GENIUS FORUMS

Kow wrote,

The fact that awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body, is very good news

But if the body dies, then awareness dies, no?

And second, doesnt awareness depend on thought? If there is no thought, then how can you know what awareness is? thought needs to be there in order to for awareness to be there, otherwise you are in a catatonic stupor.

What do you think of this Kow?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kow wrote,

The fact that awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body, is very good news

But if the body dies, then awareness dies, no?

And second, doesnt awareness depend on thought? If there is no thought, then how can you know what awareness is? thought needs to be there in order to for awareness to be there, otherwise you are in a catatonic stupor.

What do you think of this Kow?

This has all been gone over, all throughout this thread and the other one, over and over again. What do you not understand about the following statement?
"awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body"

Kow wrote,

"awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body"

So is the brain like a radio antena or something?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kow wrote,

"awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body"

So is the brain like a radio antena or something?

Funny!

LOL - Funny because my question is so feeble?


Please do go on Kow.

What is the relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and this field of awareness?

You seem to say that awareness exists independently from thought.

My understanding is that they are dependent upon eachother.

Without thought, there can be no awareness.

How is this not so?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
What is the relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and this field of awareness?

There is no relationship.

Cory Duchesne wrote: You seem to say that awareness exists independently from thought.

My understanding is that they are dependent upon eachother.

Without thought, there can be no awareness.

How is this not so?

How Is it so? It's time for you to put up. Give your proof!

Cory: What is the relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and this field of awareness?

Kow: There is no relationship.

This is truly puzzling to me. Yes, maybe because I’m stupid.
How about we go back to something you said earlier.

Kow: The sensation that awareness radiates outwards from the body, is ego, self, the sense of center. It is an illusion. Read and heed: Self awareness is awareness of illusion.

So where does this ‘self awareness’ radiate from?
You already admitted that ‘thought’, radiates from the brain.
Where does self-awareness radiate from?

cory: You seem to say that awareness exists independently from thought.

My understanding is that they are dependent upon eachother.

Without thought, there can be no awareness.

How is this not so?


Kow: How is it so? It's time for you to put up. Give your proof!

Well, there is no such thing as proof - but I can give you my reasons for why I think it is unreasonable to think what you think.

Let’s start with contrasting the dictionary definition of ‘awareness’ with your definition of awareness.

Dictionary definition of awareness:


having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated

having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced";

Now there is nothing wrong with having your own unique re-definition of a word, however, it might help if you elaborate a bit on exactly what your definition is for awareness.

If we go by the dictionary definition of awareness, then we can infer that being aware is a state of consciousness, one which involves thought.

Awareness seems to mean not only having correct thoughts, but having ones correct thoughts prioritized in a way that is supremely organized and efficient to maximize ones flexibility in regards to perception, learning and attentiveness.

Being unaware means having incorrect thoughts, and these incorrect thoughts leaves one inflexible and incapable of perceiving wholly and without bias.

And of course one can be aware/unaware to certain degrees.

Now Kow, perhaps you might be so generous as to elaborate on your definition of awareness.

So far you have said that awareness is a center-less ‘field’ that does not radiate from the body. Can you take it a bit further than that?

For instance, where does awareness radiate from?

You're hilarious Cory. If you had paid attention up to this point you wouldn't be asking for any definitions.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: What is the relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and this field of awareness?

Kow: There is no relationship.

This is truly puzzling to me. Yes, maybe because I’m stupid.
How about we go back to something you said earlier.

Kow: The sensation that awareness radiates outwards from the body, is ego, self, the sense of center. It is an illusion. Read and heed: Self awareness is awareness of illusion.

So where does this ‘self awareness’ radiate from?
You already admitted that ‘thought’, radiates from the brain.
Where does self-awareness radiate from?

Awareness doesn't radiate, period! Why would you think that the statement that it doesn't radiate from the body, implies that it radiates from something else?
Could you give the quote where 'kow' said that thought "radiates" from the brain, please?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

cory: You seem to say that awareness exists independently from thought.

