GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis Mahar wrote: Quote:
Can you prove that?


It's your job to prove mind is absolute.
switch it off and get back to me.

Err...no.
I never asserted that the mind was absolute nor
that it was not.
I asserted that we cant tell. I gave reasons why.
Your assertion is that only minds exist but you have not given any reasons why.

another day in paradise

all phenomena,
mental. physical, emotional is conditional.

Dennis Mahar wrote:another day in paradise

all phenomena,
mental. physical, emotional is conditional.

somethings are not conditional but are random.
Also there are events or things that happen that are not phenomena but are conditional simply because humans were not made to detect them.

how is random not a condition?
WTF
you've always/already assigned it with a property, characteristic,function.

Dennis Mahar wrote:how is random not a condition?
WTF
you've always/already assigned it with a property, characteristic,function.

You still havent explained why you say conditional/caused implys a phenomena.

Well,

you would have to agree with the following analysis in principle.

Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower. We see sunshine, we see the rain, we see clouds, we see the earth, and we also see time and space in the flower. A flower, like everything else, is made entirely of non-flower elements. The whole cosmos has come together in order to help the flower manifest itself. The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos. If we understand being in terms of inter-being, then we are much closer to the truth. Inter-being is not being and it is not non-being. Inter-being means at the same time being empty of a separate identity; empty of a separate self.

When we look at the flower we see the flower presenting an appearance that persuades us to experience it as existing in and of itself and separated out from its environment.

What we do not see is the infinite array of causes necessarily in the background that the flower depends upon for its appearance.

If you can grant those conditions.

I can suggest the flower presents an appearance that is not the ultimate reality of the flower for your consideration.

Pincho Paxton wrote:
It takes physics to think, it is impossible to redirect the mind from the mind. It is impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Your just using words to redirect the outcome of a losing argument. Losing the argument creates your delusion to throw in a false claim. Your false claim however is a paradox. It is impossible to win an argument with a paradox, because a paradox loses its own argument.

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

This is very good thinking Pincho. Thank you.

You have helped me to overcome something in the job that I have dealing with an unsavory sometime business partner from way back. We cross each others path from a venture we have from way back. It is unfortunate but I'll have to apply this with him in the not to distant future in an alliance we share.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

I said mind is a condition,
produced by causes.
It doesn't exist in and of itself.
because it's causal in nature it can't exist ultimately.

because it's conditional it's changeable, transformable,
it's possibilities are delusion and enlightenment.
it can realise it's activity.

Can you prove that?

It's your job to prove mind is absolute.
switch it off and get back to me.

I think that your use of words is all over the place. Your English doesn't make any sense to me.

"The mind is a condition.." ..... doesn't make sense in the English language.

"produced by causes.
It doesn't exist in and of itself."... nothing exists of itself, and the causes mean physics.

"because it's causal in nature it can't exist ultimately.".. is a total fallacy. Cause creates existence.

"because it's conditional it's changeable, transformable,"... That's what it's supposed to be to think.

"it's possibilities are delusion and enlightenment."... so what.

"it can realise it's activity."... yes so it realises what is going on. It also calculates what is likely to be hidden from your senses like atoms, and invisible energies.

So we have a mind, and it realises what is going on, and I worked out how everything came into existence using my mind. Even if this is all going on in a computer, or I am floating in space, the physics that I used to realise the universe are still the same. I didn't copy, or look at the Universe to realise its physics.

Tomas wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:
It takes physics to think, it is impossible to redirect the mind from the mind. It is impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Your just using words to redirect the outcome of a losing argument. Losing the argument creates your delusion to throw in a false claim. Your false claim however is a paradox. It is impossible to win an argument with a paradox, because a paradox loses its own argument.

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

This is very good thinking Pincho. Thank you.

Sorry Tomas, it's obscured thinking on each and every account. Don't encourage it further!

A. It's not impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Actually that's all it does. That's what makes it go "mind": self-reflection! How would the mind be relative to anything else when all else is conceived by the mind first?

B. It's better to see the term "paradox" as something unexamined which seems contradicting. This in opposition to what's determined to be a contradiction. Anyway, a paradox is not an argument itself and cannot win or lose an argument either. If a paradox would be determined to be an actual contradiction, then demonstration of the contradiction might constitute an argument. But one cannot demonstrate a paradox by definition.

This is all quite rudimentary and normally I ignore barely readable confusion like this on the forum but your random praise made me wonder what was there.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Tomas wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:
It takes physics to think, it is impossible to redirect the mind from the mind. It is impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Your just using words to redirect the outcome of a losing argument. Losing the argument creates your delusion to throw in a false claim. Your false claim however is a paradox. It is impossible to win an argument with a paradox, because a paradox loses its own argument.

