GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:Consciousness = sentience. Strictly non-bovine.

Same question: Is it possible for a thing to exist independent of consciousness?

If you are restricting it to sentient consciousness, then sure, I don't see why not… but not independent of awareness, for absolutely anything (any form) is interactively interdependent and hence necessarily aware of its immediate environment, irrelevant of its own nature as a form.

It is the “knowledge” (be it of the "sensual" kind) of another form that comes into consciousness, not the form itself, and there can be infinite number of forms that a consciousness may not be aware of, for any particular consciousness cannot be the totality, hence has its limitations.

for absolutely anything (any form) is interactively interdependent and hence necessarily aware of its immediate environment,

This is where I get bogged down. A thing is "necessarily aware." Says who? That's why I was steering clear - or trying to - of the word "aware." Do you want to use that as a more primal term instead of "consciousness?" All right, then. Why must a thing be necessarily aware of its immediate environment?

BH;

This is where I get bogged down. A thing is "necessarily aware." Says who?

Well, I said it… in my previous post and may be in many other threads over the years.

Why must a thing be necessarily aware of its immediate environment?

Because otherwise any reaction wouldn’t be possible, dynamic evolving wouldn’t be possible… existence wouldn’t be possible.

How else do you think absolutely any thing could be happening unless a thing cannot first sense that to which it reacts? Even a quark has to necessarily sense something to have a reaction, otherwise it would remain dormant, oblivious to the rest of totality, but that is not possible either, for no thing is ever not in motion due to the dynamic nature of totality itself, and totality means each individual parts or forms itself, hence each form itself is always dynamically transforming for it is never a solid single unit, and has at least two opposing forces working within; which means forms within a form, to say the least, philosophically, say a 1 yin and 1 yang within each conceivable thing, and awareness arises with the form to from (thing to thing) interaction at the most fundamental level and beyond, and as forms get more and more complex, (for example us), blind reactions turn into actions of intent, for it can now participate and influence the course of causality - consciously.

BTW, don’t ever assume a rock remains dormant, for it is but a perceived limitation of our own natural dimensional relationship between its form and ours; otherwise, it is as much in motion as our brain cells are, only at a much deeper quantum level. We have broken through and gone at least beyond our natural dimensional relationship and seen the quantum level with the help of technology, which incidentally, is a creation of a sentient consciousness with intent.

Or would you rather go with the total billiard ball causality? In which case, I would ask, what caused the initial grand PUSH to Totality? The Grand big bang? It is all Here and NOW, my friend.

So what you are saying is that the First Cause is Consciousness (the Universal Source) itself, but then how do you define this (Universal) Consciousness? Does it need something to be conscious of? Is that which it is conscious of, just the same as Consciousness itself or something other that IT?

Sapius, Sapius, look into my eyes: Not only do you not need to define a First Cause, you cannot. And the answer apparently is yes, it needs something to be conscious of.

Thanks for being patient, Sapes, this is Easter Sunday and family rules!

brokenhead wrote:Thanks for being patient, Sapes, this is Easter Sunday and family rules!

You're most welcome.
Happy Easter :)

for no thing is ever not in motion

You can't prove this. It's an absolute statement about something that is relative. This is a logical fallacy. You would have to be outside the totality to assert this. To make an absolute statement about motion of any element of totality, you must have a reference frame. "Not in motion" implies "at rest." "At rest" implies the existence of a reference frame. The reference frame is at rest with respect to itself, is it not? That would make a such reference frame - clearly a part of the totality - a thing at rest. The reference frame would be a thing not in motion.

BO1: "Bing friggin oh"? Heh, funny.

~

Boiled down to its essence, God IS faith. From there, one’s faith’s—or, God’s—face can clearly be discerned frowning, smiling, grimacing upon the lot of his fellow men. It’s a matter of exactly what an individual has faith in; the “feminine,” the “masculine,” truth, delusion, materialism, idealism, reason, emotion, et cetera.

To prove the existence of God, then, is to prove the essence of one’s faith.

Sap: for no thing is ever not in motion.

BH: You can't prove this.

Did it look like I was trying to prove it to you? My apologies then.

It's an absolute statement about something that is relative. This is a logical fallacy. You would have to be outside the totality to assert this.

Yes, its an absolute statement, so what? So is ‘absolutely ALL things are relative’ as you seem to allude; is it not an absolute statement? As if one has gone beyond the totality and comprehended that to know it as an absolute nature of existence; have you?

Relativity itself is the ultimate absolute, and I know that my understanding of it is relative to my experiences, but I have noting else to go by but my relative understandings as against yours, and I’m quite satisfied with mine as you may be with yours. There is nothing to either prove or disprove as far as comparing and evaluating your realizations as against mine are concerned, for they are unique to us all. One can only prove such things to a Self alone, for it is essentially all within.

To make an absolute statement about motion of any element of totality, you must have a reference frame. "Not in motion" implies "at rest." "At rest" implies the existence of a reference frame.

Yes, and what is at a temporary rest is the memory of a sentient consciousness, what is at a temporary rest are elements that are relatively at rest as in existence, which we can sense as at rest, like absolutely anything you can think or feel as per your dimensional relationship with the rest. But absolutely nothing is in a permanent state of rest, not even totality, for the restlessness of things itself is what is permanently there, with temporal pockets of rests that allow us to comprehend its restlessness, or even CALL “it” “totality”.

Without such temporary pockets of rests, which are however dynamically interactive with the relative rest, knowledge cannot be transferred from one thing to another.

The reference frame is at rest with respect to itself, is it not?

