GENIUS FORUMS

You are making the assumption that conciouness is apart from the physical form? Can you be aware of the universe sans the chemical reactions of the brain that we recognise as awareness? I think therfore I am?

he who cannot be named wrote:You are making the assumption that conciouness is apart from the physical form? Can you be aware of the universe sans the chemical reactions of the brain that we recognise as awareness? I think therfore I am?

Our friend is not using the word 'consciousness' in that sense, but inclusive of that sense.

Is that a fair thing to say, Richard?

he who cannot be named wrote:You are making the assumption that conciouness is apart from the physical form?

All forms - whether physical, mental, or spiritual - are parts of consciousness/awareness, and consciousness does not exist apart from its forms.

he who cannot be named wrote:Can you be aware of the universe sans the chemical reactions of the brain that we recognise as awareness?

There can be awareness of the universe without the existence of a brain, but there cannot be awareness without the causes of awareness.

If the "hidden" causes of consciousness (in a necessarily inconceivable way) are bound up with the causes of the appearance of that part of the universe which one identifies as the brain, then the appearance of changes in the appearance of the brain in consciousness may be observed to correlate with the appearance of changes in the appearance of other parts of consciousness.

In light of the truth of causality, it is unsurprising that we find such perfect correlation (apparent causation) wherever we look. Everywhere one observes, on whatever scale, in whatever way, everything appears causally bound up with everything else in an intricate web. But one can never ascertain causal relations through any degree of correlation of appearances; certainty is only attained to through reasoning.

It is important to realise that there is nothing like the brain (or any other thing) apart from consciousness, as an inherently existent part of Reality; all things are forms that have existence only as consciousness. There is no real, physical brain existing behind one's shadow-like awareness of the brain. Brain is in mind. Mind is not in brain, but in Reality.

The causes of consciousness are infinite, and there is no part of Reality to which the brain corresponds, for Reality is a unity and has no parts. Consciousness is a manifestation of the whole of Reality, and not just an isolated part of it.

Richard wrote:

It is important to realise that there is nothing like the brain (or any other thing) apart from consciousness, as an inherently existent part of Reality; all things are forms that have existence only as consciousness.

Thank you for explaining that in a way I could finally understand.

Jamesh wrote:The causes of consciousness do not change

:) That would mean you'd never sleep.

Sleep, as a "mini-death", is never experienced, therefore it does not exist. You are no more unconscious during deep sleep as you were during, for example, the last five billion years since the formation the solar system until your first conscious memory. You just infer it from gaps in time (memory), but no time elapses except in consciousness.

I think it is the other way around

IMO, even the ULTIMATE or fundamental causes of consciousness (and everything else) change.

The appearance of change/time is caused. What causes it cannot itself change.

To me consciousness does not appear to change because it is actually empty of its own nature. It is like the eye of a needle -an empty hole that things can pass through.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean when you say consciousness is empty of its own nature?

It is also much like the centre of gravity of a thing - something that stays the same yet changes as a result of internal and external fluctuating experiences - a centre of gravity will always be just that, but its location will wander, and so to does the consciousness.

The appearance of fluctuating experience is a powerful illusion of memory. When one recalls the past - from a fraction of a second ago, to minutes and years - all those memories exist simultaneously - that is, they arise together, as a timeless, unified identity.

It is in the nature of consciousness to experience every moment only once (for there is only one self-identical construct), and for a finite length of time, for nothing infinite or eternal (i.e. unbounded) can be experienced.

kowtaaia wrote:

he who cannot be named wrote:You are making the assumption that conciouness is apart from the physical form? Can you be aware of the universe sans the chemical reactions of the brain that we recognise as awareness? I think therfore I am?

Our friend is not using the word 'consciousness' in that sense, but inclusive of that sense.

Is that a fair thing to say, Richard?

Yes, that's right.

In response to your last post:

The causes of consciousness are real and changeless/timeless.

