GENIUS FORUMS

Cory,

Cory: To say the mind is generated by neurons or biology must be false. The only description that seems close to being true is the one which says that all consciousness is existing spontaneously without cause.

DQ: That is just as false as the other views expressed above, for nothingness is also a piece of mind.

Cory: Can you put that in other words? I don't understand what you mean.

Nothingness is a construct of consciousness. It is a label we give to a realm of existence in which things that are considered important to us are perceived to be absent. It doesn't have any meaning or application outside of this act of consciousness.

For example, if we are searching a house for a bag and we come across an empty room, we think, "There is nothing there". That "nothingness" is a construct of consciousness, generated out of our particular purpose at that time.

DQ: Using mechanistic concepts of cause and effect to tease out delusions have their place, particularly with those who are still trying to grapple with how conscious existence is mechanistically created by what is beyond consciousness.

Cory: But according to your logic, consciousness, along with all other things we can think of, are not mechanistically created. Are you claiming you understand how consciousness is created?

Consciousness is created by that which created it.

DQ: It is only later when they resolve the issue logically that they can abandon these mechanistic conceptions.

Cory: But it seems like there really isn't even an act of resolving the issue logically. You push logic to it's limits, and what you end up with isnt really a solution. It's kind of like we just draw a blank. There really is no explanation, no concept, no thought - there just isn't anything for the mind to grasp. Am I right?

Using the phrase "drawing a blank" is misguided because it implies that there are things beyond the mind that we don't know about. It implies that the question is unresolved. Resolution, however, comes with the realization the question has no real basis in the first place. It is a contrived question generated out of deluded assumptions.

DQ: This perception of absurdity is itself absurd, because it arises out of the groundless view that complete nothingness or non-existence should be the "natural" state of affairs and that anything other than this is "absurd" by default.

Cory: When I said absurdity - perhaps that was just the word I used when maybe I should have said 'amazing'. Having my logic eaten up by itself leaves me feeling amazed by what stands before me, and I guess in response to that feeling I reached for a word and came up with 'absurd'. Not that I'm claiming enlightenment here, I'm just saying that when I follow your logic to the end I am left utterly amazed and there is a certain sense of ridiculousness and unbelievability to it all. I'm amazed by the sheer fact that there is this sense of being alive, which is ultimately unexplainable.

I understand your feelings here and can relate to them. But nevertheless, they are a product of delusion. Things are just as they are. They are perfect in every way. They are fully composed of Reality, and thus completely natural.

There is nothing special about our own existence. We are but empty fluff containing no significance whatsoever. Our existence and consciousness don't have enough significance to warrant amazement. Only our egos imagine it so.

DQ: When it comes down to it, we are not in a position to decide what Reality should be, or how it should manifest itself, if at all. It is important to accept that the nature of Reality is such that existence is one its natural consequences. Who are we to say that it is absurd?

Cory: You once said that enlightenment for you was amazing. Who are you to say it is amazing, David?

Enlightenment is amazing because it resolves the fundamental question and goes beyond life and death. This is different from projecting certain expectations onto Reality and being "amazed" when Reality doesn't fit the bill.

DQ: The experience of this absurdity shows that you haven't yet taken your logic all the way.

Cory: I just can't help but laugh at the implications. The hidden void is just a term that means so much, yet, we can't see it or know it in any way.

You're still not seeing it. As I have described previously, we can know and see it fully.

When you have learned everything that is possible to learn about an object, when there is literally nothing more to know about it, then it can rightly be said that you understand it fully.

-

David,

All we can say is that there is not nothing whatsoever beyond the mind, that conscious existence doesn't arise all by itself. To go any further than this is to enter into distortion.

I seem to agree -- except that since it is “not nothing whatsoever“, (as far as my semantics go) I classify it as something that “exists” -- even if it is formless.
But I think this clears up a problem I had. When you say “everything has a cause”, it seems you aren’t including stuff like the causes consciousness -- so it seems to make sense now.

I still don't see the problem.

As I see it, the immortal cycling through “beep, bonk, boink, or bip” has the same problem you described as if he were counting backwards. Because of the infinite regress, they end up having no reason for ever having associated a particular word/number with a particular day.
Sure, looking back, you can say, “well, he said, ‘bonk’ today, because he said ‘beep’ yesterday, and “bip” the day before that, etc….” But similarly, you can reason that way with the counting immortal: “He said, ‘one’ today, because he said ‘two’ yesterday, and ‘three’ the day before that, etc…”
So AFAICT, if you have no problem with the beep-bonk immortal, then to be consistent, you should have no problem with the counting-backwards immortal. (In both cases, the present is simply a reaction from it's immediate past. Meanwhile both their pasts fall into infinite regression -- providing no adequate reason as to why things appeared the way they did when they did.)

A specific event happens at a specific time and place simply because it is caused to happen by the conditions which happen to be present. And that is it. End of story. There is nothing else to say about it.

This is the way things have always happened and always will. This is the nature of reality.

It is meaningless to conceive of a starting point in all of this. For whatever starting point you want to conceive of will itself be a product of causes. Indeed, the very idea of a starting point to reality has no meaning because if the term "reality" is to mean anything at all it would have to refer to that which is timeless. Timelessness is an essential attribute of reality.

I believe your POV is that forms/ideas like “time” and “conditions” only occur within the mind -- where we can’t know anything beyond the mind. So if it’s possible that the mind was caused, then aren’t we saying it’s possible that the mind is finite -- where all it’s contents (like “past causes“, “time“, etc) would also be finite (in the sense that they had a beginning)?

As for this statement: “…For whatever starting point you want to conceive of will itself be a product of causes…”
If we were to believe the “starting point” is beyond the mind, then naturally, we can’t imagine what it would be. But as I see it, we also can’t absolutely assume that it was the product of other causes.

So if it's possible that the mind was caused, then it's possible that the past was finite, right?

Hey David, after listening to the podcast on causation, I starting thinking on the issue of boundaries.

Let's go back to a point in our discussion on the first page of this thread:

C: Can you give me any examples to help me understand why this is so? Is there any scientific evidence suggesting this?

DQ: As Leyla says, scientific evidence is of no use in this issue, as it is part of the system being explained.

I'm suprised you don't find science helpful for making your case. After listening to the Richard Healey podcast, I was left with the impression that, around the 28:23 mark, Healey's take was that, according to quantum mechanics, boundaries are arbitrary. The appearance of boundaries is created by the intentions of the observer. This is what the empirical evidence suggests. Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

Cory: I'm suprised you don't find science helpful for making your case. After listening to the Richard Healey podcast, I was left with the impression that, around the 28:23 mark, Healey's take was that, according to quantum mechanics, boundaries are arbitrary. The appearance of boundaries is created by the intentions of the observer. This is what the empirical evidence suggests. Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

I really don’t know how to express it, but even the above does not translate that boundaries are arbitrary, nor that “objective reality” is an illusion, but that eventually there is no such thing as an independent ‘objective reality’ at all.

If boundaries are created by the intentions of the observer then “objective reality” lies within the observer, (interdependently), and not out there.

The “observer”, need not necessarily be a thing that can see and hear, or even think as we do. That which is observed is an observer in return, be it any two particles. And whatever is the result between any two such inter-active particles, is an objective reality within that particular dimension, hence the forms formed within such interactivity, are objectively real from either side, and not arbitrary or illusory.

Now, since we are able to reason, and can know that the dimension of a bee is radically different than ours, we simply assume that some “objective reality” has to exist sans the intentions of the observer, which is obviously impossible, because then the observer would have to be beyond such inter-activities; say God. So which “objective reality” are we looking for out there in the first place is the question. God? Be it in the form of a string theory, or TOA, or Tao.

How can any “reality” exist sans the dimensional inter-relationship of any two particles, or waves, or inter-changeability that is dimensionally inter-dependant thereof? This in no way results as different “realities” for two different particles, but that the interactive relationship itself, between any two particles is true to its own dimension, and that such a system applies to all of existence, and there is no such thing as an independent objective reality to begin with.

We are intellectually chasing that which is not there at all, by assuming an assumption called “Objective Reality” out there, and then assume that such a non-viewable view (TOA), non-knowable knowing (Tao), should necessarily be the fundamental, irrelevant of the inter-dependently observer/observed reality. I just can’t see such a possibility at all.

