the Bible is the word of God.

It goes something like this:
"The Bible is the Word of God."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Bible says so."

"Causality stretches to the infinite."
"How do you know"?
"Because I was caused to say that."

Same answer - same fundamentalist beliefsystem - just different concepts of God

The train has to stop at the station at some point.

Russell:

Yawn.

Well you win.

In case you did not know, infinite regression is a logical fallacy?

I know - whoever said logic had to make sense anyway right Russell?

Being:
I have seen you say that but again, you provide no evidence.

Demonstrate the "self" please so I know what it is you identify as the "self."

Russell:

Already did.

Do you mean when you repeated there is a self and everything else?

That is it?

That is like saying the self is a human being because a human being is a self.

I do not mind if you disagree but at the bare minimum - use a logical argument because it truly is boring when you just keep repeating "because I say so."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You do not know how your brain works either, right? Do you know how your body regulates the temperature in a closed mechanical/electrical/chemical system at 98.6 degrees but your consciousness is not doing that? According to your reasoning, your heart is not beating and you are not breathing unless you explicitly think about it.

While I'm not going to enter fully this discussion, I'd like to point out as bystander that it seems you two are talking about different things which you both try to name "consciousness" or "self" without having any agreement yet on how to use the terms. It's very confusing to read the argumentation as being coherent at either side since it refers to what seem to be different definitions.

Russell appears to employ consciousness as "A" -- any identity, any awareness occurring, the "thing" is then equal to consciousness itself, whatever it is. But since A is defined by whatever is not A, you get a definition of consciousness made possible by what it's not, which equals what it's not aware of.

While you, Ken, seem to define consciousness as transcendent, complete and universal, as some field in which everything else moves or exists, as part of it. Which is a metaphysical definition, something like "god" or nature. But this seems not be the topic for Russell at all!

So far my observation, provided to perhaps prevent too much repetition of viewpoints scrolling by on my screen. No further input is required by me.