It seems like we are stuck here. If conciousness is caused can never be "eternal". But why can't it be never-ending? It might seem part of the religous/spiritual aspect of things, but its still a possibility. If we look at time like a never ending (I don't want to say line) thing, than t I see no reason why consciousness can't be caused and neverending.

Borommakot wrote:It seems like we are stuck here. If conciousness is caused can never be "eternal". But why can't it be never-ending? It might seem part of the religous/spiritual aspect of things, but its still a possibility. If we look at time like a never ending (I don't want to say line) thing, than t I see no reason why consciousness can't be caused and neverending.

Half eternal? It's impossible.

Richard,

You wrote alot. Let's cut to the quick though.

There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions. To include them in the totality of awareness is an error. The mental phenomenon actually prevents the manifestion of the totality or field of awareness.
When you use the word 'mind' as synonymous with your "consciousness/awareness", you are not talking about the mind of brain phenom, which is really the ego. You know this already.

Obviously, if this consciousness/awareness that you speak of is not separate from its forms, then the universe is cause.

Yes, brain is in mind, but your "mind is in Reality" statement is erroneous. There is only a world in non-duality with awareness.


This: "The causes of consciousness are real and changeless/timeless." in response to "What are the causes?"...is a non-answer. :)

Why is it impossible? You didn't explain.

Borommakot wrote:Why is it impossible? You didn't explain.

It's hard to believe that that's a serious question. The requisite condition for ending is beginning. There are no exceptions.

Please keep in mind, though, that the disagreement pertains to Richards caused and eternal awareness/consciousness/mind.

kow:The requisite condition for ending is beginning. There are no exceptions.

That's not what I was saying. Is the requisite condition for beginning, ending?

Borommakot wrote:kow:The requisite condition for ending is beginning. There are no exceptions.

That's not what I was saying. Is the requisite condition for beginning, ending?

Jesus H. Christ Almighty man! :) The real question is: Why do you propose that something might be possible for consciousness, that is not possible for anything else? There's no recollection of you defining consciousness, so could you do that along with giving your reasoning. Your "if we look at time" statement is ridiculous. Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial.

kowtaaia wrote:There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

The physical is equally an illusion; but all three are conceptually real. Illusory ideas are no less a part of the totality of awareness than real ones. There are only forms.

Reality is not physical - it is empty of all form. The universe is an infinitesimal part of Reality, and not the whole.

The mental phenomenon actually prevents the manifestion of the totality or field of awareness.

The totality of awareness is all that exists. There is nothing to prevent anything from appearing, nor anything to be prevented from appearing.

When you use the word 'mind' as synonymous with your "consciousness/awareness", you are not talking about the mind of brain phenom, which is really the ego. You know this already.

If you want to define mind as ego then mind is a part of the totality of awareness.

Obviously, if this consciousness/awareness that you speak of is not separate from its forms, then the universe is cause.

The totality of awareness is the universe, so it is somewhat redundant to call it a cause. It is caused by that which it is not, which is infinite and therefore formless.

Yes, brain is in mind, but your "mind is in Reality" statement is erroneous.

The preposition 'in' means here "a part of", and is not to be taken to imply an inherent duality. Mind (however defined) is a part of Reality.

There is only a world in non-duality with awareness.

Stated more clearly: the universe is (self-identical with) awareness.

This: "The causes of consciousness are real and changeless/timeless." in response to "What are the causes?"...is a non-answer. :)

This was in the context of your assertion: "for consciousness to be eternal, it would have to causeless". Reality does not change, therefore its parts, the causes, do not change. If the causes are eternal, then the caused is eternal.

To answer your question more generally: the causes of consciousness (or, indeed, anything whatsoever) are that which it is not. This includes the appearances/forms that constitute it, and that part of Reality which does not present an appearance (the formless void).

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

The physical is equally an illusion; but all three are conceptually real. Illusory ideas are no less a part of the totality of awareness than real ones. There are only forms.

Reality is not physical - it is empty of all form. The universe is an infinitesimal part of Reality, and not the whole.

This is sci fi stuff. Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

Richard wrote:

The mental phenomenon actually prevents the manifestion of the totality or field of awareness.