The dimensionally inter-dependant effect, whatever that it may be, IS what is there, otherwise there is absolutely nothing at all. There is no subjective or objective when seen from both the perspectives of two particles, for both are interchangeable; the subjective is the objective, and the objective is the subjective, interdependently. So what are we looking for, exactly?

Sapius wrote:

Cory: I'm suprised you don't find science helpful for making your case. After listening to the Richard Healey podcast, I was left with the impression that, around the 28:23 mark, Healey's take was that, according to quantum mechanics, boundaries are arbitrary. The appearance of boundaries is created by the intentions of the observer. This is what the empirical evidence suggests. Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

I really don’t know how to express it, but even the above does not translate that boundaries are arbitrary, nor that “objective reality” is an illusion, but that eventually there is no such thing as an independent ‘objective reality’ at all.

Well, since it seems like there is objective reality to most people, then I think it's reasonable to say that objective reality is an illusion, for how is that not synonymous with saying there is no such thing as objective reality?

If boundaries are created by the intentions of the observer then “objective reality” lies within the observer, (interdependently), and not out there.

Well, that is assuming that 'within' points to some 'location'. You see, the crux of the objective reality problem seems to be caused by a clash between our concept of location and what we know about boundaries. As it stands, it makes very little sense to say that objective reality lies 'within' the observer, because what is the observer, what are its boudaries?

The “observer”, need not necessarily be a thing that can see and hear, or even think as we do. That which is observed is an observer in return, be it any two particles.

Hmmm...this was actually something I started intuitively sensing back in my psychadelic days of mushroom worshipping. I would have perceptions of matter becoming sort of 'alive' and wiggly. When I was in these states of mind, matter didnt appear physical to me, it was wavy and immaterial - but my mind felt hyper-lucid and awake. Staring out into the water at some rocks which were wiggling and jiggling, I said to myself cryptically, 'it knows!'. I had the intuitive sense that my environment was conscious of me, that I was in the pressence of an ancient intelligence, and that this intelligence was learning about me as much as I was learning about it. I Started having some serious social problems after that though. Which lead to some emotional problems. I've regained stability, but it was by abandoning mysticism and turning my attention towards skcepticism, Stoicism, Diogones, Buddha, etc.

And whatever is the result between any two such inter-active particles, is an objective reality within that particular dimension, hence the forms formed within such interactivity, are objectively real from either side, and not arbitrary or illusory.

You lost me there, Sapius.

Do you mean, the result between the two particles and the observer? And why two particles? Kind of like two eyes? lol

Coty wrote;

S: I really don’t know how to express it, but even the above does not translate that boundaries are arbitrary, nor that “objective reality” is an illusion, but that eventually there is no such thing as an independent ‘objective reality’ at all.

C: Well, since it seems like there is objective reality to most people, then I think it's reasonable to say that objective reality is an illusion, for how is that not synonymous with saying there is no such thing as objective reality?

Well, please read my response again, carefully, may be this time you will find a word ‘independent’ in there.

S: If boundaries are created by the intentions of the observer then “objective reality” lies within the observer, (interdependently), and not out there.

C: Well, that is assuming that 'within' points to some 'location'. You see, the crux of the objective reality problem seems to be caused by a clash between our concept of location and what we know about boundaries. As it stands, it makes very little sense to say that objective reality lies 'within' the observer, because what is the observer, what are its boudaries?

This time notice the word ‘interdependently’? Wouldn't you like to ask me what is it doing there?

The “observer”, need not necessarily be a thing that can see and hear, or even think as we do. That which is observed is an observer in return, be it any two particles.

Hmmm...this was actually something I started intuitively sensing back in my psychadelic days of mushroom worshipping.

Humm… so you did drugs. Minor aftereffects still persist I guess. How long back did you stop? Somehow I never saw any benefit in loosing conscious control of ones self, hence I wouldn’t know what that feels like. I don’t imbibe hard liquor either. May be beer or two once in a green (rarer than blue) moon. Does that count?

I would have perceptions of matter becoming sort of 'alive' and wiggly. When I was in these states of mind, matter didnt appear physical to me, it was wavy and immaterial - but my mind felt hyper-lucid and awake. Staring out into the water at some rocks which were wiggling and jiggling, I said to myself cryptically, 'it knows!'. I had the intuitive sense that my environment was conscious of me, that I was in the pressence of an ancient intelligence, and that this intelligence was learning about me as much as I was learning about it. I Started having some serious social problems after that though. Which lead to some emotional problems.

Really? I wouldn’t know. My sympathies. Never had any such imaginations or emotional problems thereof.

I've regained stability, but it was by abandoning mysticism and turning my attention towards skcepticism, Stoicism, Diogones, Buddha, etc.

Good for you, I’m glad; lets do some reasoning then.

S: And whatever is the result between any two such inter-active particles, is an objective reality within that particular dimension, hence the forms formed within such interactivity, are objectively real from either side, and not arbitrary or illusory.

C: You lost me there, Sapius.

Do you mean, the result between the two particles and the observer? And why two particles? Kind of like two eyes? Lol

No, I don't mean that.... I will try to find you again though.

After listening to the Richard Healey podcast, I was left with the impression that, around the 28:23 mark, Healey's take was that, according to quantum mechanics, boundaries are arbitrary. The appearance of boundaries is created by the intentions of the observer. This is what the empirical evidence suggests. Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

What do you mean by 'objetive reality'?

Leaving your wiggling rocks aside, would you say that a goat is an observer? Or a cat, rat, bee, mosquito? Lets stick to things that have eyes for now, and not go all the way down to the interactivity at quantum level, because I think that’s what you mean by “observer”; things that have eyes.

Would you say that a goat is equally an observer as I am?

Sapius, I'll try again.

S: I really don’t know how to express it, but even the above does not translate that boundaries are arbitrary, nor that “objective reality” is an illusion, but that eventually there is no such thing as an independent ‘objective reality’ at all.

So are you making that emphasis because you want to suggest that there is "dependent" objective reality?

I don't think it is the assumption of many empiricists that objective reality needs to be distinguished as some 'thing' that is dependent. It seems kind of like a nonesensical attribution. I think there are two fundamental question for your average conventional thinker: A) "Do objects link dependently in all directions infinitely? (If that's the case, then objective reality as a whole is neither independent nor is it dependent because it is not a thing that stands independently)

B) "Do objects link dependently comprising a totality that is a single independent sphere?" (If that's the case, then objective reality can reasonably considered: independent)

"If boundaries are created by the intentions of the observer then “objective reality” lies within the observer, (interdependently), and not out there.

Hmmm.....that word 'interdependently'......what's it doing in there?

Interdependent of course implies there are two things dependent on each other. That being said, your sentence above is implying that objective reality is a thing depending on another thing, which is kind of non-sensical because that makes two things....and thus, wouldn't those two things together equal objective reality? Because isn't object reality a totality of things?

Sapius wrote:

After listening to the Richard Healey podcast, I was left with the impression that, around the 28:23 mark, Healey's take was that, according to quantum mechanics, boundaries are arbitrary. The appearance of boundaries is created by the intentions of the observer. This is what the empirical evidence suggests. Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

What do you mean by 'objetive reality'?

By objective reality I mean; a world of things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc.

Leaving your wiggling rocks aside, would you say that a goat is an observer? Or a cat, rat, bee, mosquito? Lets stick to things that have eyes for now, and not go all the way down to the interactivity at quantum level, because I think that’s what you mean by “observer”; things that have eyes.

Yes, I would consider things that can sense change to be observers. Like when I'm fishing, me and the fish see the same lure.

Would you say that a goat is equally an observer as I am?

I don't see why not.

I see where you are wanting to go with this Sapius, and it is definitely a keen sort of angle you are playing, for instance:

If I apply fire to a plastic pen, and I see the pen melting in reaction to the fire, is the pen 'sensing' change? And thus should we consider it an observer?

Sapius, I'll try again.

Thanks, Cory.

So are you making that emphasis because you want to suggest that there is "dependent" objective reality?

Not exactly, for then one makes a “thing” out of objectivity. Objectivity is but a true resultant effect of any two things feeling their existence according to their own relative dimensions. Violet is as objectively real for a bee as is white for me, while looking at the very same flower. There is no such thing as a third Real Objectiveness sans the results that arise interdependently within any given sensed dimension, that that flower may have some totally independent “objective” color.

I don't think it is the assumption of many empiricists that objective reality needs to be distinguished as some 'thing' that is dependent. It seems kind of like a nonesensical attribution.

