The nature of consciousness

[Russell Parr]

(Conversation from another thread, which started here.)

I honestly can't say I know what Rod is on about. To me it just looks like a bunch of concepts clumped together with nothing really profound being said. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough. It also appears Being is "agreeing" with Rod for little more reason than to spite those that he disagrees with.

Pardon my intervention, Being:

1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.
6. All things are contained by an infinite set.
7. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.
8. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.
9. All things contained by the infinite are caused by the infinite.
10.All things contained in the infinite are in motion through cause and effect.
11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.
12.All possible worlds are true.

1-5. Looks fine, though I would hesitate to use the word 'container'.
6-7. Why not just call it "the Infinite"? There is only one which all are a part of. Calling it an "infinite set" is a bit of an oxymoron.
8-10. Right on.
11. There's no such thing as an "infinite amount" because it would be impossible to quantify.
12. Also impossible to quantify.

The end result is all worlds are perceived by consciousness - a metaphysical answer

I have no idea how you get this out of the above.

[Beingof1]

I honestly can't say I know what Rod is on about. To me it just looks like a bunch of concepts clumped together with nothing really profound being said. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough.

His laying out of conceptual thought in the objective results in philosophical bantering over which finite concept is 'the mostest'.

In other words; objective and subjective are relative to what? He is demonstrating it is the puppy chasing the tale and that an absolute truth may only be metaphysical.

It is that which perceives not what is perceived.

It also appears Being is "agreeing" with Rod for little more reason than to spite those that he disagrees with.

This is a great example of what I was discussing in the other thread.

By all means; how did you come to this conclusion (I posted out of spite) by the appearance of my responding to Rod?

Pardon my intervention, Being:

1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.
6. All things are contained by an infinite set.
7. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.
8. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.
9. All things contained by the infinite are caused by the infinite.
10.All things contained in the infinite are in motion through cause and effect.
11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.
12.All possible worlds are true.

I do not mind if you intervene. In fact I encourage it.

1-5. Looks fine, though I would hesitate to use the word 'container'.
6-7. Why not just call it "the Infinite"? There is only one which all are a part of. Calling it an "infinite set" is a bit of an oxymoron.
8-10. Right on.
11. There's no such thing as an "infinite amount" because it would be impossible to quantify.
12. Also impossible to quantify.

1-5. What word would you use other than container?
6-7. I named it a set for accuracy in defining function and position in order to make it workable in all frameworks.
11. The point is exactly that. It still needs to be stated or you have an incomplete syllogism.
12. Impossible to quantify is the point.

The end result is all worlds are perceived by consciousness - a metaphysical answer

I have no idea how you get this out of the above.

Can you show me a world that is not perceived?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that gustav, being, jup and rod can all be great sources of humour.

Can you imagine these 4 guys in a room having a conversation? xD

Now imagine how the ego perks just hearing its name!

[Russell Parr]

It still needs to be stated or you have an incomplete syllogism.

Point this out please.

Also a couple of questions:

Do you assert consciousness to be sourceless/causeless?

What role does causality play in the nature of consciousness?

[Russell Parr]

I am certain our Russell has not gone anywhere near it.

Probably more so than you think. I admit that it means little to me, as I am more keen to straightforward logic. Can you give me an example of the mysticism or mystical practices you are referring to?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No biggy.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Perfect Russell.

( I predict that Alex would have squirmed thinking he's found some contradiction just then, if I hadn't taken this time to laugh at his stupidity in advance xD )

[Beingof1]

Russell:

11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.

There's no such thing as an "infinite amount" because it would be impossible to quantify.

Point this out please.

OK I will revamp
11. There is infinite energy propelling all things.

Do you assert consciousness to be sourceless/causeless?

What role does causality play in the nature of consciousness?

1. Yes

2. Cause and effect is not linear but is in a state of expansion.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Your words are ridiculous and you have no clue about anything. :)

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Those are 'truth claim' and they come from a man in the grip of religious zealotry. There is effectively no way to dialogue with a man who is gripped in that way. That much I am clear about. It is pointless in this case to waste your time or my time offering different perspectives to you. Your orientation - your edifice - cannot by definition allow them.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What's in it for me?

Can you read? It's not a fuckin' metaphor xD

All you're doing is calling me a liar, but then saying you're not sure I'm wrong.

If you're not 100% sure I'm wrong, then wtf jump on this opportunity baby.

If you're 100% sure I'm wrong, say so. Haven't heard shit?

If you're unsure, then don't call me a liar.
Geddit?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You are talking to the wrong person. Keep it simple. Out of respect to Rod let's keep this moving in the general direction of allowing him to continue his discourse on metaphysics. Some other thread is suitable for your and my exchanges. Fair enough?

[Russell Parr]

As I assumed, Being was agreeing with Rod for probably no other reason than to incite a good feelings in himself. Now notice he and Gustav are sharing "thanks" and "grins." This type of "longing to belong" is counterproductive to the path as it reinforces the ego.

Seeker, eventually you'll have to cut the charade. It's quite unbecoming of you. If you think you can help Gustav or others, please, by all means, do so. Put yourself out there. It's OK to make mistakes. This "what's in it for me" attitude expresses nothing more than some sort of selfishness/self-preservation.

[Russell Parr]

OK I will revamp
11. There is infinite energy propelling all things.

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. You are proposing that there is an "infinite energy" that is separate from all things, which somehow still leaves room for all things. Things and energy are ultimately one, and all that there is is the Infinite.

Do you assert consciousness to be sourceless/causeless?

What role does causality play in the nature of consciousness?