The totality of awareness is all that exists. There is nothing to prevent anything from appearing, nor anything to be prevented from appearing.

The fact that the totality of awareness is not the manifest reality for every human being, is proof that you are wrong.
Belief doesn't count.

Richard wrote:

When you use the word 'mind' as synonymous with your "consciousness/awareness", you are not talking about the mind of brain phenom, which is really the ego. You know this already.

If you want to define mind as ego then mind is a part of the totality of awareness.

No, no, no! Ego and the totality are mutually exclusive. Where does this idealistic nonsense come from?

Richard wrote:

Obviously, if this consciousness/awareness that you speak of is not separate from its forms, then the universe is cause.

The totality of awareness is the universe, so it is somewhat redundant to call it a cause. It is caused by that which it is not, which is infinite and therefore formless.

Nonesense! If the totality of awareness is anything, then it is of the universe.

Richard wrote:

Yes, brain is in mind, but your "mind is in Reality" statement is erroneous.

The preposition 'in' means here "a part of", and is not to be taken to imply an inherent duality. Mind (however defined) is a part of Reality.

When it's ego, it's the reality of illusion. Ego does not exist in the absence of thought.

Richard wrote:

There is only a world in non-duality with awareness.

Stated more clearly: the universe is (self-identical with) awareness.

It might be a clearer representation of your belief, but it is nonetheless, erroneous.

Richard wrote:

This: "The causes of consciousness are real and changeless/timeless." in response to "What are the causes?"...is a non-answer. :)

This was in the context of your assertion: "for consciousness to be eternal, it would have to causeless". Reality does not change, therefore its parts, the causes, do not change. If the causes are eternal, then the caused is eternal.

To answer your question more generally: the causes of consciousness (or, indeed, anything whatsoever) are that which it is not. This includes the appearances/forms that constitute it, and that part of Reality which does not present an appearance (the formless void).

Seriously friend, the above makes no sense. Please don't claim "esoterica" for nonsense. This conversation is going nowhere.

kow: Consciousness is non-spatial.

What is it then?


*******
i edited for spelling.
*******

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

The physical is equally an illusion; but all three are conceptually real. Illusory ideas are no less a part of the totality of awareness than real ones. There are only forms.

Reality is not physical - it is empty of all form. The universe is an infinitesimal part of Reality, and not the whole.

This is sci fi stuff.

It is philosophic fact.

Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

Manifestations are thoughts. Reality manifests itself solely through thought. There is never absence of thought - not for an instant of time.

Richard wrote:

The mental phenomenon actually prevents the manifestion of the totality or field of awareness.

The totality of awareness is all that exists. There is nothing to prevent anything from appearing, nor anything to be prevented from appearing.

The fact that the totality of awareness is not the manifest reality for every human being, is proof that you are wrong.
Belief doesn't count.

I misinterpreted your "totality of awareness" to mean the totality of things in an individual awareness, while what you actually meant was the totality of manifest identities (constructs of consciousness).

It is not thought (mental phenomenon) that prevents the manifestation of the totality of awareness, but the principle of self-identity. The totality of constructs of consciousness cannot manifest as one unified construct in the same way that the number 1729 does not manifest as all numbers: it manifests precisely because it is NOT any or all of the other numbers. The set of all numbers does have self-identity but cannot manifest because it is unbounded, just as Reality is self-identical but never manifests because there is no duality with what it is not (since there is nothing that is not Reality, by definition).

Richard wrote:

When you use the word 'mind' as synonymous with your "consciousness/awareness", you are not talking about the mind of brain phenom, which is really the ego. You know this already.

If you want to define mind as ego then mind is a part of the totality of awareness.

No, no, no! Ego and the totality are mutually exclusive. Where does this idealistic nonsense come from?

Your definition of ego differs fundamentally from that I use. I define ego as a false belief in the inherent existence of thought, while you seem to define ego as thought itself.

Ego as thought is, of course, exclusive of the totality of (other) thoughts, just as an identity excludes all other identities.

