GENIUS FORUMS

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote: Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

That's a very good point, but inaccurately expressed. The phenomenon of character is always the same. Only characteristics are different. Only characteristics continue.

That's an interesting way of putting it, but I was trying to express it more broadly.

The phenomenon of consciousness always has the same character: that of differentiation through non-identity (discontinuity) and identity (continuity). Character/self is identification with a part of one's construct of consciousness which is recognised through memory as a continuity amidst the flux of changes. There is nothing that actually continues but the phenomenon of consciousness, which is eternal.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Richard wrote:There is no soul (i.e. inherently existent entity) to maintain any continuity from one moment to the next, let alone from one life to another.

You state that with such certainty. are you attached to the idea that there is no soul?

I'm attached to Truth, and it is a certain truth that there is no separately existent self (anymore than there is a separately existent star).

I'm also attached to the false belief in an independent existence.

Carl G wrote:

Richard wrote:

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

Could it be that we have already had past lives, living and dying not to remember one from the other.

There is no soul (i.e. inherently existent entity) to maintain any continuity from one moment to the next, let alone from one life to another.

Why do you equate soul to "inherently existent entity"? Why couldn't a caused entity have one? And if there is no "soul," what is it that maintains one's continuity from one moment to the next? Why couldn't that, whatever it is, continue through a series of lifetimes?

A caused or non-inherently existent entity is philosophically negligible. In the light of eternity, a trillion successive lifetimes each a billion years long is no more significant than a single one of three score and ten. A soul must be immortal to be of any worth; that is, present through all changes. But nothing survives change.

Continuity is maintained by the perception of identity in the memories of the present moment. The reality of discontinuity is in the nature of consciousness: for it to cleave every moment from every other moment, and every conscious entity from every other.

Doggy wrote:

Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason. Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

Because you can have only one identity.

The parts of your conscious experience that you identify yourself as constitute the whole of your identity. If your memories and perceptions were replaced with those of the Swahili you would cease to be you and acquire his identity.

Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

This is does not argue the point. Number of identities is not the issue. Question is why his present identity is the current one and not a Swahili one.

Asking why you do not have a different identity is like asking why the number 42 is not 137. The number 42 can only be 42; it cannot be both 42 and 137, which is what the question implies. 42 is 42 because it's not 137 (or any of the infinity of other numbers or things). I am myself because I'm not anything else.

Anyway, why would the idea of multiple identities be wrong. Why couldn't many identities (even concurrent) fit together within one whole. Just like the Totality: many lives/ identifications/ personalities. I identify with that.

It is just in the nature of consciousness to fragment it into an infinity of identities, of apparently separate parts. The Totality is by definition a unified whole, and so ultimately everything is continuous with no separation. So I agree that it all ultimately fits together into one seamless whole, the ultimate identity being the Totality.

kowtaaia wrote:

You guys and your definitions!

Putting it into language that I know you are familiar with – asking a poster to explain their thoughts is what happens on a philosophy forum. For most people, this is extremely hard to do, for they have never thought about anything in their entire lives. But here at this forum, it is expected that every poster is able to back up their ideas. This means providing definitions.

Thought is just the response of the brains registration of experience/sensation, that unfortunately has taken on a life of its own as the 'me'. Dreaming is that activity in the dark, while the body is asleep. It's an attempt to resolve what wasn't resolved during waking hours. There is also deeper intimations and some completely meaningless stuff. Blah, blah, blah.

Your attitude towards thinking is so contemptuous that I’m surprised that you bother writing at all. But perhaps you have come here to learn how to think. If that be the case, this forum can be useful, for here, every idea is tested and judged.

So when Steven, or anyone else, asks you to “elaborate”, they are expecting explanations that not only describe the concepts you use, but they often also want to know how you came to the understanding you have about a subject.

Steven, and everyone else on this forum, also expects the same rigorous examination applied to their own thinking.

-
Sue

Sue,

Explaning thoughts is not the same as giving word definitions. How you get 'contemptuous' from the definition of thought, is unknown. Perhaps you are projecting your own limitations. Please try to respond without fallacies, the next time.

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote: Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

That's a very good point, but inaccurately expressed. The phenomenon of character is always the same. Only characteristics are different. Only characteristics continue.

That's an interesting way of putting it, but I was trying to express it more broadly.

The phenomenon of consciousness always has the same character: that of differentiation through non-identity (discontinuity) and identity (continuity). Character/self is identification with a part of one's construct of consciousness which is recognised through memory as a continuity amidst the flux of changes. There is nothing that actually continues but the phenomenon of consciousness, which is eternal.

At least we see the 'interesting' aspect of each other postings. :)
What does "one's construct of consciousness" mean?
Could you define the first word of the following phrase, please? "consciousness is eternal".

Otherwise, we agree.

kowtaaia wrote:

Explaning thoughts is not the same as giving word definitions. How you get 'contemptuous' from the definition of thought, is unknown. Perhaps you are projecting your own limitations. Please try to respond without fallacies, the next time.

As you show in the above post to Richard, gleaning knowledge from another as to how they understand a concept is essential for the development of the discussion.

-
Sue

kowtaaia wrote:What does "one's construct of consciousness" mean?

The construct of consciousness is everything whatsoever that one is aware of: perceptions (of form, change, space, time), sensations, memories (immediate, short-term, long-term), imagination, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and anything else that exists in the moment.

kowtaaia wrote:Could you define the first word of the following phrase, please? "consciousness is eternal".

Consciousness = mind = existence. It is the dualistic phenomenon of differentiation into separate things.

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:What does "one's construct of consciousness" mean?