What makes you think I assume it as a “thing”?

C: Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

S: What do you mean by 'objetive reality'?

C: By objective reality I mean; a world of things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc.

And you mean all of those things are illusion?

Yes, I would consider things (that have eyes) that can sense change to be observers. Like when I'm fishing, me and the fish see the same lure.

Of course, you and the fish SEE the SAME thing, but it is a ‘lure’ according your objectivity, but is food according to the fish, otherwise no way could you ever catch a fish if it was objectively a “lure” for the fish. Now both these views are true according to their own level of interactively dependant objectivity, not that there is a third in this instance that exists sans Cory/lure – fish/food. And the true objective perspective, namely Fish is food for me.

I see where you are wanting to go with this Sapius, and it is definitely a keen sort of angle you are playing, for instance:

You seem to generally assume quite a bit before giving a chance to someone to actually plead his case. You have no idea of my angle, and I don’t think you can see beyond your nose in fact. Why do you simply assume that your conclusions, which necessarily depends on your particular experiences (causal conditions), must apply universally to all others, whose experiences may be totally different than yours?

If I apply fire to a plastic pen, and I see the pen melting in reaction to the fire, is the pen 'sensing' change? And thus should we consider it an observer?

Your “observer” seems to be limited to sensing change through sight, so I can’t help you there, but look at it this way; the phenomenon in your example is objectively real between fire and plastic, as well as you and I. But a PEN is an objective reality in relation to you and I, not between the fire and plastic. The interaction/reaction at the molecular level has its own objectivity, without which, any objective reactions could not have been possible if they did not sense each other objectively, including that of ours. “Subjectivity” arises when we think that “objective” reality is a thing independent of subjectivity.

I think we two see things from totally different point of views, because in no way could I consider “observations” to be only of the visual kind; an atom is as much an “observer” (senses change) as I. That does not make a rock dance however, in relation to my dimensionally dependant objective truth.

Sapius wrote:

Sapius, I'll try again.

S: Thanks, Cory.

Cory: So are you making that emphasis because you want to suggest that there is "dependent" objective reality?

Sapius: Not exactly, for then one makes a “thing” out of objectivity.

Well then, why did you stress independent objective reality? What else were you thinking it could it be? I guess maybe you meant that the objects comprising the appearance of 'so called' objective reality are not existing independently from each other, but rather, they are dependent on each other for their existence? <shrug>

S: Objectivity is but a true resultant effect of any two things feeling their existence according to their own relative dimensions.

What are these 'things' you speak of? You seem to be coming to conclusions about what these things do (feeling) - - but do you not need to first get a handle on what these things are to begin with? What is 'it' that is doing the feeling? Is it a structure?

S: Violet is as objectively real for a bee as is white for me, while looking at the very same flower.

I'm more tempted to consider those experiences by the bee and you to be 'subjective experiences' that correspond with (are caused by) interactions between particular frequencies of light, the rods and cones in the retina, etc. The objective reality of 'things' cause our subjective experiences. That being said, tell me, why shouldn't a person think that 'the reason you and the bee are having a different color experience of the same flower - is because - you and the bee have differing visual processors which interpret the same frequency of light, differently?

There is no such thing as a third Real Objectiveness sans the results that arise interdependently within any given sensed dimension, that that flower may have some totally independent “objective” color.

?!

Have you read and thought much about what scientists say about color and how it is generated by interactions between the EM spectrum and an organisms neurological equipment(e.g, rods, cones, retina, etc)?

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'third Real Objectiveness'.

C: I don't think it is the assumption of many empiricists that objective reality needs to be distinguished as some 'thing' that is dependent. It seems kind of like a nonesensical attribution.

S: What makes you think I assume it as a “thing”?

Well, maybe it will become a bit clearer to me what you mean. As it stands I'm not very sure.

C: Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

S: What do you mean by 'objective reality'?

C: By objective reality I mean; a world of things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc.

S: And you mean all of those things are illusion?

It depends on what you mean by 'real'. The idea of real held by scientific people implies that real things are 'existing objectively', and by existing objectively they usually mean, existing apart from the mind's perception. Fluid, sound, light, mineral, all of these things are regarded by most scientific thinkers as having some sort of existence apart from the appearances in our mind, and this of course would imply that existence does not equal appearance.

And what is my position? My position is that my logic ability, when I apply it to understanding how consciousness is, fails. Of course, my logic ability works just fine when I set out to grow some vegetables, cook a meal, or follow directions to navigate my way through a city. So yeah, at this point I'm perhaps a mediocre sort of fellow, albeit aspiring for ever greater-ness

C: Yes, I would consider things (that have eyes) that can sense change to be observers. Like when I'm fishing, me and the fish see the same lure.

S: Of course, you and the fish SEE the SAME thing, but it is a ‘lure’ according your objectivity

Um, why not according to my subjectivity? You seem to have a very queer notion of objectivity. This discussion might move along better if you give me an idea of how you differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. Maybe your latest posts to me have been an effort to do precisely that, maybe you are trying to show me how subjectivity isn't real and there is only objectivity. I'm not too sure. Maybe you'll focus in on this part a bit more in your next reply.

S: but [the lure] is food according to the fish, otherwise no way could you ever catch a fish if it was objectively a “lure” for the fish.

But there is also no way I could ever catch a fish if the lure wasn't objectively 'a uniquely formed thing' detectable by both my senses and the fishes. The object means something different to me than it does to the fish - and I attribute this difference in meaning to subjective existence. Whereas, the object is detectable by both me and the fish - and I attribute this detectability to objective existence.

So we have objective existence generating subjective existence in the same way a physical computer can generate an illusionary VR simulation.

Now both these views are true according to their own level of interactively dependant objectivity, not that there is a third in this instance that exists sans Cory/lure – fish/food. And the true objective perspective, namely Fish is food for me.

It seems more appropriate to categorize 'Fish is food for me' as a subjective perspective. That you categorize it as objective is very odd and might benefit from further explanation.

C: If I apply fire to a plastic pen, and I see the pen melting in reaction to the fire, is the pen 'sensing' change? And thus should we consider it an observer?

S: Your “observer” seems to be limited to sensing change through sight, so I can’t help you there

Not just sight - some creatures are limited to only hearing, sonar, touch, etc - - all of which are a form of sight because these sensors are informing the creatures neurological equivilent to an occipital lobe in some way, giving it a sense of space. So by observer I mean, an organism with 'sensors' that cause it to have a sense of space/time and react and adjust itself to the involuntary frictions that the outer space imposes.

I think we two see things from totally different point of views

At this point, I don't really have a very strong point of view about ultimate reality, although there are some notions I have about reality that I find worthwhile to think about and employ in my discussions.

In no way could I consider “observations” to be only of the visual kind; an atom is as much an “observer” (senses change) as I.

And likewise, a pen senses change? As does fire? If not, I'd like to hear why.

Cory: Well then, why did you stress independent objective reality? What else were you thinking it could it be?

You mean this….

S: I really don’t know how to express it, but even the above does not translate that boundaries are arbitrary, nor that “objective reality” is an illusion, but that eventually there is no such thing as an independent ‘objective reality’ at all.

That there is no such thing as “Objective Reality” that may exist independently beyond object/object relationship according to a felt dimension that gives rise to conscious subjectivity, hence objects, boundaries, are no illusions irrelevant of the Buddha or quantum mechanics finding “boundaries” arbitrary, because object to object boundaries, and their interactivity that give rise to individual conscious subjectivity, are interdependent, object-to-object, and still remain dynamically active, and are true to their object-to-object interactivity, dimensionally.

What are these 'things' you speak of?

I speak of anything that has a definite boundary within any particular object-to-object detected dimension, say boundaries dependent on dimensionally felt force field. Me against - things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc.

You seem to be coming to conclusions about what these things do (feeling) - - but do you not need to first get a handle on what these things are to begin with? What is 'it' that is doing the feeling? Is it a structure?

You mean get a handle on what things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc. are? Regarding what is “it” that is doing the feeling? Exactly those things. Do they have a definite structure? ---- do they not?

I'm more tempted to consider those experiences by the bee and you to be 'subjective experiences' that correspond with (are caused by) interactions between particular frequencies of light, the rods and cones in the retina, etc. The objective reality of 'things' cause our subjective experiences.

Yes, but each individual subjective reality is objective reality itself too; me, and all that makes me up, including what I am able to express, is as much objectively real to you, as you are to me. Are we not?