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

This is very good thinking Pincho. Thank you.

Sorry Tomas, it's obscured thinking on each and every account. Don't encourage it further!

A. It's not impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Actually that's all it does. That's what makes it go "mind": self-reflection! How would the mind be relative to anything else when all else is conceived by the mind first?

B. It's better to see the term "paradox" as something unexamined which seems contradicting. This in opposition to what's determined to be a contradiction. Anyway, a paradox is not an argument itself and cannot win or lose an argument either. If a paradox would be determined to be an actual contradiction, then demonstration of the contradiction might constitute an argument. But one cannot demonstrate a paradox by definition.

This is all quite rudimentary and normally I ignore barely readable confusion like this on the forum but your random praise made me wonder what was there.

The mind is an object, thoughts are separated into categories. When the mind goes "mind", the category is a word. The mind is not a word it is physics. The mind cannot create the physics of itself. All you did was swap a word for physics. You can't do that.

You basically suggest that everything is in the imagination, and you spend years saying that, and you always make it sound over complicated. The reason that you want it to sound radical, and complicated is to cause confusion. I have never once seen you write in a simple manner...

"Everything is in the imagination."



If you just write the simple sentence "Everything is in the imagination." we can discuss that. And we go back to the mind is not in its own imagination. It has physics. Then you say ...The physics are in our imagination. And that is the paradox. The physics of the mind cannot be created by the mind.

.. and then you just switch to the 'word' "mind" is in the mind. It's inexcusable to swap a word for physics.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sorry Tomas, it's obscured thinking on each and every account. Don't encourage it further!

A. It's not impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Actually that's all it does. That's what makes it go "mind": self-reflection! How would the mind be relative to anything else when all else is conceived by the mind first?

B. It's better to see the term "paradox" as something unexamined which seems contradicting. This in opposition to what's determined to be a contradiction. Anyway, a paradox is not an argument itself and cannot win or lose an argument either. If a paradox would be determined to be an actual contradiction, then demonstration of the contradiction might constitute an argument. But one cannot demonstrate a paradox by definition.

This is all quite rudimentary and normally I ignore barely readable confusion like this on the forum but your random praise made me wonder what was there.

I've made it this far in life. I don't need the government to do my thinking, Dan, Dennis, David, that goofy Seeker guy, and Kevin who live off the Australian State. I like physics and have studied different aspects of it years upon years. Don't mind so much from you, Alex, a couple others here and Pincho but the wife is cool with me, my children say ok, and a few friends left who understand the nature of life with all its entrails. :-)
I get it all pretty good, Diebert.

Peace Up, Diebert.

Tomas wrote:... and Pincho but the wife is cool with me, my children say ok, and a few friends left who understand the nature of life with all its entrails. :-)
I get it all pretty good, Diebert.

It's obvious you got it good since you mention it ever so often but Pincho, wife, kids or entrails are not known to be conductive for good thinking. What makes you think you've offered any good thought lately? A good nature is not the same as a good thought. In the meadows here are a few cows (Holstein-Friesian if you must know) which have a pretty good life and are good natured and relaxed. Their lowing is quite pleasant too. But don't ask them anything!

chikoka wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:

chikoka wrote:Hi Dennis

There is no way we may (ever perhaps) know whether or not there is anything "out there".
but that doesnt mean we can move from stating that to concluding that there really isnt anything "out there". Its
a problem of epistemology , not metaphysics.

Hi Chikoka,
In order to determine if there is an "out there" we must first define what that means. Where would "out there" begin?

We cant know where "out there" would begin because we would be forced to say "where it appears to begin".Which is what i'm guessing you wanted me to say.

If we cannot know what "out there" means, how can we speculate about if it is true? If something or anything has no PROPERTIES/CHARACTERISTICS, it cannot exist by definition ( metaphysics) or by experience ( epistemology). It would be akin to speculating on remembering the time you were not. There is no such thing as remembering a time you were not here as it cannot be known or defined. This is the great trap the ego lays for us. It desires to always be somewhere or something else. It desires the impossible and promises salvation if attained.

We only know about what appears to us but that is a statement of what we can know (epistomology) rather than a statement of what exists (metaphysics)

What is reality? In order to determine what is real we must know what that means.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Beingof1 wrote: The mind becomes enamored by the infinite amount of things it can behold and convinces itself there must be more things that can be and are. The stunning reality is - the entire drama of the universe, never once, leaves your consciousness. The mind tricks itself by being entangled with a single object, knowing it can do this continuously, and therefore relates a thing that is not there and comes to the conclusion that because it can never run out of things - the mind manufactures more artificial things that can never be imagined and insist they exist.

