GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:

B1; Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.

Diebert: Being loves to preach the very things he does not comprehend. Photons are not defined as particle in that particular instance but as a wave with uncertain, fluctuating location (like a wave in some fluid). This is easier to understand if elementary particles are not being conceived to have the same properties as objects in the macroscopic world. It's therefore important not to confuse the word "thing" with "material solid object".

Look at my statement carefully Diebert - you simply repeated what I said. The only thing I included was that bosons are "often' force particle carriers.

Two or more bosons do not occupy the same place in space. That's why they are not actual "particles". It's defined as a wave occupying a every exact calculated place in space. There's no other wave at the same time occupying that time/space in the same manner unless it's the same one.

Right, because I gotta be wrong, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... e-location

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... nd-bosons/

The irony is that you invoke pure math-based science in trying to illustrate the opposite of what that science is demonstrating. Hence I suggest that you do not comprehend the notion of "thing" and "place" as Jupiviv introduced them. There is no empty container somewhere and a content filling it. The finite thing is its own place and therefore nothing can else can be (in) it unless they are exactly equal. This is a logical necessity in terms of conceptualizing or references. In terms of making sense.

If anyone will simply click on the above links, it becomes stunningly obvious who does not understand.

As far as thing and place - the irony is that you have not yet realized these are arbitrary distinctions of the mind and do not exist in reality. A zen master who has not figured that out is ironic indeed.

Let me know when you are ready to actually communicate.

Kunga wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:can anyone here demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized. Not just claim they can, actually demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized?

If the Infinite is everything...it conceptualizes ITSELF simply by being phenomenal.
All phenomena is a conceptual representation of the Infinite.

If God asks himself "when did I begin"?
He answers "I cannot remember."

The WORD Infinite, is conceptualizing the Infinite in the word Infinite.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/incomprehensible

Beingof1 wrote:

B1; Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.

Jup: I can't comment on that since I don't know anything about bosons. However, it is logically impossible for two different things to occupy the exact same location.

No it is not - lets just call and end to the discussion until you do your homework.

Bosons are what I and Diebert both said.

Bosons aren't even relevant to this discussion. If different bosons do appear to occupy the exact same place then logically they would be the same thing, not different things being the exact same thing. Besides, since we are talking about empirical matters, it is impossible to determine anything with 100% certainty. With quantum particles I would imagine that determining position, identity etc. would be even more chaotic and uncertain than with classical mechanics. If it weren't then there wouldn't be any need for the distinction between classical and quantum physics.

In any case, as Diebert said, you're trying to drag the specialised language of physics into a philosophical discussion. The definition of an "object" or "particle" in physics cannot be interchanged at will with the purely logical definition of a finite thing.

3) A finite thing cannot exist as another finite thing - is wrong.

Prove it.

Just because you dismiss multiple examples does not mean they are not correct, it means you are dismissive of evidence you do not like.

Your "examples" are irrelevant, because you have yet to show how they relate to this discussion. Besides them, you have provided nothing but your own unsubstantiated opinions.

I already pointed out to you that all things - according to your very own syllogism - exist in the same place. They all exist in the same place known as the infinite.

The infinite is not a place because all places necessarily exist in relation to other places.

BeingOf1 wrote:As far as thing and place - the irony is that you have not yet realized these are arbitrary distinctions of the mind and do not exist in reality. A zen master who has not figured that out is ironic indeed.

Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.

jupiviv wrote: The point is that the causes and constituents of the mind do not seem to be different from what is usually described as matter and energy(the material world).

But that doesn't tell us much about the mind, does it now? Is it isolated in a brain? Does it have such clear scientific boundaries or definition? I think not.

There is plenty of evidence that the brain(in the body) is the seat of the mind. Our minds no longer seem to occur when we sleep, fall unconscious or die. Brain damaged or comatose people often have stunted minds, or no minds at all. Drugs that alter our mental state affect the brain. Diseases that affect the brain, like dementia and migraine, also affect the mind. Our sensory awareness of the world around us comes from organs situated in the vicinity of the brain.

Mind as mere occurrence or as some level of awareness, yes perhaps so. But it's not a container like lungs in which we can inhale air from outside and exhale again. The lungs can be put on the table and the air can be pumped around by machines. The boundaries and definitions are clear from a scientific perspective.

My concerns are about mind as content, like the air in our lungs. It's meaningless to see the body as "seat" of the air in our lungs. That's what my larger point really was. Despite some clear links to the brain and body awareness, the mind/body problem cannot be addressed by just resolving to scientific terms. It's a philosophical topic! And social, psychological, metaphysical just as well.

Beingof1 wrote:Right, because I gotta be wrong, right?

Link dropping does not work if you don't really understand the fundamentals of the topics you're linking to. No particle at that level has a precisely defined position or state. We're talking about wave functions. What you do here is take a discussion about "things" and say a quantum particle is an instance of such a "thing" and a quantum state is a some kind of actual "space". But that's just not true: these are mathematical functions without precise locality or state to begin with. Language becomes terrible misleading when using it to express the quantum world. But that does not mean we cannot conceptualize it somewhat, by the way.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jupiviv wrote: The point is that the causes and constituents of the mind do not seem to be different from what is usually described as matter and energy(the material world).

But that doesn't tell us much about the mind, does it now? Is it isolated in a brain? Does it have such clear scientific boundaries or definition? I think not.

I think it's safe to say that it is physically limited to the brain, because as far as we know a person's mind doesn't outlive his brain.

