Yes, I think that's a good description of homosapien existence, don't you? And, following such primary acts of perception, are greater zones of influence, prediction, causation, effect. No?Unless you believe that things come into existence only when perceived, and hence irrelevant.
No, I don't think that is a good description of our existence, but it is rather a good description of intellectual realization of existence through perceptual experiences of a particular mind, it has nothing to do with the existence of a particular brain.Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, I think that's a good description of homosapien existence, don't you? And, following such primary acts of perception, are greater zones of influence, prediction, causation, effect. No?Unless you believe that things come into existence only when perceived, and hence irrelevant.
What relevance does time have to the infinite?
And: what is death?
OK. So, for the purpose of as absolute clarity as is possible, what you're saying is that our existence has more to do with the brain and, at best, little to do with the mind. Is that right? You are more your brain than your mind?No, I don't think that is a good description of our existence, but it is rather a good description of intellectual realization of existence through perceptual experiences of a particular mind, it has nothing to do with the existence of a particular brain.
I think I have heard you saying that somewhere else before. I may be mistaken. But I have said nothing like what the above implies.OK. So, for the purpose of as absolute clarity as is possible, what you're saying is that our existence has more to do with the brain and, at best, little to do with the mind. Is that right? You are more your brain than your mind?
If you kill me, my body and my brain will still exist, only "my" conscious thoughts won't.I can probably conclude that you think you cannot exist without a brain.
What do you mean by 'your mind and you'? Do you mean my physical body and my mental processes? They are exactly where they are supposed to be. I'm afraid I might have not got you correctly here.Seems pretty straightforward to me, except for one thing: where exactly are your mind, and you?
How about these two statements:Sapius: But I have said nothing like what the above implies. [You are more your brain than your mind?]
So, existence is determined by the perceptions, thoughts and conclusions of others? Interesting. That is, this lump of grey matter performing basic functions that keep a body alive is “his� Whose? Who is he?Sapius: No, I don't think that [that things come into existence only when perceived, and hence (time is) irrelevant] is a good description of our existence,…
Sapius: Try opening a head of a person in a coma, you will notice that for all intent and purposes, nothing may exist for that person, and yet his brain surely exists.
Sapius: If you kill me, my body and my brain will still exist, only "my" conscious thoughts won't.
No. Are you determining existence for and to that dead person? Perceptions and the Nature given capability of logical and deductive reasoning confirm that our experience of existence is not nothing whatsoever; they do not create what is perceived. We could not be the source of what we perceive. Fundamentally speaking, existence could never have been non-existence at any time, since Totality is existence, only that we, subjectively, are capable of logically experiencing and "determining" it for ourselves. It is subjective, personally, and objective collectively.So, existence is determined by the perceptions, thoughts and conclusions of others? Interesting.
Sapius, a person we identify as such, the whole bundle put together. Saying "I" or "my" or "his", is only a figure of speech purported by a logical process generated by a brain since it has the capability of defining things, including parts and functions of his (the whole persons) being.That is, this lump of grey matter performing basic functions that keep a body alive is “his� Whose? Who is he?
I am who I am, who else? I'm surely not you, or a tree, so I must be me. God must have been logical too; it was stupid of Moses to ask.I have to know, Sapius, who are “you†exactly?
Gulp! Well, I never thought you did go that far, but I guess it’s ok, if it is not that painful a death that is, but make sure you don't pass out, and you shall experience that my (Sapius's) body and brain have managed to exist, at least until they rot away.How do I kill you yet allow your body and brain to exist?
Why in the world would you want to do that? Why would you want to deny yourself of this wonderful gift? Any ways, I dunno, you could always try dropping a piano on your head, or a ton of bricks. I'm not quite sure how strong your skull is. hehehe.....How do I kill conscious thought?
By “literal†existence I mean A=A, things as they are, and perceived existence is that which recognizes that A=A, meaningfully in our case. And did anyone ever tell you that non-inherent existence means no-existence whatsoever? ‘Things do not inherently exist’ simply means that they do not posses any permanency due to their dynamic nature, but since temporary forms do exist, including ourselves, these forms are not simply hot air. How else would we have a continued communication, day after day, if our temporary form could not hold together beyond a certain time period? Same goes for the said "illusions". Things are said to be illusory in the sense that they do not have permanency. Like the famous eddy example, which for all practical purposes, does 'literally', however temporarily, exist and is not anything else at that given moment. According to me, awareness is, being absolutely and fully aware of the underlying illusory nature of things at all times, and at the same time, at all times, being absolutely aware that logical perception although illusory in nature, is no deception. After all, it is that very perception that leads you to self-awareness, and a logical awareness of existence.If all things lack inherent existence, what is the relevance of “literal†existence (actuality) to perceived existence (illusion)?
What the hell does that mean????Fundamentally speaking, existence could never have been non-existence at any time, since Totality is existence, only that we, subjectively, are capable of logically experiencing and "determining" it for ourselves. It is subjective, personally, and objective collectively.
What given moment? The moment it was perceived -- primary act of perception -- or the moment of the actual, A=A-things-as-they-are information of an event?Like the famous eddy example, which for all practical purposes, does 'literally', however temporarily, exist and is not anything else at that given moment.
What is non-existence?To me, the Totality encompasses existence and non-existence.
The moment we thing it is actual and specially here and now but the event may have actually taken place ages ago. I know what you are getting at, but my argument was not necessarily against 'primary act', but that of its actually being in the here and now. Just as a primary act of perception shows us a long dead star as here and now, but logic says otherwise.What given moment? The moment it was perceived -- primary act of perception -- or the moment of the actual, A=A-things-as-they-are information of an event?
What is non-existence?What is non-existence?
No, no, NO. It’s flippen-well irrelevant, I tell you! If you could see the exact when, what and where – it wouldn’t friggen be there! That’s what time is – that’s what illusion is. You worship not the mystery of an anthropomorphised human God, but the mystery of a dual, logical one. You speak the religion of solids.The moment we thing it is actual and specially here and now but the event may have actually taken place ages ago. I know what you are getting at, but my argument was not necessarily against 'primary act', but that of its actually being in the here and now. Just as a primary act of perception shows us a long dead star as here and now, but logic says otherwise.