Richard wrote:

Obviously, if this consciousness/awareness that you speak of is not separate from its forms, then the universe is cause.

The totality of awareness is the universe, so it is somewhat redundant to call it a cause. It is caused by that which it is not, which is infinite and therefore formless.

Nonesense! If the totality of awareness is anything, then it is of the universe.

'Universe' is just the name given to the "mental model" that constitutes a construct of consciousness. That model necessarily varies from construct to construct. The totality of constructs is not of any one universe, but of all possible universes.

Richard wrote:

Yes, brain is in mind, but your "mind is in Reality" statement is erroneous.

The preposition 'in' means here "a part of", and is not to be taken to imply an inherent duality. Mind (however defined) is a part of Reality.

When it's ego, it's the reality of illusion.

Thought itself is not the illusion. Only the thought that anything exists independently of everything else is illusory.

Ego does not exist in the absence of thought.

Nor does anything. By your definition, absence of thought implies absence of ego, and vice versa. You are under the illusion that there is manifestation apart from thought (that is, that there is something separately existent in Reality). That is ego.

Richard wrote:

This: "The causes of consciousness are real and changeless/timeless." in response to "What are the causes?"...is a non-answer. :)

This was in the context of your assertion: "for consciousness to be eternal, it would have to causeless". Reality does not change, therefore its parts, the causes, do not change. If the causes are eternal, then the caused is eternal.

To answer your question more generally: the causes of consciousness (or, indeed, anything whatsoever) are that which it is not. This includes the appearances/forms that constitute it, and that part of Reality which does not present an appearance (the formless void).

Seriously friend, the above makes no sense. Please don't claim "esoterica" for nonsense. This conversation is going nowhere.

Your 'Reality' is not the Totality of all there is, but something less than that - a mere finite form. As such, it is of zero philosophical value.

The Infinite will not fit within the finite. The very idea is nonsensical.

Hi Richard

Noticed today that you replied to me a couple of days ago.

You seem to have a pretty good grasp of reality, quite advanced really, advanced enough to make me curious about where you have learnt what you have learnt. To be honest, I kind of sense the same one-sidedness in you, that I dislike about the QRS. As you will see, I'm a fundamentalist in relation to dualism generally.

I think differently to everyone else here, and I won’t be surprised it you can't be bothered attempting to make heads and tails of what I wrote below - it's not an easy job as I go off on tangents. Don’t feel the need to respond if you don’t want to - when I make long posts I am more or less just writing for myself anyway - it’s the way I expand and solidify my ideas.


Jamesh wrote: The causes of consciousness do not change
:) That would mean you'd never sleep.

[Sleep, as a "mini-death", is never experienced, therefore it does not exist.]

All things that we believe to exist, exist, but what they really are is not what we think they are.
Unlike most people here, I do not say that things do not have any form of intrinsic-ness. I don't include the concept of permanence in my definition. To me the intrinsic-ness of a thing is what it is subjectively defined to be, as in what make this thing not the same as this other thing.

Sleep is experienced because when we wake up, we rationally determine that it has been experienced.

I am not arguing against the fact that that we subjectively create existence or “what exists to us”, or that the arbitrary segregation of the infinite into finite blocks of thingness is a kind of delusion.

To me things are as real as they are not real. A duality of perspective is possible for all things. When developing concepts about reality I try and keep in mind that there is an internal perspective and an external one. Internal perspectives look at things from a causal base, whereas an external perspective is effect based.

[You are no more unconscious during deep sleep as you were during, for example, the last five billion years since the formation the solar system until your first conscious memory. You just infer it from gaps in time (memory), but no time elapses except in consciousness.]

No, this is not entirely correct. While we are not consciously aware of time passing during sleep, time still does pass.

Things do change but they cannot do so instantaneously, so regardless of what measurement of time an entity might use, if memory tells us that things are different in any fashion from one moment to the next then time has elapsed. We know as an absolute truth that all change does not take place instantly, and if it does not then something must be preventing this instantaneousness. Change itself must be bounded, because if it wasn't everything would happen instantly, and no things could form. We just call this binding action, time. Time is definitely a reality, and it exists in the same way as any other thing, as an effect, as the result of a cause.