The construct of consciousness is everything whatsoever that one is aware of: perceptions (of form, change, space, time), sensations, memories (immediate, short-term, long-term), imagination, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and anything else that exists in the moment.

Aggregates of self?

kowtaaia wrote:Could you define the first word of the following phrase, please? "consciousness is eternal".

Richard wrote: Consciousness = mind = existence. It is the dualistic phenomenon of differentiation into separate things.

The illusion of "separate things" is thought (which is consciousness). Even if we disagree on this, why would say that it is eternal? Do you mean 'eternally now'?

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:What does "one's construct of consciousness" mean?

The construct of consciousness is everything whatsoever that one is aware of: perceptions (of form, change, space, time), sensations, memories (immediate, short-term, long-term), imagination, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and anything else that exists in the moment.

Aggregates of self?

Yes, if I understand correctly what you are referring to. A self is the aggregate of its parts/characteristics (and itself a part of the greater aggregate of the construct).

kowtaaia wrote:The illusion of "separate things" is thought (which is consciousness). Even if we disagree on this, why would say that it is eternal? Do you mean 'eternally now'?

Consciousness can never be extinguished - absence of consciousness is impossible. There is just a permanent, unchanging, immediate state of consciousness. It is "eternally now" for every conscious entity, and at every moment of its existence.

Richard wrote: Consciousness can never be extinguished - absence of consciousness is impossible. There is just a permanent, unchanging, immediate state of consciousness. It is "eternally now" for every conscious entity, and at every moment of its existence.

Not that you're wrong, but how do you know that the absence is impossible?

There is no entity that is conscious.

'Death' is a human concept, used to describe the cessation of the state of being alive as the organism we ‘knew and recognised’. In reality, there is no such thing as death. There is merely change. While we are alive we are hosts to a variety of other life forms. As soon as we ‘die’, other, different life forms take over our bodies, and thus the mantle of life encasing this planet that we call the biosphere, continues. ‘Death’ is an essential ingredient of life. Thus, those who insist there is life after ‘death’ are correct. I will be consumed by bacteria, beetles, fungi…. etc. My physical structures will be used and reused becoming part of animals, plants, birds…
As for my consciousness… that remains only in the memory of those who knew me, or in any of my works that might survive.

Richard wrote: Consciousness can never be extinguished - absence of consciousness is impossible. There is just a permanent, unchanging, immediate state of consciousness. It is "eternally now" for every conscious entity, and at every moment of its existence.

kowtaaia wrote:There is no entity that is conscious.

Quite right. I used "conscious entity" to refer to the "construct of consciousness" to highlight its distinct nature, but did not mean to assert that it has the property of being conscious. No things are conscious. Things are consciousness.

kowtaaia wrote:Not that you're wrong, but how do you know that the absence is impossible?

Existence is consciousness, and there is no existence apart from it. Absence of consciousness is, therefore, absence of existence. But existence exists; existence cannot be non-existent. Therefore unconsciousness is self-contradictory and so is impossible.

What is death?

Death is unconsciousness. The conclusion follows:

There is no death.

Richard wrote:There is no death.

Without death, neither can there be life - these are mere distictions of state - transformations of states of being. In a way, everything is as much as it is not - the self is not, yet as a construct of convenience for referencing, the self is. It is the attachment to the construct that is a detractor from Truth.

Consciousness can never be extinguished

No things are conscious. Things are consciousness.

How do you mean that things are conciousness?

Richard,


Is this consciousness that you speak of, caused?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Richard wrote:There is no death.

Without death, neither can there be life - these are mere distictions of state - transformations of states of being. In a way, everything is as much as it is not - the self is not, yet as a construct of convenience for referencing, the self is. It is the attachment to the construct that is a detractor from Truth.

Death (in the ultimate sense) is not a state of being at all; it is a meaningless word with no referent. Life is the only state of being possible. Of course, the biological definition of death is meaningful, as when one makes the distinction between living and non-living processes, as you observe here.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Consciousness can never be extinguished

No things are conscious. Things are consciousness.

How do you mean that things are conciousness?

Literally that. There is no consciousness apart from things, nor are there things apart from consciousness. One's whole construct of consciousness is a thing.

kowtaaia wrote:Is this consciousness that you speak of, caused?

Yes: consciousness is caused to exist.

Only the causes within consciousness can be known. The cause beyond consciousness is neither existent nor non-existent, yet absolutely real.

How can it be eternal, then?

kowtaaia wrote:How can it be eternal, then?

Because Reality never changes.

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:How can it be eternal, then?

Because Reality never changes.

The as it is, yes, but for consciousness to be eternal, it would have to causeless.

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:How can it be eternal, then?

Because Reality never changes.

The as it is, yes, but for consciousness to be eternal, it would have to causeless.

The causes of consciousness do not change. Therefore, consciousness does not change.

...and the causes are what?

The causes of consciousness do not change

:) That would mean you'd never sleep.

I think it is the other way around

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

To me consciousness does not appear to change because it is actually empty of its own nature. It is like the eye of a needle -an empty hole that things can pass through. It is also much like the centre of gravity of a thing - something that stays the same yet changes as a result of internal and external fluctuating experiences - a centre of gravity will always be just that, but its location will wander, and so to does the consciousness.

Why are we talking about this? What is our purpose?

(I'm not instigating. This is a serious question.)

Borommakot wrote:Why are we talking about this? What is our purpose?

(I'm not instigating. This is a serious question.)

It is an aspect of Reality. We're sorting out what is really real from what we think is real by using rational thought... or at least many of us are trying to...