My understanding is that they are dependent upon eachother.

Without thought, there can be no awareness.

How is this not so?


Kow: How is it so? It's time for you to put up. Give your proof!

Well, there is no such thing as proof - but I can give you my reasons for why I think it is unreasonable to think what you think.

Let’s start with contrasting the dictionary definition of ‘awareness’ with your definition of awareness.

Dictionary definition of awareness:


having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated

having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced";

Now there is nothing wrong with having your own unique re-definition of a word, however, it might help if you elaborate a bit on exactly what your definition is for awareness.

If we go by the dictionary definition of awareness, then we can infer that being aware is a state of consciousness, one which involves thought.

Awareness seems to mean not only having correct thoughts, but having ones correct thoughts prioritized in a way that is supremely organized and efficient to maximize ones flexibility in regards to perception, learning and attentiveness.

Being unaware means having incorrect thoughts, and these incorrect thoughts leaves one inflexible and incapable of perceiving wholly and without bias.

And of course one can be aware/unaware to certain degrees.

Now Kow, perhaps you might be so generous as to elaborate on your definition of awareness.

So far you have said that awareness is a center-less ‘field’ that does not radiate from the body. Can you take it a bit further than that?

For instance, where does awareness radiate from?

Read above. It's very unfortunate that your understanding is based on dictionary definitions, rather that on watchfulness.


...and before you ask, it's been said already: thought is consciousness.

beebuddy wrote:You're hilarious Cory. If you had paid attention up to this point you wouldn't be asking for any definitions.

How sad is it to base a philosophy on dictionary definitions?

Kow: Awareness doesn't radiate, period!

Does it have a cause then?

Cory: Could you give the quote where 'kow' said that thought "radiates" from the brain, please?

Didn’t you agree with me that the brain causes thought? Therefore, thought radiates from the brain, in the same way that heat radiates from the stove.

But maybe you weren’t using the word ‘radiate’ in that way. Most people I think would assume that something radiating, is something that is being caused by the activity of a center, or source.

But anyway, radiate was probably not the best word for me to use.

So does the brain cause thought, or not? (I realize that we can also say that electrical acitivity in the brain IS thought)

So what causes awareness? Or what are the conditions for awareness? For instance, thought has conditions. Fire has conditions. Rain has conditions.

Etc, etc.

What are the conditions for awareness?

and don't just say: "the absence of thought"

It's not that simple.

The conditions for fire depend on more than just "the absence of rain".

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kow: Awareness doesn't radiate, period!

Does it have a cause then?

Consciousness has a cause. There is sense/object contact, resulting in sensation/experience. The brain registers that and the movement of the registration in response to stimulus, is thought, which is consciousness.

The field is unknown. That is the essence of the dispute with our friend Richard.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: Could you give the quote where 'kow' said that thought "radiates" from the brain, please?

Didn’t you agree with me that the brain causes thought? Therefore, thought radiates from the brain, in the same way that heat radiates from the stove.

But maybe you weren’t using the word ‘radiate’ in that way. Most people I think would assume that something radiating, is something that is being caused by the activity of a center, or source.

But anyway, radiate was probably not the best word for me to use.

So does the brain cause thought, or not? (I realize that we can also say that electrical acitivity in the brain IS thought)

The word 'radiate' was never used in connection with the brain and thought. The brain does not cause thought. Read above.

Cory Duchesne wrote: So what causes awareness? Or what are the conditions for awareness? For instance, thought has conditions. Fire has conditions. Rain has conditions.

Etc, etc.

What are the conditions for awareness?

Read above. :)

Hello again kow.

Kow: The brain does not cause thought. There is sense/object contact, resulting in sensation/experience.

But what causes ‘sense/object contact’?

The brain!

No?

There are sense receptors in almost every part of the body that synapse directly to the brain. It is the brain that causes all of those sense receptors to work. If you knock out the brain, then the sense receptors are useless. The sense receptors are slaves. The sense receptors deliver neural impulses to a specific part of the higher cortexes in the brain, and then the brain interprets those nerve impulses ‘causing’ thought.