1. Yes

2. Cause and effect is not linear but is in a state of expansion.

Forgive me for being frank with my rebuttals but we've been down this road before, so it would be fruitless to repeat ourselves in great detail IMO. Simply put, I think your viewpoint is generated out of a misunderstanding of your own mystical experiences.

1. Consciousness is obviously caused.

2. Causality, as I understand it, is not only about linear cause and effect, but also the relationships, that is, the causal connections that relate all things within the All. Whether or not things or the universe is in a state of expansion is irrelevant to this.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Seeker, eventually you'll have to cut the charade. It's quite unbecoming of you. If you think you can help Gustav or others, please, by all means, do so. Put yourself out there. It's OK to make mistakes. This "what's in it for me" attitude expresses nothing more than some sort of selfishness/self-preservation.

Don't tell me what to do, there's no "out there" and it's impossible for me to make mistakes. I'll do it if I feel like doing it.

They're really bad at answering questions though xD they haven't offered a single reason as of yet. Asked dozens of times.

Bunch of bloody idiots if you ask me.
I would've accepted some corn xD
Seems like a reasonable enough trade, corn for eternal freedom and understanding
But Gustav is too busy whining and doubting to listen.
And thus I go on a little hungrier.

[Russell Parr]

Don't tell me what to do, there's no "out there" and it's impossible for me to make mistakes. I'll do it if I feel like doing it.

You're quite brash. Please, entertain us. Show us how you would enlighten someone, so quickly as you profess. Somehow I doubt you've ever done so, obviously here but also away from the forum.

edit: I admit to getting caught up here, and for that I apologize. See, even I make mistakes! Truth is, I see potential in you (fwiw), but I think you're holding yourself back by not actually trying to help others.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

there's no "out there" and it's impossible for me to make mistakes.

It's impossible to know. And it's possible to understand why it's impossible. Language has those mistakes, the way it forces you to form or formulate already, for example. You can't make words flawless (or any act) just by declaration. Unless everything is called perfect but then you've no complaint.

I'll do it if I feel like doing it.

Thought or deliberation is part of the whole dynamic, sometimes acting like a break. Disabling that (go against its presence) is desire, a "feeling" at work somewhere. Do you call that your freedom?

[Russell Parr]

Gustav, this morning I came to this thread before the other one. You asked decent questions about Enlightenment there, so I will discuss more about it there.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Sounds like a good plan Russell.

[Beingof1]

Russell

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. You are proposing that there is an "infinite energy" that is separate from all things, which somehow still leaves room for all things. Things and energy are ultimately one, and all that there is is the Infinite.

I already said that.

If you take one line out of the entire 12 steps of course it is separated. That is because you pulled one line and isolated it and then claim it is wrong because it is isolated.

Forgive me for being frank with my rebuttals but we've been down this road before, so it would be fruitless to repeat ourselves in great detail IMO. Simply put, I think your viewpoint is generated out of a misunderstanding of your own mystical experiences.

And I know you are lacking logic when it comes to consciousness.

You see, that is three accusations you have thrown at me in this short period on this single thread - and the ironic thing is - you think its me. You are incapable of doing logic because you keep attributing logic to personal attributes - like this glaring example.



Where does that leave us?
Right, nothing to talk about but you have found a new purpose in policing the board.

This board must be policed otherwise everyone will just willy nilly express themselves and that would be anarchist tendencies that would lead to disclosure. It could lead to a revolution and we must be vigilant. Thank you for telling us all what our decades of life experience means and how we draw our conclusions and I am so glad you are gifted with telepathy in order to take a bite out of criminal behavior.

1. Consciousness is obviously caused.

Caused by what?

2. Causality, as I understand it, is not only about linear cause and effect, but also the relationships, that is, the causal connections that relate all things within the All. Whether or not things or the universe is in a state of expansion is irrelevant to this.

Did you cause the universe?

[Beingof1]

When oh when are we going to do some work in philosophy?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I've upped my steaks, corn won't cut it any longer.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Too much for me.

[Russell Parr]

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. You are proposing that there is an "infinite energy" that is separate from all things, which somehow still leaves room for all things. Things and energy are ultimately one, and all that there is is the Infinite.

I already said that.

If you take one line out of the entire 12 steps of course it is separated. That is because you pulled one line and isolated it and then claim it is wrong because it is isolated.

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.

This board must be policed otherwise everyone will just willy nilly express themselves and that would be anarchist tendencies that would lead to disclosure. It could lead to a revolution and we must be vigilant. Thank you for telling us all what our decades of life experience means and how we draw our conclusions and I am so glad you are gifted with telepathy in order to take a bite out of criminal behavior.

Don't worry, I doubt you'd ever need policing.

1. Consciousness is obviously caused.

Caused by what?

1) That which isn't consciousness and 2) its constituents.

Did you cause the universe?

No. Did you?

[Beingof1]

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.

Don't worry, I doubt you'd ever need policing.

Thank you for sticking to the issues - I mean that. I did overeact but this board needed an enema and I think it was necessary. It had become a Wild West Shootout with very little philosophical discourse.

It is perfectly fine to discuss other persons and their attributes but when their analysis is completely ignored and all one can talk about is someone's character and attitude' or whatever - it has dissolved into a playground at a grade school.

I do not mind as long as someone has the God given sense to address the issues as well.

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?

2) its constituents.

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

Causality, as I understand it, is not only about linear cause and effect, but also the relationships, that is, the causal connections that relate all things within the All. Whether or not things or the universe is in a state of expansion is irrelevant to this.

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?