What does ‘in respect to itself’ mean? Does it seems at rest just like a rock seems at rest in respect to itself? In my opinion it is not at rest in respect to itself, but temporarily in respect to all else that seems at rest and hence can dynamically sense existence and retain it in a temporarily created memory of a form, which will change just like a rock or earth will when pulverised to kingdom come. A rock at its root is not really at rest, and so is the reference point held in and of a temporal memory of a form. It still remains a point of relative view in every instance, and will not permanently remain; that goes against the nature of the All, totality.

So it is not wise to really hold on to ones views and values when one knows that absolutely all is transitional.

That would make a such reference frame - clearly a part of the totality - a thing at rest. The reference frame would be a thing not in motion.

It is at a temporary “rest”, just like a rock is, but is a dynamic activity at its core however. It is the continuous bombardment of relativity itself that helps hold things in relative perspective, otherwise nothing would be AWARE of any thing at all. Awareness is a living changing thing, which thrives because of change itself. One cannot even really say that change itself is what permanently remains, for there is no reference point that lies beyond change itself to affirm it, that does not in any way mean no change is happening. If one says ‘awareness’ permanently remains, then so does 'change', for without either, existence isn’t, which is impossible.

Now one can make a God out or any particular realization, but particularity is transitional too, and that is where a Self lets go of all self-particularities, through the realization of an understanding, which simply changes the perspective of an individual, and at its core I have nothing against any particular perspective that others may hold.

I began a point-by-point to your last post here, Sapius, but I decided against it.

I think my point is simple, so I'm going to try to state it that way.

I do not believe a thing can exist independently of consciousness. However, the consciousness is not necessarily its own. In fact, it is often ours that we are lending to simply by considering it. A meteorite does not possess consciousness, no matter how philosophically advanced a treatment we give it. However, before it hits us, before we are even aware of it, it exists. This is where we stand, I'm afraid. This is fundamental disagreement.

We may both agree that such a meteorite exists. I do not know if you would concede this. I see no reason for you not to, as you have just argued for the fact that it posesses conciousness. It may not think, exactly, but it is conscious, therefore it is.

I say your argument for its concousness is incorrect. By considering it and breaking it down to its myriad of forms, both macroscopic and microscopic, it exists as a product of your consciousness. As I do not believe a thing can exists independent of some consciousness, you might consider me at a logical impasse, and therefore in error.

I do not see it that way. For the meteorite came to be before either you or I was aware of it, before it entered our consciousness, but that does not necessarily imply it was independent of any consciousness.

I think this leads quite naturally to the assumption of a creator consciousness, something primal and prior to, and causal of, any type of physical manifestation, either potential or actual.

This would mean the cosmos is more alive than not - that the appearance of lack of life is an illusion.

The forms you spoke of lack the kind of consciousness that I percieve in my world. In fact, I remain as unconvinced of it as you may be of my creator consciousness. I know many people are quite unconvinced of it. But I do not think you - or anyone - understands the very essence of the meteorite's complex fundamental structure, which may or may not include the hypothetical entities called quarks, and if it did, you cannot be aware of each of them simultaneously, or even sequentially!!! - for them to be a product of your consciousness. As your own consciousness probes ever deeper into the meteorite's structure, you are causing it to exist to that extent for you. For you. The fundamental interacting forms that comprise it therefore exist for you. You know I'm sure that many physicists do not believe the quarks they study exist apart from their theoretical treatment. And the person the meteorite eventually hits may never have heard of a quark, probably hasn't, in fact. Yet the meteorite is arguably more real for him than for you!

No, the level of consciousness required to bring the universe into actuality, with all its life forms, the ones we know about and the many more we do not - the consciousness required to lend existence to consciousnesses, is far beyond our comprehension.

It in fact does not require our own awareness to exist.

We did not - do not - create God, Sapius. We cannot.
This may be an unbrigeable gap in our Weltanschauungs.

BH: I began a point-by-point to your last post here, Sapius, but I decided against it.

Fair enough, I'll do the same.

We did not - do not - create God, Sapius. We cannot.
This may be an unbrigeable gap in our Weltanschauungs.

Yes, I agree, there is that gap, and ultimately we have but our own specific point of views to go by. All I can say is, ‘God’, however one defines it, would be contingent on ones consciousness too; so may be the rest of it is ‘God’, and not purely consciousness itself, for without the rest, any kind of consciousness couldn’t be. However, that’s me.

This thread was intended to examine some of the short paragraphs in Kevin's Poison for the Heart.

Almost choosing quotes at random, I find things that seem incorrect on the face of it, and some stated by Kevin for what seems to be little other than an attempt to say something different.

Kevin Solway, Poison for the Heart, "Death":

Death awareness achieves nothing if all it inspires us to consider is the possibility of life after death, or the temporary nature of life.

There is no way you can know what transpires after physical death. Considering the temporary nature of life is crucial to living life to its fullest. The possibility of life after death most certainly exists, yet even someone who believes this possibility exists would not claim it will occur for all people. Death awareness gives one the chance to decide what is real to one's heart, a heart, that is, which has not been poisoned.

PFTH, "Delusion - Trying":

It is futile to think about things: things are neither real nor illusory. You must have faith! Learn to ramble with effortless ease in the vacancy of the fields of indifference. Learn to live directly, alongside things - for Truth resides in things.

Faith, Kevin? In what? In someone who would poison the heart? In someone who rambles? In someone who is indifferent?

Do not bother telling me I misunderstand these words of yours. You would be incorrect. For any good sage means exactly what he says, and says exactly what he means.

PFTH, "Delusion - The Imagination":

Imagination is at the root of all fear and anxiety. If you were to place a plank on the ground and ask someone to walk along it, they would see no danger, and would not lose their balance as they traversed its length. However, if you were to suspend the plank one metre above the ground, they would probably hesitate. And if you placed the plank forty stories in the sky, spanning two skyscrapers, their answer would be a resounding "No!".

Answer me this, Kevin: Does a goat have an imagination?