So the brain causes thought, but not without the cooperation of sense receptors, oxygen, breathing organs, water, blood, etc.

Kow: The brain registers that and the movement of the registration in response to stimulus, is thought, which is consciousness.

Look, I agree that saying ‘thought radiates’ is not really a very illuminating way of putting it - - but the brain does cause thought, at least partly.

For instance, you don’t consider the act of ‘registering’ a stimulus, a cause of thought?

What is it that ‘registers’ the stimulus?

The brain of course.

Therefore, the brain causes thought.

Now a person can be really picky and say that the brain cannot function without oxygen, a body, stimulus, sense receptors, and therefore it is those things that cause thought. In part they do. But without the brain, objects and sense receptors are impotent. The brain, in part, causes thought.

Kow: The field (of awareness) is unknown. That is the essence of the dispute with our friend Richard.

I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

however, I just want to make sure that you agree with everything else I said on this post.

It would be nice to come to a clear consensus with you.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Hello again kow.

Kow: The brain does not cause thought. There is sense/object contact, resulting in sensation/experience.

But what causes ‘sense/object contact’?

The brain!

No?

Yes, you're right, the answer is "no".

The correct answer to your question, is staggeringly obvious. Figure it out, for yourself.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
There are sense receptors in almost every part of the body that synapse directly to the brain. It is the brain that causes all of those sense receptors to work. If you knock out the brain, then the sense receptors are useless. The sense receptors are slaves. The sense receptors deliver neural impulses to a specific part of the higher cortexes in the brain, and then the brain interprets those nerve impulses ‘causing’ thought.

So the brain causes thought, but not without the cooperation of sense receptors, oxygen, breathing organs, water, blood, etc.

Kow: The brain registers that and the movement of the registration in response to stimulus, is thought, which is consciousness.

Look, I agree that saying ‘thought radiates’ is not really a very illuminating way of putting it - - but the brain does cause thought, at least partly.

For instance, you don’t consider the act of ‘registering’ a stimulus, a cause of thought?

What is it that ‘registers’ the stimulus?

The brain of course.

Therefore, the brain causes thought.

Now a person can be really picky and say that the brain cannot function without oxygen, a body, stimulus, sense receptors, and therefore it is those things that cause thought. In part they do. But without the brain, objects and sense receptors are impotent. The brain, in part, causes thought.

Kow: The field (of awareness) is unknown. That is the essence of the dispute with our friend Richard.

I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

however, I just want to make sure that you agree with everything else I said on this post.

It would be nice to come to a clear consensus with you.

It's pointless to go over this endlessly. The brain is the storehouse of memory. The brain does not cause thought. Do oceans cause waves?

So, you'd like to discuss the unknown? You're funny.

Wait. Ok. We said that self-awareness doesn't radiate from the body, but if so, why is it where the body is? Or do you think that self-awareness isn't actually physical, so your "field" could be somewhere else entirely ? Is this field actually a "field"(physical area) around the body? What exactly is it?

Borommakot wrote:Wait. Ok. We said that self-awareness doesn't radiate from the body, but if so, why is it where the body is? Or do you think that self-awareness isn't actually physical, so your "field" could be somewhere else entirely ? Is this field actually a "field"(physical area) around the body? What exactly is it?

Awareness! "Self awareness" is consciousness. Illusion, the self doesn't exist when the field is manifest. The brain/body is in the field. The manifestation of the field is the state of the unconditioned, truth.

kow: The brain is the storehouse of memory. The brain does not cause thought.

Kind of like water gets poured into a jug? The jug is the storehouse of water, but it does not create water.

So thought exists initially outside of the brain, but then gets poured into the brain, like water is poured into the jug?

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Kow, I tend to think along the lines of thought being something that is created inside the brain, by the brain.

You’re logic is basically saying that the fruit on a tree is not created by the tree.

Ah, but what would the tree be if it was not for the soil, the water, the sunlight, temperature, bacteria, minerals, etc, etc?

In that sense, the fruit on a tree is caused by much more than just the tree.