The cup has properties ---> Skip the part where the mind distinguished the properties --->

The mind doesn't distinguish the properties, they are external to the mind. The mind has properties, it cannot distinguish itself with itself. That's a paradox. No theory can include a paradox. So if you change CUP to MIND, then you can see the mistake.

You just distinguished the properties of the meaning of my post - and you did that with no mind at all? Every theory has a paradox because the knowledge itself is a paradox. How can anything be known is a paradox.

---> The cup has parts ---> Skip the part that the mind dissected the cup into its parts --->

The mind is very poor at dissecting things into parts. That's why so many people suffer from delusions. We don't think of ourselves as zero particles, nobody does but me, and that's out of 7 billion minds. Nobody realises that we push when we pull because nobody is dissecting us into atoms.

How many things do you see right now? Now tell me no one else dissects the universe.

Try this trick...

1/ Pull your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.
2/ Now push your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.

Did your fingers move at all?

I ended up farting.

We are atoms, when we pull we actually push, but the mind is poor at dissecting things into parts.

That's two mistakes you have made.

Thank you for pointing out the properties and dissecting my mistakes without using a mind to do it.

Beingof1 wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Beingof1 wrote: The mind becomes enamored by the infinite amount of things it can behold and convinces itself there must be more things that can be and are. The stunning reality is - the entire drama of the universe, never once, leaves your consciousness. The mind tricks itself by being entangled with a single object, knowing it can do this continuously, and therefore relates a thing that is not there and comes to the conclusion that because it can never run out of things - the mind manufactures more artificial things that can never be imagined and insist they exist.

The cup has properties ---> Skip the part where the mind distinguished the properties --->

The mind doesn't distinguish the properties, they are external to the mind. The mind has properties, it cannot distinguish itself with itself. That's a paradox. No theory can include a paradox. So if you change CUP to MIND, then you can see the mistake.

You just distinguished the properties of the meaning of my post - and you did that with no mind at all? Every theory has a paradox because the knowledge itself is a paradox. How can anything be known is a paradox.

---> The cup has parts ---> Skip the part that the mind dissected the cup into its parts --->

The mind is very poor at dissecting things into parts. That's why so many people suffer from delusions. We don't think of ourselves as zero particles, nobody does but me, and that's out of 7 billion minds. Nobody realises that we push when we pull because nobody is dissecting us into atoms.

How many things do you see right now? Now tell me no one else dissects the universe.

Try this trick...

1/ Pull your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.
2/ Now push your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.

Did your fingers move at all?

I ended up farting.

We are atoms, when we pull we actually push, but the mind is poor at dissecting things into parts.

That's two mistakes you have made.

Thank you for pointing out the properties and dissecting my mistakes without using a mind to do it.

We have a mind.

We have a mind.

is that entity existing in its own right independent of conceptual designation?

no, because it is known by 'attributes'.
it has those attributes and cannot be equated with them.

nothing can be found that exists in its own nature independent of conceptual designation.

The physicist louis de Broglie recognised such when he wrote:

May it not be universally true that the concepts humans produce when formulated in a slightly vague form are roughly valid for reality, but that when extreme precision is aimed at, they become ideal forms whose content fades away.

We look at a table and believe tableness exists independent of conceptualising mind.
there is no table there.
there is an infinite array of causes.

Dennis Mahar wrote: Well,

you would have to agree with the following analysis in principle.


Quote:
Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower. We see sunshine, we see the rain, we see clouds, we see the earth, and we also see time and space in the flower. A flower, like everything else, is made entirely of non-flower elements. The whole cosmos has come together in order to help the flower manifest itself. The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos. If we understand being in terms of inter-being, then we are much closer to the truth. Inter-being is not being and it is not non-being. Inter-being means at the same time being empty of a separate identity; empty of a separate self.

I do not agree with this at all, reasons shortly.Oh and what does the underlined term in your quote mean?

Dennis Mahar wrote:When we look at the flower we see the flower presenting an appearance that persuades us to experience it as existing in and of itself and separated out from its environment.

What we do not see is the infinite array of causes necessarily in the background that the flower depends upon for its appearance.

If you can grant those conditions.