That being said, tell me, why shouldn't a person think that 'the reason you and the bee are having a different color experience of the same flower - is because - you and the bee have differing visual processors which interpret the same frequency of light, differently?

Sure, colors depend on the kind of receptors; hence a bee is experiencing a different dimension than me. It is but white to me, and it is but violet to a bee, and both are objectively real, object-to-object. How does my knowing, through logical deduction and technological advancements, that a bee sees violet interdependently, as I do white, mean that some other true color exists independent of any kind of receptors? A “color blind” person may see that as orange, so? All colors, object to object are exactly what they are, not that any other colour exists without such interactivity. Hence ‘interactivity’ is objectively real, hence boundaries cannot be illusions. In no way can a bee see another color than violet, nor can I but white, unless another object is introduced, say sunshades.

Have you read and thought much about what scientists say about color and how it is generated by interactions between the EM spectrum and an organisms neurological equipment (e.g, rods, cones, retina, etc)?

You tell me… I am talking about the same interactions, and that no other reality exists other than the interactions itself.

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'third Real Objectiveness'.

Object A to object B, and Object B to object A, interactivity that gives rise to subjectivity of both. Other than these “two” perspectives, there is no third that exists independently.

C: Therefore, don't you think science in the form of quantum physics can help one understand how object reality is an illusion?

S: What do you mean by 'objective reality'?

C: By objective reality I mean; a world of things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc.

S: And you mean all of those things are illusion?

C: It depends on what you mean by 'real'. The idea of real held by scientific people implies….

For me every thing is real, including the fact that a bee sees violet, but that is not the point, and neither do I want to know the idea of ‘real’ held by scientific people.

I want to know what are those things according to you? Are they illusions?

And what is my position? My position is that my logic ability, when I apply it to understanding how consciousness is, fails. Of course, my logic ability works just fine when I set out to grow some vegetables, cook a meal, or follow directions to navigate my way through a city. So yeah, at this point I'm perhaps a mediocre sort of fellow, albeit aspiring for ever greater-ness.

I wish you all the best; so direct all your aspirations towards understanding consciousness, not achieving greater-ness per say. It is but a mediocre kind of understanding once you know it.

C: Yes, I would consider things (that have eyes) that can sense change to be observers. Like when I'm fishing, me and the fish see the same lure.

S: Of course, you and the fish SEE the SAME thing, but it is a ‘lure’ according your objectivity

C: Um, why not according to my subjectivity? You seem to have a very queer notion of objectivity.

Yes, you could say it is a queer notion, hence the difficulty of explaining.

Subjectivity is but object-to-object interactions; and these interactions are true according to individual dimensional object-to-object interrelationship, so how illusory or non-objective is subjectivity, or the boundaries that it experiences? Only when we compare subjectivities of two different dimensions, because we can through logical deduction and technological advances, we assume that an “objectivity reality” beyond object-to-object reality must exist, whereas such a thing is actually impossible.

So we have objective existence generating subjective existence in the same way a physical computer can generate an illusionary VR simulation.

You can say that, but subjective existence is not as illusionary as we assume it to be; it is a virtual reality minus the illusionary-ness, because no other “reality” is there beyond it. That one subjectivity is different than another does not undermine the fact that each and every subjectivity IS what it is. So how illusionary is it? Is the point.

It seems more appropriate to categorize 'Fish is food for me' as a subjective perspective.

Yes it does seem so, linguistically speaking, but that perspective depends on the interactivity within the brain for example, with say neuron-to-neuron interactivity/interactions. The moment such interactions propose, that I should become a vegetarian, fish is no more food for ME.

Not just sight - some creatures are limited to only hearing, sonar, touch, etc - - all of which are a form of sight because these sensors are informing the creatures neurological equivilent to an occipital lobe in some way, giving it a sense of space. So by observer I mean, an organism with 'sensors' that cause it to have a sense of space/time and react and adjust itself to the involuntary frictions that the outer space imposes.

Would not an atom, or a quark, or a neuron, adjust its self to the involuntary frictions that the outer space imposes? Even science now proposes that “life’ need not necessarily be carbon based, hence the definition of life needs a revision, so how “lifeless” or non-sensing can one consider a quark to be? I am told that an observer has some part to play in how it acts, or may be ‘reacts’ would be a proper term. A rock does not ‘react’ in the way you think organisms do, because it is dimensionally restrained in relation to us, but at a molecular level, it is as reactive as a pen is to fire and vise versa, (read below); wait until its dimensionally relative force shatters it, or my head shatters. It is but a matter of dimensional relationship, that’s all.

At this point, I don't really have a very strong point of view about ultimate reality, although there are some notions I have about reality that I find worthwhile to think about and employ in my discussions.

What ultimate reality? A reality independent of object-to-object interactions or relationship? There isn’t.

S: In no way could I consider “observations” to be only of the visual kind; an atom is as much an “observer” (senses change) as I.

C: And likewise, a pen senses change? As does fire? If not, I'd like to hear why.

I don’t get this??? I say that change is NOTsensed?

YOU see a PEN burn by FIRE, according to how you dimensionally experience it, but according to “fire” and “pen” interactivity at a different dimensional level, is say particles or wave of “fire”, effecting the particles or molecules of “pen”, which have to necessarily effect each other - the heat of the “fire” and the coldness of “pen” being transferred to each other on a wave/particle level interactivity; so how would any further effect be possible without such “sensed” interactivity? Say imposed by involuntary frictions that the outer space imposes.

Sapius wrote:

You seem to be coming to conclusions about what these things do (feeling) - - but do you not need to first get a handle on what these things are to begin with? What is 'it' that is doing the feeling? Is it a structure?

You mean get a handle on what things like neurons, atoms, fluids, photons, minerals etc. - all of which create things like brains, dogs, apples, etc. are? Regarding what is “it” that is doing the feeling? Exactly those things. Do they have a definite structure? ---- do they not?

That's right, minerals, water, light, ions, cations, countless other elements produce an apple. So you think the apple has feeling, or experiences? But where is the apple's center, the experiencer?

Sapius wrote:

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'third Real Objectiveness'.

Object A to object B, and Object B to object A, interactivity that gives rise to subjectivity of both.

Visualize my teeth sinking into an apple. So you think my teeth have their own subjective experience? But what are my teeth? They are composed of phosphorus, calcium and other minerals. So are these minerals experiencing the apple? Or is the tooth as a whole? And what about the apple?

Sapius wrote:

S: In no way could I consider “observations” to be only of the visual kind; an atom is as much an “observer” (senses change) as I.

C: And likewise, a pen senses change? As does fire? If not, I'd like to hear why.

I don’t get this??? I say that change is NOT sensed?

YOU see a PEN burn by FIRE, according to how you dimensionally experience it, but according to “fire” and “pen” interactivity at a different dimensional level, is say particles or wave of “fire”, effecting the particles or molecules of “pen”, which have to necessarily effect each other - the heat of the “fire” and the coldness of “pen” being transferred to each other on a wave/particle level interactivity; so how would any further effect be possible without such “sensed” interactivity? Say imposed by involuntary frictions that the outer space imposes.

But 'sensed' by what!? You say the pen senses the fire, but what is the pen? What part of the pen is sensing?

[Cory: this comment is really for me, though Sapius may get my point].

What part of the pen is sensing?

Everything within the spatial domain of the pen, including the whole synergistic pattern of existence that is the pen, is sensing what it presently is not. It is not sensing in any form of entity-of-consciousness manner, but rather, simply by the nature of what it is, means it will automatically manifest to a greater degree, where there is more of what it is not. This is why the law of the path of least resistance is an observable phenomenon - without this what is fundamental would have to have some form of physical-sense, which is impossible for something fundamental.

Alas I've been wrong about boundaries all along. I had it the wrong way around.

In the dualistic domain of the void, boundaries are created not by an opposite, rather a thing is bounded by what it is already, and it is the opposite that acts to release or decrease the self-caused boundary. In other words the expansionary force is absolutely self-bounded, it cannot act to be what it is, and thus has no spatial dimensions, unless the contracting force provides a release of this boundary, and vice versa of course.

That's right, minerals, water, light, ions, cations, countless other elements produce an apple. So you think the apple has feeling, or experiences? But where is the apple's center, the experiencer?