Effects are not actually objectively real, but they might as well be as the only conscious memory we will ever have is our own, and memory is completely subjective. That effects are the illusion of physical realness is a necessary part of being conscious. Effects are not the result of causes, but the causes themselves with the addition of the mental illusion of degrees of staticness.

Actually I dislike using the words illusion and delusion in this context - they aren’t accurate. In an experience sense, there is never any illusion or delusion about things, but there is always an "incompleteness of perspective". Even the enlightened cannot perceive of anything from all its possible perspectives in a single thought. People who don't understand cause and effect and interconnectedness, and who thus have a very limited range of perspectives about what a thing is, may thus may not have sufficient information to make the right holistic connections in their brains, but this is not really delusion. It is a lack of having the tools to see more deeply into the layers of interconnectedness (or more accurately "relativity"), that all things are caused by.

One cannot deny that there is differentiation in the universe, which logically equates to a fundamental duality. If there is differentiation, then this means that some things have more of one type of fundamental thing to another.


Me: I think it is the other way around
IMO, even the ULTIMATE or fundamental causes of consciousness (and everything else) change.

Richard: The appearance of change/time is caused. What causes it cannot itself change.

Look, I’m a dualist. I believe there are two fundamental infinites in a constant state of change. To me, change is actually what infinity is.

I’m using the word change loosely. If the intrinsic nature of that which is fundamental is to be a causal agent, then logically that causal agent must also be in a state of change.

Being infinite however, it is a type of change whereby it always remains the same, except for a single attribute. Quite simply it changes because it grows or declines (but note that in this case the word decline is just "growth-from-another-perspective" – ie as in growing smaller or becoming more concentrated or condensed).

Now each infinity cannot actually both grow and decline, it only has one action so it can do one or the other, but not both.

I’m dualistic in the sense that I believe that "that which is fundamental" is not one, but two – one infinity that is growing in some fashion – it’s causal strength is accumulating through growth, while it’s opposite infinity is accumulating causal strength through declining in some fashion.

I generally refer to one of the poles as the Expansionary Force and the other as the Contracting Force.

Now you’ll say that to grow or decline firstly requires things to be acted upon, that only things can grow or decline. While this is true in the sense that the ‘’thing being acted upon’ process is all that we can observe, this should not be assumed to be the case for that which is infinite. I think infinity means that both sides of duality have the Sole attribute of permanent growth OF ITSELF, but the fundamental nature of duality is one of opposite poles, so while both are permanently growing, they are growing in diametrically opposite ways.

Now one would think that these two forms of growth would cancel each other out, (as in +5 plus -5 = Zero) and that the physical universe would not exist because there would be no overall expansion out from the realm of the infinite. Time is the creationary factor here, time is the imperfection of reality. It exists because the two forms of growth are bounded by each other – in the same instant, neither one can be the sum of all that exists, neither one can be unbounded, or absolutely infinite in all possible ways, due to the existence of the other. These infinities are in permanent battle for total supremacy with each other. This lack of completeness of each infinity, leaves a gap that the other fills – just like the black and the white of a Ying/Yan symbol in a constant state of circular movement. The universe is this gap, and like the symbol is filled with a spectrum of %’s of either infinity. The very tip of the finite part of the Yang teardrop is 99.99999...% expansionary causal force, with the remainder made up of 0.00001% Yin Contracting Force.


----------------------------------
Got a bit side tracked here
----------------------------------
Only if the cause of the finite is a duality of some form, can space come into existence. As space allows the two observable actions of contraction (declining) and expansion (growing) to occur at the same time, 3 dimensionally, it cannot be infinite (or more accurately - it cannot be as infinite as that which caused it - it may be infinite in the sense of being "never ending", of having no edges).