I can suggest the flower presents an appearance that is not the ultimate reality of the flower for your consideration

But if the environment is its then using beings logic it does have have ultimate reality.
Consider this worldview; everything (each thing) cant be separated from its environment, meaning they each own the same environment (obviously) or rather participate in the same environment .

or

consider this worldview;everything (not each thing) cant be separated from its environment,
meaning that the environment is synonymous with everything

or as you beleive

consider this worldview;everything (each thing) cant be separated from its environment,
meaning that there are no things since by hypothesis they cant be separated from the environment.

Three separate (2) contradicting facts from one worldview. Your beliefs (mainly beings i concede) lie in a missrepresentation of language.

Beingof1 wrote:If we cannot know what "out there" means, how can we speculate about if it is true?

We cannot know for certain but we are free to speculate, why not? It just means that that speculation can never be verified to be true (or not true) rather than is definitely not true we cant make a judgement though the proposition of duality may be true.

Beingof1 wrote:If something or anything has no PROPERTIES/CHARACTERISTICS, it cannot exist by definition ( metaphysics) or by experience ( epistemology

No one said the ultimate reality has no properties . it has one which you can not deny; "it has the property or characteristic of being the totality".

Beingof1 wrote:There is no such thing as remembering a time you were not here as it cannot be known or defined

No, there is no such thing as remembering a time when you were not here because you were not here not because it cannot be known. It cannot be known because again you were not here, so both states depend on one thing, not on each other.
You make many linguistic errors.

Beingof1 wrote:Quote:
We only know about what appears to us but that is a statement of what we can know (epistomology) rather than a statement of what exists (metaphysics)


What is reality? In order to determine what is real we must know what that means.

Beingof1 wrote:

chikoka wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:

chikoka wrote:Hi Dennis

There is no way we may (ever perhaps) know whether or not there is anything "out there".
but that doesnt mean we can move from stating that to concluding that there really isnt anything "out there". Its
a problem of epistemology , not metaphysics.

Hi Chikoka,
In order to determine if there is an "out there" we must first define what that means. Where would "out there" begin?

We cant know where "out there" would begin because we would be forced to say "where it appears to begin".Which is what i'm guessing you wanted me to say.

If we cannot know what "out there" means, how can we speculate about if it is true? If something or anything has no PROPERTIES/CHARACTERISTICS, it cannot exist by definition ( metaphysics) or by experience ( epistemology). It would be akin to speculating on remembering the time you were not. There is no such thing as remembering a time you were not here as it cannot be known or defined. This is the great trap the ego lays for us. It desires to always be somewhere or something else. It desires the impossible and promises salvation if attained.

We only know about what appears to us but that is a statement of what we can know (epistomology) rather than a statement of what exists (metaphysics)

What is reality? In order to determine what is real we must know what that means.

I see where you are going with this.
I dont know how valid this is and its ironic that i "think koans are a copout" but i would make use of ludwig witgensteins ladder to define reality.

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way:anyone who understands them eventually recognizes them asnonsensical, when he has used them -- as steps -- to climbup beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladderafter he has climbed up it.)" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein,

http://www.eliteskills.com/c/11368

I only just caught on to your point at the end of all these replies but i'll post them anyway since if my use of the ladder is valid then they still stand.
I wont lie, but like aggripa i am almost convinced.Well done!

I wont sleep tonight over this one:)

The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

Agree?
Yes or No.

Do not require a lengthy post of idiocy in response.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

Agree?
Yes or No.

Do not require a lengthy post of idiocy in response.

What can "a flower being full of everything" mean???????


Being

Is the mind ultimately real and what would that mean.

the flower is full of everything that is not the flower.
for flower to exist it requires seed, soil, climate, planet, galaxy, universe.
it requires conditions.
it cannot exist apart from conditions.
it has no separate self or self identity.
to conceptualise flower as an entity independent of causes/conditions is an act of lunacy.

Start thinking straight lad.

a flower presents an appearance.
how it exists is for analysis.

Agree?

Dennis Mahar wrote:the flower is full of everything that is not the flower.
for flower to exist it requires seed, soil, climate, planet, galaxy, universe.
it requires conditions.
it cannot exist apart from conditions.
it has no separate self or self identity.
to conceptualise flower as an entity independent of causes/conditions is an act of lunacy.

Start thinking straight lad.

a flower presents an appearance.
how it exists is for analysis.

Agree?

No then , you keep referencing an it, whats up with that?

chikoka wrote: Being

Is the mind ultimately real and what would that mean.

Ok, no.
Mind is dependant on concepts, which as a tautology makes sense (obviously),
so what is the definition of concept?-maybe therin lies the key to me sleeping tonight:)

I am using it to delineate the object flower appearing.

can you attribute self-nature to flower,
that it produces itself?
that it is independent of influence?
a standalone entity?