Each and every atom that makes up an “apple” is the “experien-cer”, but as a dimensionally related bonded thing only, it does not have a central nervous system that will relay such an “ample-ness” to an “apple” as a whole. Inanimate things do not nave centralized information flow system, but react in a molecule-to-molecule fashion. It is an “apple” to you, but on its own, it is a relative thing that has its own sensual and reactive tendencies accordingly.

Visualize my teeth sinking into an apple. So you think my teeth have their own subjective experience? But what are my teeth? They are composed of phosphorus, calcium and other minerals. So are these minerals experiencing the apple? Or is the tooth as a whole? And what about the apple?

Now you visualize being an atom that constitutes any particular thing and reacts according to its dimensionally imbedded nature, and then move inwards out, rather than outwards in, to understand its nature.

It is not the “teeth”, but every atom that constitutes phosphorus, calcium and other minerals, have a “subjective” experience (sensed experiences) according to their dimensionally related thing-ness as a "teeth", which is then relayed through a nervous system that passes on information to the brain, which makes me react cognitively. A ‘teeth” on its own does not have a cognitive faculty, nor does an “apple” for that matter, so they do not KNOW who or what they are, but simply relate to their dimensional activity. Cognitive activity begins when a thing is complex enough and can transmit externally felt information to a centralized system, that makes it react as a whole, not just the felt area.

Once you sink in your teeth the apple does not cry out for help, you do. Once you break your teeth, it does not cry out for help, you do; that being the difference between the animate and inanimate. However, if, each and every atom that constitute each and every organ of your body do not sense and react accordingly, what information do you thing will reach your central nervous system? How do you account for the cold and heat that the “teeth” (which is but “inanimate” phosphorus, calcium and other minerals) feels, and are transmitted to the nerve endings from an external source? What is in-between the coldness of ice and the nerve endings, and how is the effect transmitted?

But 'sensed' by what!? You say the pen senses the fire, but what is the pen? What part of the pen is sensing?

Things that WE can “define” as things through cognitive activities have their dimensional related “skin” to “skin” reality between themselves too. It is not our mind that carves things up, but simply is able to DEFINE (logically differentiate and NAME) that which is experienced dimensionally.

It is not the PEN that senses, but each and every molecule of the “pen” (as a bonded relative thing which it is not “aware” of its “self” as a PEN, as you and me are of Cory and Sapius), which is exposed to change, senses a change according to its own dimensionally relative nature. The area that a pen is exposed to fire reacts differently if it were made of different materials; materials that have their own molecular structure as a bonded relative dimensional thing, and react accordingly in and of dimensional relativity.

So in effect, each and every dimensionally relative experienced thing, say from the 3 quarks (where each one is a thing and has a structure; and please look up what ‘particle zoo’ means according to particle physicists, who are still finding structures beyond a structure that constitutes a quark.) that make up an electron, has conscious senses that sense its environment reactively, and the same basic seemingly inanimate “sense of self” of every quark, reflects in us as a cognitive sense of logically deduced Self, due to the complexity of interactive ‘particles/wave’ interrelationship as a complex enough thing.

So the causes of “consciousness” lie in how you define consciousness. I define it as thing-to-thing interactivity, sensed through dimensionally related differentiations, and hence reaction according to the dimensionally felt nature of a thing. Which lies at the core of each and every particle, and every particle has a structure to feel such is-ness.

James,

In the dualistic domain of the void, boundaries are created not by an opposite, rather a thing is bounded by what it is already, and it is the opposite that acts to release or decrease the self-caused boundary. In other words the expansionary force is absolutely self-bounded, it cannot act to be what it is, and thus has no spatial dimensions, unless the contracting force provides a release of this boundary, and vice versa of course.

Well said, except that there isn’t any “void” as such in my opinion. Even the tiniest of particle is already a structure, composed of further particles/waves, in and of a dualistically felt opposite forces, (expansionary/contractio-nary), which keeps a thing in balance in relation to its own reactive-ness as a boundary which is already there due to previously affecting reactionary forces, hence there is no fundamental Void as such at all, except, maybe a “logically” imagined one-ness of duality.

There is no such thing as an ultimate single particle but infinite structures to the depths of duality, and structures are dimensionally balanced and react according to their dimensionally felt boundaries, which pre-exist through a pre-dimensionally created opposite forces that held it in place in the first place, however temporarily that it may have been. And each and every such structure held in place evolves/devolves through the same inter-reactionary (expansion/contraction) forces that previously held that dimensional structure in place temporarily. Temporarily because the dynamic nature of inter-reactionary forces that are driven by the reactions of the structure itself cannot help but fluctuate to their extreme and thence collapse, to recycle and move to the opposite end, giving us a sense of order and chaos, where there isn’t either on that level. Hence this inter-related reaction of structures itself fuels the movement of the forces that in turn changes the structures, inter-dependently. Where the change of structure changes the nature of the structure itself, and hence we have such diverse and unique effects that different structures produce, and not some “void”.

However, you may understand what I mean, and be able to interpret it in a more theoretical sense, which I am incapable of.

Sapius,

the following is response to something you've written that was lost in the crash - - I had it saved in a document.

C: I was under the impression that an atom is no different than an apple, pen, or rock in that it is comprised of constituents - quarks, gluons, neutrons, protons, electrons.

S: You mean quarks, gluons, neutrons, protons, electrons – atom, and apple, all are one and the same thing?

C: If we equate thing with appearance, than no, an apple is an apple, atom=atom, quark=quark, A=A.

I don’t consider them anything other than relatively resonant forms, or appearances if you like

A form by necessity exists relatively. As for resonant, I suppose by that you mean a form is both an effect and a cause of other forms. Yes, that's clear.

That being said, let us agree that from now on, to say a form is 'relatively resonant' is a bit redundant. A form by our definition must be relatively resonant. But maybe I'm not getting your drift.

but they are a fact, as and when they are, and not illusions.

An appearance that lends people to make conclusions (about that appearance) that are in fact not true, is an illusion. That a person believes things inherently exist is a fairly generic trajectory in thinking, and is born from an impression that is apt to regard as illusionary.

Sapius wrote: And things as they are, however temporary that they may be, have their own nature and attributes because of which one can define them separately to begin with.

One defines things based on how they appear, and how they appear is dictated by the purpose of the observer. A commoner may define water as a singular thing, a transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid. A physicist or chemist may define it more plurally, as they will tend to see it as a group, a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, H2O. That being said, a thing appears to have its own nature, but that is relative to the observer. The purpose of the observer changes, and the thing itself changes, along with its definition.

The other thing is that it also depends on how one mentally conceptualizes the definition (meaning) of ‘appearance’.

How one mentally conceptualizes the definition of the appearance is dictated mostly by the purpose of the observer.

For now consider things don’t have a “physical” form EXCEPT what seems to be solidly held in place

I'm not sure what you think it is that is solidly held in place.

because of dimensionally effective force fields

What do you mean by dimensionally effective? Can there possibly be any thing that is dimensionally ineffective? If not - then let's drop the 'dimensionally effective' adjective or whatever it is ;)

we as a dimensionally relative object

A good way of determining if a phrase is superfluous and redundant is to take the phrase in question, such as 'dimensionally relative' and ask: "Can there possibly be any 'thing' that is not dimensionally relative?"

If the answer is no, then I think we should deem the phrase as redundant.

Perceptions and appearances temporarily held in place are the necessary basis of consciousness itself

I agree with that one.

without such relativity held temporarily, consciousness would not be possible. So it is the perceptions of such temporary “halts” in and of causality, through a thing-to-thing relative dimensionality that makes objects and perceptions possible.

I'm just not sure what you think is brought to a 'halt'. My position is that it is unreasonable to merely conclude that forms are simply caused by each other, and that the least we can do is also add that these forms causing each other are also caused by a 'hidden void'. The hidden void is the least we can say. Can we say more? I'm not so sure.

Except in this dimensionally experienced temporal “reality”, there is no other “Reality” except a far fetched egoistical fantasy.

So you agree then that when there is no consciousness cast upon the object, the object does not exist? Or have you assented to what may be a far fetched egotistical fantasy that the object experiences itself clanging up against other objects, even while there is no observer present?

The problem I see with you is you are trying to conceive of things as more than mere appearances created by the mind, and your effort to account for these things by visualizing them as absolute forms that interact, collide, etc independently from the mind - is failing.

Ah! I see. So it is “my mind” that has the creative power to make your lips collide with the teacup.