But I would say the tree itself is a pretty significant cause!

Thoughts are created in the brain, by the brain. The material the brain uses to create thoughts are neural impulses that are received through sensory neurons. The sensory neurons send the impulses to the brain, and the brain translates those impulses into memories. Memory is used as material for thinking, thinking causes more advanced thoughts, and more advanced thoughts beget further thinking, and thinking is a process that happens in the brain.

kow: The fact that awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body, is very good news.


Kow: The field (of awareness) is unknown.

Cory: I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

Kow: So, you'd like to discuss the unknown? You're funny.

How do you know the unknown is a field? Since you know it’s a field, then it is known to a degree. You talk to me like I’m silly for wanting to know ‘why’ you think that awareness is a field - - - yet it is not silly for you to come onto a message board and tell people that you know about the unknown field.

Why did you bring it up? Just to show off and mystify? Or do you have something to teach?

Kow wrote,

Awareness! "Self awareness" is consciousness. Illusion, the self doesn't exist when the field is manifest. The brain/body is in the field. The manifestation of the field is the state of the unconditioned, truth.

You're talking about the unknown? Funny.

Cory,

Your interpretation of what was said is profoundly ignorant! No more time will be wasted on your atrocious lack of reading comprehension.


P.S. Saying that there is an unknown, is NOT talking about the unknown.

P.S.S. DO OCEANS CAUSE WAVES?

kow: Saying that there is an unknown, is NOT talking about the unknown.

Saying that the unknown is a field, that awareness is a field, and that it is good news that awareness is a field is a bit different then simply asserting there is an unknown.

I didn't ask to discuss the unknown. You ought to take a page out of your own book and read more carefully.

But I don't mind if you make mistakes, I'll stick with you Kow. I havent determined that you are a hopeless case yet.

You may recall:

Kow: The fact that awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body, is very good news.

So why is it good news? Apparently you have discerned some implications 'about' this field, about awareness. You think you know about the unknown - its so obvious!

lets go back to one of my questions:

Cory: I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

Kow: So, you'd like to discuss the unknown? You're funny

Ok, so is it really that stupid of a question considering all you have said about awareness being a field and that, because it is a field, then that means that it is good news?

Why is it good news? Obviously you understand (or think you understand) the/a function of this field. For some reason you are on this thread talking about it.

Is there anybody there with a real heart and generosity behind the Kowtaaia pseudoynm?

Or is there just a contentious, petty old man approaching senility?

PS: do idiots base their comprehension and social skills on inappropriate/flakey metahpors, some vague metaphysical theory or theories, patronizing, and a double standard attitude?

PPS: I think your ocean/wave metahpor, much like your rip-off of Krishnamurti's 'flower' metaphor for justifying K's *addiction to followers*, sucks.

Cory,

What don't you understand about: "No more time will be wasted on your atrocious lack of reading comprehension."

Let's just take the very first thing that you said, though.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Saying that the unknown is a field...........

That was never said. You do NOT know how to read.

.

Kow,

Cory: Saying that the unknown is a field...........

Kow: That was never said. You do NOT know how to read.

That was never said? Your mind works in a very petty way.

How about 'implications'?

For instance, you might recall:

Cory: I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

Kow: So, you'd like to discuss the unknown? You're funny

What are the implications here, kow?

Ok, so awareness is a field. But when I want to discuss with you the function and nature of this field, this awareness - you try to imply that I want to discuss the unknown?

Your words are basically implying that awareness/the field
IS the unknown.

For you to expect someone to interpret otherwise is the mark of senility.

Go to bed old man!

A bit of rest will do you some good I think.

Cory,

It only implies what you assumed because you don't know how to read. The closest you could possibly get would be the response that "the field is unknown". "The length of Jesus' little toe is unknown" does NOT mean that "the unknown is the length of Jesus' little toe."

I'm sorry cory, but kow never said that the unknown IS the field, only that the field is unkown.
I agree with kow. I'm not saying that you can't read, only that you are looking for implications where there is only plain text.