I view space as the fundamental layer of physical reality. As the first layer of physical existence. Space is the only thing that lacks causal power, and the reason for this is that it is a kind of "boundary" between the two forces, where there is a perfect 50/50 ratio of the two invisible infinite forces.

And guess what ! A perfect 50/50 ratio is why 3 dimensions exist and movement can occur. A perfect unity of expansion and contraction causes an aether upon which things can travel through in any direction without being forced to change in any fashion. Travelling through empty space for any object is a zero sum game. Once momentum has been established, no further energy needs to be expended to continue travelling indefinitely (subject to gravitational pulls or running into things).

Try and imagine an invisible traffic cone, where the small end represents the contraction force and the large end expansion. Now imagine adding another cone into the same space as the original but turned 180 degrees, so that the small end is inside the large end of the other. Now imagine spinning the cone around in every 3 dimensional direction at the same time from every point across the whole universe. Now imagine this same pattern as space. If this was occurring at every point of existence (and I know there is no such thing as a point of existence) then there would be no friction or resistance to movement as every point would be of equal causal power, which in effect would completely negate its ability to change anything else. Upon this layer rest flowing combinations of expansion and contraction, that are neither perfectly equal nor perfectly of one nature - matter and energy emerge from this process.


Quote:
To me consciousness does not appear to change because it is actually empty of its own nature. It is like the eye of a needle -an empty hole that things can pass through.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean when you say consciousness is empty of its own nature?

Basically just agreeing with you that there is no soul. Consciousness is empty of it's own causal nature.

Consciousness is not a physical thing, it has no physicalness of its own - BUT is the net effect of physical causes. It is result of a causal pattern within existence, that only exists when such consciousness-patterns are caused to arise. With any other pattern such as the different pattern that exists when asleep, consciousness is not existent.

I also view consciousness as a centre, as that is what it is - it takes input from all around it; it is it's own centre of the universe. Not just one's senses, but every part of the body is there for the purpose of producing and sustaining consciousness (as much as evolutionary processes have allowed), so in a way they all feed into this central point of existence.

In order to take in then it must have a form of emptiness that allows it to be temporarily filled with the feeling of awareness. Consciousness flows through space-time. In terms of the awareness side of its nature, it holds its form one moment to the next. This part of the consciousness pattern exists through one's lifetime (we are always consciously aware enough to be woken up, unless we are dying or have brain damage). The other part of consciousness is purely the net result of processing data flows caused by one's senses creating interaction with memory.


The appearance of fluctuating experience is a powerful illusion of memory. When one recalls the past - from a fraction of a second ago, to minutes and years - all those memories exist simultaneously - that is, they arise together, as a timeless, unified identity.

Yes, but it is not an appearance, but a reality. The external world to one's consciousness constantly changes.

It is in the nature of consciousness to experience every moment only once (for there is only one self-identical construct), and for a finite length of time, for nothing infinite or eternal (i.e. unbounded) can be experienced.

Infinity in its pure state cannot be experienced, but two infinities merged together can, because that is what we actually experience and are - flowing and constantly changing, thus temporary, patterns within the Infinite War Of Duality.

Being Matter, our dominant nature in this war, is on the side of the Contracting force. Energy is on the Expansionary side. We eat food to release energy, such as the electricity that flows through and out of our body. The dominant contracting force draws in and breaks apart balanced patterns, releasing the patterns that are more dominant in the expansionary force in the form of energy. We use this energy to drive causal chemical changes throughout the body and to power the mind. We lose much of the excess expansionary force through heat.

Prolly should do some editing, but had enough.

=========================

Edit - just adding the following crap for later reference - will save me going back to The Big View to copy it later.

[According to some Calculus textbooks, 0^0 is an "indeterminate form." What mathematicians mean by "indeterminate form" is that in some cases we think about it as having one value, and in other cases we think about it as having another.]

(readers wont understand any of the following, but don’t worry, I’m just using the above quote to prompt some thinking for myself, and not for the purose of getting any responses).