No, the least we can say is that the hidden void is causing both my mind and yours, as well as all of the events which occur in our minds.

Sapius wrote: [things] absolutely collide irrelevant of a “mind’, which too is a perceived effect of dimensionally interacting and colliding particles

I suspect this belief of yours is a theology based on the worship of imagined particles. Particles are nice and remote from the personal observation of most people, and therefore it's easier to attribute to them characteristics of 'inherent existence'. It's a bit more clear to some of us that we can't attribute this inherent existence to the less remote objects of our daily experience, and so I there is a tendency to take our cherished notions of inherent existence and retreat with them into the atomic realm.

I think the truth is that the particles of the atomic realm are no different from an apple or any other common object in our daily experience, in the sense that - they don't inherently exist, but only exist relative to the purpose of your mind.

Sapius wrote:

This is best illustrated in your denial that an apple experiences, but your assertion that the apples atoms do. Such a belief seems theological, dogmatic to me - because I see no reason to regard an apple as different from an atom in the sense that, both are comprised of parts, which are comprised of parts, which are comprised of parts, etc.

Yes THEY are comprised of “parts” but each and every PART is definable according to its nature

That's not exactly true, because each part is definable according to the nature of everything apart from that 'thing' you are observing as well.

The definition is not the actuality. The definition is just a photograph, one of which does not prove that there are any particles colliding and interacting with each other when a mind is not present.

Taking your example of biting down on an apple; the apple does not experience an ‘apple-ness’ in the sense that it does not have a centralized information flow system that will make it “feel” like an apple.

Ok.

Its interactions don’t go beyond an inanimate thing-to-thing interaction

What is this inanimate thing to thing interaction you are referring to?

I have little reason to think that it is merely a theological belief in atoms. It seems you've taken common notions held by most people (that things have inherent existence) and you've retreated with them into the atomic world, a place you've never examined thoroughly yourself, but only heard about through popular lore.

Now when I bite off a piece from the apple, the edge of the skin area and the flesh, or the particles that have been now exposed to a different environment, react accordingly, not the rest of the apple which is held in place due to other dimensional effects, where changes are however happening although non-noticeable due to our limitations of direct dimensional relativity.

So, you seem to think it all hinges on these particles. I can't help but regard your belief in particles as an irrational theological doctrine.

You seem like an atomist in the classical sense. A modern day Democritus!

Cory,

I suspect this belief of yours is a theology based on the worship of imagined particles.

Well, I was thinking of building a grand temple dedicated to ‘particle’ worship, but I guess I better devote it to the ‘hidden void’ instead. :D

Particles are nice and remote from the personal observation of most people, and therefore you can attribute to them characteristics of 'inherent existence'.

No, particles or absolutely any interactively sensed “thing” possesses no “inherent” existence as such, except their relatively sensed interactivity as and when dimensionally allowed, and hence, within such dimensional relationships science and physics produces coherent results.

Where ‘partricles’ (you can even substitute that for ‘waves’ if you like, or "appearances", or "forms") or any thing you can think of IS necessarily a structured “thing”, and all things are but structures with no inherently fundamental or ultimate “thing” that hold them up, not even a supposedly non-experience-able ‘hidden void’.

Hard to believe? I know how hard it is.

Well, I think the truth is that the particles of the atomic realm are no different from an apple or any other common object in our daily experience, in the sense that - they don't inherently exist, but only exist relative to the purpose of your mind.

No, all things exist relative to each other as dimensionally allowed, and not only ‘relative to the “purpose” of “my” mind’. BTW, I have always had the difficulty of understanding what one means by “my” mind, when it is the mind itself saying “my mind’; sounds absurd. A thing exists in and of duality in relation to all that it is not; their temporal nature does not however remove their inter-dimensional relationships, as in one denying the factually of boundaries, according to which, logic and reasoning would then be redundant, and so will be all conclusions thence reached, without exceptions.

I'm just not sure what you think is brought to a 'halt'.

“Halt” is any temporary thing, (say 'appearances' if you like) held in and of relative dimensionality; for example your computer, that table on which it sits, or a rock, or a bird, etc, etc, or your thoughts as dimensionally related, which are true to a dimensionality dualistically.

My position is that it is unreasonable to merely conclude that forms are simply caused by each other, and that the least we can do is also add that these forms causing each other, are also caused by a 'hidden void'. The hidden void is the least we can say. Can we say more? I'm not so sure.

And why is that unreasonable? And how and why do you see a necessity that there MUST be at least a “hidden void”? (Which of course is not a “thing”, and needs a far more complex explanation and justification contrary to our experiences.) Does the ‘hidden void’ exist inherently then? Some how I feel it is the same as the Father (consciousness), the Son (things) AND the Holy Ghost (hidden void). What has essentially changed except the concepts one applies to justify the same old false-ego lure of trinity since well before Christianity sprung up? There is only consciousness and things interdependent on each other, and no third thing is necessary to hold them both up.

So you agree then that when there is no consciousness cast upon the object, the object does not exist? Or have you assented to the egotistical fantasy that the object experiences itself clanging up against other objects, even while there is no observer present?

For example YOUR consciousness cast upon an object according to your “purpose”?

Firstly, EACH and every structured “thing” is an “observer”! (Not only the one that has "eyes" or "mind", which we discussed earlier and kind of agreed, if I'm not mistaken). So which “observer” are you talking about? Yourself? NO-thing could interact with any other thing if it were not able to “observe”, “sense”, “feel” in the first place, and thence react, which is what makes this existence dynamic and unstoppable. And their (things) structures are temporarily held in place inter-dimensionally relative to one another, where our consciousness is but those interactions itself that can be held in and of memory as thoughts, which are yet again held in and of a structured dimensionality dualistically. Namely, me against all that I am not.

S: Ah! I see. So it is “my mind” that has the creative power to make your lips collide with the teacup.

C: No, the least we can say is that the hidden void is causing both my mind and yours, as well as all of the events which occur in our minds.

So the ‘hidden void’ is the fundamental that creates it all?

Well, may be you can say, but please don’t include me in your ‘we’, for the reasons I outline above.

I have little reason to think that it is merely a theological belief in atoms. It seems you've taken common notions held by most people (that things have inherent existence) and you've retreated with them into the atomic world, a place you've never examined thoroughly yourself, but only heard about through popular lore.

Can you see it any differently now?

You seem like an atomist in the classical sense. A modern day Democritus!

Please pardon my ignorance, but what’s a Democritus?

(I'm not talkling about atoms/particles in that sense)

Sapius wrote:

Particles are nice and remote from the personal observation of most people, and therefore you can attribute to them characteristics of 'inherent existence'.

No, particles or absolutely any interactively sensed “thing”

Interactively sensed? By what?

My position is that it is unreasonable to merely conclude that forms are simply caused by each other, and that the least we can do is also add that these forms causing each other, are also caused by a 'hidden void'. The hidden void is the least we can say. Can we say more? I'm not so sure.

how and why do you see a necessity that there MUST be at least a “hidden void”?

Because the form that things are presented in, have everything to do with the mind. Like I said on another thread, is water a singular homogeneous liquid substance? Or is it a more heterogeneous physical compound? It all depends on the view the mind takes of it. So the mind creates form, but the forms are clearly causing each other. The big question is, what is causing the mind. Surely not forms - - because the forms known by the mind are created by the mind. What created the mind? It's really not answerable. Sure, one might say 'hidden void' - - but such an answer is not meant to give you something to visualize.

Does the ‘hidden void’ exist inherently then?

Exist means - to appear, emerge. No it doesn't appear, emerge.

So you agree then that when there is no consciousness cast upon the object, the object does not exist? Or have you assented to the egotistical fantasy that the object experiences itself clanging up against other objects, even while there is no observer present?

For example YOUR consciousness cast upon an object according to your “purpose”?

Firstly, EACH and every structured “thing” is an “observer”! (Not only the one that has "eyes" or "mind", which we discussed earlier and kind of agreed, if I'm not mistaken).

Yes, I know what you mean, but I don't agree that there are any things which sense. Do we have to go over the apple example again? You said that the apple doesn't sense anything, but rather, it's the apple's constituent atoms which experience. What part of the atoms experience? Do you honestly think there is such a clear boundary distinguishing where an atom begins and where it ends?

Cory,

Interactively sensed? By what?

By each other of course, each as a definitive thing in and of causality, otherwise there would be no resultant change in and of either of them. Now do you think ‘no change’ in and of any thing is possible? (but never mind really...)