The way I view the world is that there is a form of infinity that is 1 and a second form that is -1. All fractions in between the two opposites is everything we can observe, including 0 which represents space. Space is an indeterminate form, because it is like an emptiness to which any form can be added to.

An atom of lead for example may be something along the lines of :

(1 + -1) + (0.55 x -1) + (0.45 x 1)

Which equates to:

Space + an overlay that has about 22% more contractual causal power than expansionary power.

The only reason Lead has strong gravity is because it has a higher ratio of contractual power.

Energy is the opposite

A FM radio wave for instance, might be something like

(1 + -1) + (0.40 x -1) + (0.60 x 1)

"Units" of energy have opposite abilities to gravity. Rather than being a thing that is in the action of getting smaller, it is a thing that is getting spatially bigger. Unlike matter, it can travel without the application of force, because it is self-propelling, via the action of expansion.

Imagine you had a balloon, that could stretch out indefinitely without rupturing. The balloon is tied to a unit of matter and the balloon skin consists of chemical reactions that cause the skin to continually expand in size. As the balloon expands, one edge of the balloon will continually move away from this unit of matter. All the force to make the far end of the balloon move away from the matter is contained within the balloon skin. Unlike matter it does not require external forces to make it move.

The less contractual force contained within the unit of energy, the faster it can expand, and thus the faster it will move. This would mean there is no actual set maximum universal speed (of light or anything else), but there is a spectrum of speeds leading up to the instantaneousness of space and infinity. Einstein’s E-Mc2 formula IS NOT totally accurate, because that which is light cannot be perfectly defined – all we know is that is any energy that is close to being 100% expansive. The trouble is light could be any form of energy with an expansionary ratio that is greater than a certain level. It may be an object that is 99.99999999% expansionary and only 0.000000001% contractionary, but if there was something that was 99.99999999999999%. to 0.000000000000001% then this would be far faster than light.

Seeing as that which is infinite is outside of time, it must be instantaneous. It isn’t really possible for the universe to have some sort of arbitrary maximum speed, except if there were basic units of solid existence, which is not possible for reasons I won’t bother going into here.

Richard wrote: It is philosophic fact.

"The universe is an infinitesimal part of Reality, and not the whole." is nonsense. There are two realities. The reality of self, which is the reality of illusion and reality without self, the state of truth.

Richard wrote:
Manifestations are thoughts. Reality manifests itself solely through thought. There is never absence of thought - not for an instant of time.

Condolences. Thought is merely the response of the brains registration of sensation/experienced. The accumulation is called 'memory'. Thought and its reality are conditioned. The as it is state is unconditioned.

Richard wrote:
I misinterpreted your "totality of awareness" to mean the totality of things in an individual awareness, while what you actually meant was the totality of manifest identities (constructs of consciousness).

Richard wrote:
It is not thought (mental phenomenon) that prevents the manifestation of the totality of awareness, but the principle of self-identity. there is no duality with what it is not (since there is nothing that is not Reality, by definition).

The 'totality' was in reference to the manifestation of the unconditioned state, the manifestation that is prevented by thought, the conditioned.

Richard wrote:
Your definition of ego differs fundamentally from that I use. I define ego as a false belief in the inherent existence of thought, while you seem to define ego as thought itself.

Ego as thought is, of course, exclusive of the totality of (other) thoughts, just as an identity excludes all other identities.

Ego is the continuation of the subjective state, the psychological phenomenon, which is the reality of thought. The process is what Buddhists call "becoming", the life of thought as the 'me'. The phenomenon is self centered activity, the 'inner'.

Richard wrote:
'Universe' is just the name given to the "mental model" that constitutes a construct of consciousness. That model necessarily varies from construct to construct. The totality of constructs is not of any one universe, but of all possible universes.

Please don't fuck around. Words point. You know what the word 'universe' means.

Richard wrote:
Thought itself is not the illusion. Only the thought that anything exists independently of everything else is illusory.

Hmmmmmmmm. You have no trouble saying that the physical universe is an illusion!