S: how and why do you see a necessity that there MUST be at least a “hidden void”?

C: Because the form that things are presented in, have everything to do with the mind.

So forms and things are not one and the same thing? And since forms have everything to do with the mind, what about your fish then? Would you consider that it has a mind? For surely it does seem to perceive forms, and even eat them at times.

Like I said on another thread, is water a singular homogeneous liquid substance? Or is it a more heterogeneous physical compound? It all depends on the view the mind takes of it.

And not on how it is presented, in this instant? You mean the mind is free to choose between two different views at will according to its intended purpose?

As a human, I can conceive of both those views and coherently speak from either of them. And neither of their attributes is actually falsified when I speak from the other view, at any time. That water has any other true nature is irrelevant until I experience such a thing and define it so, differently; which would even then not falsify the other dimensionally relative definitions in any way.

So the mind creates form, but the forms are clearly causing each other.

Hmmm... Mind creates form, which already makes causality a creation of the mind rather than the other way around; and additionally, what makes it clear to you that forms are causing each other if mind is the creator of all forms?

The big question is, what is causing the mind. Surely not forms - - because the forms known by the mind are created by the mind. What created the mind? It's really not answerable. Sure, one might say 'hidden void' - - but such an answer is not meant to give you something to visualize.

Well, at least it gives something to imagine and hold on to, I guess.

Do you honestly think there is such a clear boundary distinguishing where an atom begins and where it ends?

There isn’t one? I wonder how is it that we can coherently think, or talk, or even understand anything at all if there are no clear boundaries which we do seem to clearly define? Do you honestly think I would make any logical sense if there were no boundaries to each and every word in this sentence?

With all due respects, Cory, it is quite clear that we don’t see eye to eye on this issue; so lets just leave it for some other time :)

Sapius wrote:Cory,

Interactively sensed? By what?

By each other of course

Please point directly to these presumed 'each' things. What part of the apple senses? The only thing you can point to is 'atoms', and this is because atoms are so removed from your ability to see them that you can project onto them the quality of being concrete, of having boundaries that are not merely created by the limited point of view of the mind.

S: how and why do you see a necessity that there MUST be at least a “hidden void”?

C: Because the form that things are presented in, have everything to do with the mind.

So forms and things are not one and the same thing?

Ok, I'll concede that they are.

And since forms have everything to do with the mind, what about your fish then? Would you consider that it has a mind?

It appears to me that it does.

Sapius wrote:

Like I said on another thread, is water a singular homogeneous liquid substance? Or is it a more heterogeneous physical compound? It all depends on the view the mind takes of it.

And not on how it is presented, in this instant? You mean the mind is free to choose between two different views at will according to its intended purpose?

Not necessarily 'at will', but a mind may be caused to view a particular thing in two very different ways. For instance, there are some human beings who are in the position to look at a leaf with a naked eye as well as under the microscope. The leaf radically changes when you observe it with a different purpose.

As a human, I can conceive of both those views and coherently speak from either of them. And neither of their attributes is actually falsified when I speak from the other view, at any time. That water has any other true nature is irrelevant until I experience such a thing and define it so, differently; which would even then not falsify the other dimensionally relative definitions in any way.

What makes you think I'm trying to falsify their attributes? The only thing I'm trying to falsify is the assumption that things continue to exist when there is no consciousness cast upon them. I'm trying to falsify the view that the things you observe have clear boundaries apart from the ones the mind makes.

So the mind creates form, but the forms are clearly causing each other.

Hmmm... Mind creates form, which already makes causality a creation of the mind rather than the other way around

That's right, when there is no mind, there is no causality.

and additionally, what makes it clear to you that forms are causing each other if mind is the creator of all forms?

Picture a blank white background. The mind is generating this blank white background.

Now:

How can a form appear on this white background, unless it is a slightly different shade, such as grey, black, red, etc?

The big question is, what is causing the mind. Surely not forms - - because the forms known by the mind are created by the mind. What created the mind? It's really not answerable. Sure, one might say 'hidden void' - - but such an answer is not meant to give you something to visualize.

Well, at least it gives something to imagine and hold on to, I guess.

When I say 'visualize' I mean imagine, hold on to, etc. I think if you understand the hidden void concept correctly, you will cease to imagine or visualize or hold on to any sort of explanation beyond basic cause and effect.

Do you honestly think there is such a clear boundary distinguishing where an atom begins and where it ends?

There isn’t one?

Can you find such a clear boundary with more everyday objects? First achieve that. If you can't achieve that, then turning your attention to the explanatory power of atoms is just a retreat.

I wonder how is it that we can coherently think, or talk, or even understand anything at all if there are no clear boundaries which we do seem to clearly define?

There are clear boundaries and definitions, but they are created by the mind and exist for pragmatic, practical purposes.

Do you honestly think I would make any logical sense if there were no boundaries to each and every word in this sentence?

No, I don't think you would.

With all due respects, Cory, it is quite clear that we don’t see eye to eye on this issue; so lets just leave it for some other time :)

As you wish.

Cory,

Please point directly to these presumed 'each' things.

Presumed things are any things that can be perceived, including that which we are able to directly or conceptually perceive, and including that which when aided through instruments that help us perceive an atomic or quantum world, or a world beyond the stars, including dreams more close to home.

What part of the apple senses? The only thing you can point to is 'atoms', and this is because atoms are so removed from your ability to see them that you can project onto them the quality of being concrete, of having boundaries that are not merely created by the limited point of view of the mind.

What makes you think that I consider “atoms” to be concrete? Especially when I mentioned in a post above…

S: No, particles or absolutely any interactively sensed “thing” possesses no “inherent” existence as such, except their relatively sensed interactivity as and when dimensionally allowed, and hence, within such dimensional relationships science and physics produces coherent results.

Where ‘partricles’ (you can even substitute that for ‘waves’ if you like, or "appearances", or "forms") (And that goes for ‘atoms’ too…) or any thing you can think of IS necessarily a structured “thing”, and all things are but structures with no inherently fundamental or ultimate “thing” that hold them up, not even a supposedly non-experience-able ‘hidden void’.

To which you conveniently and surgically removed the first few words out of context… as…

S: No, particles or absolutely any interactively sensed “thing”

And then ask as if you have hit some jackpot of a question…

Interactively sensed? By what?

Well, it is those frantically dynamic particles within a dimensionally relative structure that is capable of interactivity at a level of being a thing, and in this case an apple, which is inanimate as an apple, but is undergoing dynamic change in and of its constituently reactive particles however. If you don’t understand this, I have no way of explaining it otherwise... my bad.

Not necessarily 'at will', but a mind may be caused to view a particular thing in two very different ways. For instance, there are some human beings who are in the position to look at a leaf with a naked eye as well as under the microscope. The leaf radically changes when you observe it with a different purpose.

At least you see that there can be more than one position to look at things from, so I won’t press you to think what makes one choose between different purposes, or makes one invent a microscope.

What makes you think I'm trying to falsify their attributes? The only thing I'm trying to falsify is the assumption that things continue to exist when there is no consciousness cast upon them. I'm trying to falsify the view that the things you observe have clear boundaries apart from the ones the mind makes.

And I ask whose consciousness or mind are you taking about? Yours or the fish?

That's right, when there is no mind, there is no causality.

Well, that depends on whose mind you are talking about, and what you define mind as.

Picture a blank white background.

Yes, I can picture that.

The mind is generating this blank white background.

Really? How about the fish? Does it have that capability too?

Now:

How can a form appear on this white background, unless it is a slightly different shade, such as grey, black, red, etc?

I don’t see your point. What has differentiation in and of contrast got to do with the mind generating the background? And if the mind can generate the background, what limits it from creating the other slightly different shade, such as gray, black, red, etc? Is the mind limited to generating just one colour, or is it limited to just the background of whatever colour you ask me to picture?

C: The big question is, what is causing the mind. Surely not forms - - because the forms known by the mind are created by the mind. What created the mind? It's really not answerable. Sure, one might say 'hidden void' - - but such an answer is not meant to give you something to visualize

S: Well, at least it gives something to imagine and hold on to, I guess.

C: When I say 'visualize' I mean imagine, hold on to, etc. I think if you understand the hidden void concept correctly, you will cease to imagine or visualize or hold on to any sort of explanation beyond basic cause and effect.