Richard wrote: By your definition, absence of thought implies absence of ego, and vice versa. You are under the illusion that there is manifestation apart from thought (that is, that there is something separately existent in Reality). That is ego.

When thought is absent, there is only a body; not separated by thought, from a world in non-duality with awareness. It is THE manifestation.

Richard wrote:
Your 'Reality' is not the Totality of all there is, but something less than that - a mere finite form. As such, it is of zero philosophical value.

The Infinite will not fit within the finite. The very idea is nonsensical.

You're attacking your own erroneous interpretation.

Borommakot wrote:kow: Consciousness is non-spatial.

What is it then?


*******
i edited for spelling.
*******

If it's not back and forth, it's not dialogue. You haven't responded to the questions that were put to you, yet.

Doggy wrote:Is it the simultaneous seizing of vital functions and becoming unconscious in body and soul all at the same time?

Death is just another instance of impermanence, uncertainty, change, but here are some questions for you:

Imagine that a team of the most brilliant & objective scientists exerted the highest effort and produced an unbelievably detailed & accurate report of exactly what happens @ death. Given such a report, it would still be entirely up to YOU to actually believe it and use it. If the report would contain information forcing you to completely change your life and completely go against your strongest habits & desires would you actually follow the advice in the report ?

If not, then how sincere are you in even asking 'what is death?' ?

Actually, the fundamental question is this: do you personally have an ironclad guarantee that death implies an end of suffering ?

That is, is death equivalent to a permanent state of non-suffering ?

Will you enter into a state of permanent non-suffering effortlessly in a finite amount of time ?

Kow said:
"Why do you propose that something might be possible for consciousness, that is not possible for anything else?"
then: "Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial."

It seems to me that you are applying spatial rules to something that you specifically categorized as "non-spatial". Do you have a counterexample for my idea? If you say that consciousness is non-spatial, then does that mean that consciousness is not subject to time at all? If so, beginning could be possible without an end.

"There's no recollection of you defining consciousness,"
Self, away from the physical body, but willing the body. It's hard to explain exactly, and i'm not very good with words, but that is the main body of my idea, and I'm sure you understand what I mean.

"Your 'if we look at time' statement is ridiculous."
I meant more along the lines of "if time is considered one and infinite."

Borommakot wrote: Kow said:
"Why do you propose that something might be possible for consciousness, that is not possible for anything else?"
then: "Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial."

It seems to me that you are applying spatial rules to something that you specifically categorized as "non-spatial".

Is that a fact? Where do you see that? You still haven't answered the question :)

Borommakot wrote: Do you have a counterexample for my idea?

All that you said was that you didn't see any reason why something couldn't be caused and yet never ending. You'd have to actually answer the question at the begginning of this post.

Borommakot wrote: If you say that consciousness is non-spatial, then does that mean that consciousness is not subject to time at all? If so, beginning could be possible without an end.

The psychological phenom is non spatial. Is it going to end? :)

Thank you for your 'consciousness' definition. At least it's not in a reality bag! : )

Kow said:
"Why do you propose that something might be possible for consciousness, that is not possible for anything else?"
then: "Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial."

It seems to me that you are applying spatial rules to something that you specifically categorized as "non-spatial". Do you have a counterexample for my idea? If you say that consciousness is non-spatial, then does that mean that consciousness is not subject to time at all? If so, beginning could be possible without an end.

"There's no recollection of you defining consciousness,"
Self, away from the physical body, but willing the body. It's hard to explain exactly, and i'm not very good with words, but that is the main body of my idea, and I'm sure you understand what I mean.

"Your 'if we look at time' statement is ridiculous."
I meant more along the lines of "if time is considered one and infinite."

Sorry for the repost.

I believe that consciousness is caused (by having a baby) and then is preserved for infinity. I don't think that it is god who does this, but there might be a "place" (yeah, the whole non-spatial consciousness thing, but you know what I mean) where these "selves" go.

The requisite condition for ending is beginning, so until somebody can give me a satisfactory theory on how EVERYTHING (as a whole) started, than i'm going to believe my theory.