:D Right. So the basic concept of cause and effect is what I should ultimately hold on to once I understand the hidden void concept correctly.

C: Do you honestly think there is such a clear boundary distinguishing where an atom begins and where it ends?

S: There isn’t one?

C: Can you find such a clear boundary with more everyday objects? First achieve that.

Well, I will try with everyday objects and may be more, tell me where I go wrong; Table, stable, ice, mice, popcorn, unicorn, dream, stream, atom, bottom, electron, graviton, shy, why, so, no, how, now, hence, thence, later, alligator, wall, ball, tall, mall… you want me to go on…

If you can't achieve that, then turning your attention to the explanatory power of atoms is just a retreat.

No, actually it a real treat :-p

There are clear boundaries and definitions, but they are created by the mind and exist for pragmatic, practical purposes.

Sure, and is that how the fish operates too?

S: Do you honestly think I would make any logical sense if there were no boundaries to each and every word in this sentence?

C: No, I don't think you would.

So how illusory are boundaries then, is the question.

As you wish.

You mean I do have a choice? ;-P

Sapius wrote:
Cory: Please point directly to these presumed 'each' things.

Sapius: Presumed things are any things that can be perceived, including that which we are able to directly or conceptually perceive, and including that which when aided through instruments that help us perceive an atomic or quantum world, or a world beyond the stars, including dreams more close to home.

Cory: What part of the apple senses? The only thing you can point to is 'atoms', and this is because atoms are so removed from your ability to see them that you can project onto them the quality of being concrete, of having boundaries that are not merely created by the limited point of view of the mind.

Sapius: What makes you think that I consider “atoms” to be concrete? Especially when I mentioned in a post above…

Ok, but the question still begs to be asked: What part of the apple senses?

Sapius wrote:

Interactively sensed? By what?

Well, it is those frantically dynamic particles within a dimensionally relative structure

Okay, so you think these particles exist 'within' a container? What's this container/structure made out of? Something tells me you are going to say 'atoms' - and again, my response is that I think you've made a religion out of these atoms.

those frantically dynamic particles within a dimensionally relative structure that [are] capable of interactivity at a level of being a thing, and in this case an apple, which is inanimate as an apple, but is undergoing dynamic change in and of its constituently reactive particles however. If you don’t understand this, I have no way of explaining it otherwise... my bad.

I understand it - - to you, atoms are the answer to everything. That's fine, I don't want to give you a hard time about it. Maybe one day I will have had the necessary epiphany required to share your view.

What makes you think I'm trying to falsify their attributes? The only thing I'm trying to falsify is the assumption that things continue to exist when there is no consciousness cast upon them. I'm trying to falsify the view that the things you observe have clear boundaries apart from the ones the mind makes.

And I ask whose consciousness or mind are you taking about? Yours or the fish?

I'm talking about everyone's mind.

That's right, when there is no mind, there is no causality.

Well, that depends on whose mind you are talking about, and what you define mind as.

All minds. And a mind is any thing which is informed by sense perception, has thought, and can respond both positively and negatively to the environment.

The mind is generating this blank white background.

Really? How about the fish? Does it have that capability too?

Sure, why not?

Now:

How can a form appear on this white background, unless it is a slightly different shade, such as grey, black, red, etc?

I don’t see your point. What has differentiation in and of contrast got to do with the mind generating the background?

I was just further emphasizing my point that - where there is no mind, there is no causality (and vice versa)

If the mind could only generate 'one' - then there would be nothing, there would be no mind. For there to be a mind, there must be the ability to sense duality. As one causes the other, and vice versa. If the mind can only generate a background without a foreground, then a background can't exist. A background, to exist, needs a foreground. A cause needs an effect, and vice versa.

Is the mind limited to generating just one colour

A mind that cannot generate a contrast, dark in contrast to light, or low sound in contrast to higher, cannot exist.

C: Do you honestly think there is such a clear boundary distinguishing where an atom begins and where it ends?

S: There isn’t one?

C: Can you find such a clear boundary with more everyday objects? First achieve that.

Well, I will try with everyday objects and may be more, tell me where I go wrong; Table

Ok. Table. The frames per second that the passage of time flows for you personally, dictates the way forms, such as tables, are presented. From another perspective, a table might appear as if it is an undivided part of the family or person who uses it, or who made it. From another perspective a table may appear undivided from the original person or persons who created such a thing for the first time, all their desire and struggle is a part of the table. This is much like a tree appears to be whole thing in itself, yet from another perspective a tree is broken up in nameable parts.

unicorn

Unicorn is a creation of and thought in the brain, and so the unicorn from another perspective might not be seen as seperate from the individual who first created it, and it might be seen as undivided from the chemical signature in the brains that know a unicorn, one that is connected to a horse and one of those whales with the big horns. And of course, those animals are connected to everything else.

dream

A dream can be seen as undivided from your waking experiences and brain chemistry.

I could go on and on with all of your examples.

There are clear boundaries and definitions, but they are created by the mind and exist for pragmatic, practical purposes.

Sure, and is that how the fish operates too?

The fish's perception is dictated by it's intentions.

As you wish.

You mean I do have a choice? ;-P

What you wish is not up to you. :)-

It's an expression of neuroendocrinology, which is an expression of the totality.

Cory,

This is much like a tree appears to be whole thing in itself, yet from another perspective a tree is broken up in nameable parts.

I will get back at both of your threads once you decide from which perspective you want me to respond from? Least I am “confused” yet again. I can speak form either perspectives but prefer not to mix them up, otherwise I see no reason to continue splitting hairs out of context. You do seem to understand that they are two different perspectives, so choose one so that we may remain consistent.

What you wish is not up to you. :)-

It's an expression of neuroendocrinology, which is an expression of the totality.

Totality doesn’t have a point of view, my friend, neither does causality for that matter, so from that perspective, YOU can say absolutely notthing at all. YOU are NOT the Totality.

In my opinion, this sickness of Oneness taken literally is the culprit responsible for the real delusion of considering non-duality a literal fact rather than a conceptual realization.

As far as free will goes, I think David might be able to speak your language and explain it, since he speaks eloquently simple and agrees that we do have some freedom, but ultimately it is causality, which is what I have been saying.

Sapius wrote: We do have some freedom, but ultimately it is causality, which is what I have been saying.

Sapius, you are so attached to causality as the necessary conditions to create free will, but you don't realize that causality by nature totally undermines any possibility for free will.

All Effect is determined, by definition. If what you are is an effect, then what you are is not a choice.

Do you have some unique definition for 'effect'? And do you not regard the mind as an effect?

Sapius, you are so attached to causality as the necessary conditions to create free will, but you don't realize that causality by nature totally undermines any possibility for free will.

Cory, it seems you are more interested in psychoanalyzing me instead of discussing the matter at hand, that too through your unfounded personal opinions.

However, how did you arrive at or did come to understand the “nature” of causality? Detailed description will surely help.

All Effect is determined, by definition. If what you are is an effect, then what you are is not a choice.

I am as much an effect that I am a cause. My being, not being a choice has nothing to do with what effects I am made capable of producing. Unless you believe that I as a factor in and of totality has no unique affect that contributes in and of causality. My presence as an effect is as much a cause of effects produced by my presence. Again, I will drop the argument if you believe that I am nothing whatsoever. Or that my presence contributes absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.

Do you have some unique definition for 'effect'? And do you not regard the mind as an effect?

No, I will gladly accept your definition. Read above for your later question.

And please, for the last time, as requested earlier, please state the perspective you want me to respond from.

Sapius, you are so attached to causality as the necessary conditions to create free will, but you don't realize that causality by nature totally undermines any possibility for free will.

I can’t find any fault with what Sapius is saying to you.

The point is not the fact that causality undermines any possibility for free will, which is true, but that the idea of free will is an egotistical emotional idea of some form of superiority over other things within the universe.

From the perspective of every human in regard to their “experience of living”, free will objectively exists, and it simply does not matter that this perspective is an illusion. Everything is an illusion, and there is no reason to separate free will from every other illusion of reality - but DELUSION only arises when one EXPECTS that they are in some way an objective entity, and they do not accept that everything is an illusion.

In that everything is an illusion, this does not in any way imply that everything is not real, illusions are not “unreal” or “wrong”, it simply means that an appearance is an arbitrary limitation of reality, in which the very arbitrariness of this limitation of appearances, is also determined.

Free will is no different from any other effect, it is a “real illusion of completeness or inherency”.