There is plenty of evidence that the brain(in the body) is the seat of the mind. Our minds no longer seem to occur when we sleep, fall unconscious or die. Brain damaged or comatose people often have stunted minds, or no minds at all. Drugs that alter our mental state affect the brain. Diseases that affect the brain, like dementia and migraine, also affect the mind. Our sensory awareness of the world around us comes from organs situated in the vicinity of the brain.

Mind as mere occurrence or as some level of awareness, yes perhaps so. But it's not a container like lungs in which we can inhale air from outside and exhale again. The lungs can be put on the table and the air can be pumped around by machines. The boundaries and definitions are clear from a scientific perspective.

The boundaries of the mind are clear enough from a scientific perspective to say that it is located in the brain. We may not yet be able to precisely manipulate the advanced functions of the mind, but there is nothing stopping us given enough advancement in technology and knowledge about the brain. But we can to some degree manipulate its advanced functions even now, through propaganda, communication, negotiation, advertisement, emotions, sexuality, love, torture etc. All of these things seem to involve what are termed material things.

My concerns are about mind as content, like the air in our lungs.

Things are located wherever they appear to be. To me, it appears that the mind is located in the brain. Unless you can provide some evidence that it might be located somewhere else, I'm sticking to the brain.

Despite some clear links to the brain and body awareness, the mind/body problem cannot be addressed by just resolving to scientific terms. It's a philosophical topic! And social, psychological, metaphysical just as well.

It's logically impossible for the mind to be *inherently* separate from the body or anything else. In some contexts they may be separate, but ultimately they are neither separate nor the same.

Jupiviv:

Bosons aren't even relevant to this discussion. If different bosons do appear to occupy the exact same place then logically they would be the same thing, not different things being the exact same thing. Besides, since we are talking about empirical matters, it is impossible to determine anything with 100% certainty. With quantum particles I would imagine that determining position, identity etc. would be even more chaotic and uncertain than with classical mechanics. If it weren't then there wouldn't be any need for the distinction between classical and quantum physics.

You do not know what a thing is and that is not my fault.

You create ALL THINGS. You do this by forming categories of distinction and until you can understand that - you have no clue what any thing is.

You apply all limits, properties, distinctions, and processes.

In any case, as Diebert said, you're trying to drag the specialised language of physics into a philosophical discussion. The definition of an "object" or "particle" in physics cannot be interchanged at will with the purely logical definition of a finite thing.

Diebert is doing what Diebert does. He cannot address the argument and the multiple other examples so - he grabs the most obscure and difficult concept out of the multiple - as in many - examples and harps and harps and harps on that.

He obfuscates rather than clarifies. He goes down rabbit trails that lead nowhere. He nit picks on some insipid point and beats it until the entire argument becomes drown in the single example. The argument however, gets avoided at all cost.

On top of that, he uses adhominums as standard fare to appear to defeat arguments.

Its an avoidance technique - and you fell for it Jup; hook, line and sinker.

Look carefully, I posted many examples and he is strangely quiet about those. I post a syllogism, not a peep. I post in multiple postings with multiple examples and he avoids all of that - to talk about bosons - very nice.

Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.

Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?






Diebert:

Link dropping does not work if you don't really understand the fundamentals of the topics you're linking to.

Of course we should not try to understand the subject by actually getting an explanation. That would lead to clarity and we cannot have that, can we? we must continue to be obscure and indefinite, kind of a flowing along with the wind when one is caught not knowing what they are talking about.

But one thing we can be absolutely 100 percent positive about - beingof1 is wrong about whatever he says.On this point of beingof1 being wrong - and only this point do we have sure footing.

Are you ever going to get over yourself?

No particle at that level has a precisely defined position or state. We're talking about wave functions. What you do here is take a discussion about "things" and say a quantum particle is an instance of such a "thing" and a quantum state is a some kind of actual "space". But that's just not true: these are mathematical functions without precise locality or state to begin with. Language becomes terrible misleading when using it to express the quantum world. But that does not mean we cannot conceptualize it somewhat, by the way

Lets just continue to poll vault over mouse droppings - good tactic.

Where does a thing exist? What defines a thing?

BeingOf1 wrote:You create ALL THINGS.

I'd have to be *separate* from all things to create them, which is impossible since I myself am a thing.

Your premise in this discussion is injudicious. Do you seriously expect to convince us that two things can exist in the same place at the same time through your half-baked understanding of quantum physics?

Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?

Things themselves are distinctions. You can't apply a distinction to itself.

A thing is distinguished by what it's not.

Beingof1 wrote:

Kunga wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:can anyone here demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized. Not just claim they can, actually demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized?

If the Infinite is everything...it conceptualizes ITSELF simply by being phenomenal.
All phenomena is a conceptual representation of the Infinite.

If God asks himself "when did I begin"?
He answers "I cannot remember."

The WORD Infinite, is conceptualizing the Infinite in the word Infinite.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/incomprehensible

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao ?
The God that can be named is not the God.

Tao=Name
God=Name

These are CONCEPTS.

You asked if the Infinite can be CONCEPTUALIZED.

All words are conceptualizations.
You didn't ask what is INCOMPREHENSIBLE...you asked if the INFINITE could be CONCEPTUALIZED .

Saying something is INCOMPREHENSIBLE is CONCEPTUALIZING the word INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

We are conceptualizing the incomprehensible [INFINITE], with concepts.

CONCEPTS CONCEPTS CONCEPTS


You are trying to comprehend the incomprehensible/Infinite

Can you comprehend that the Infinite is every conceivable and inconceivable thing ?

If we ourselves make up the Infinite, is it possible that we can comprehend our self ?

[Isn't that what ENLIGHTENMENT IS ?] [Comprehending the Incomprehensible]

jupiviv wrote:To me, it appears that the mind is located in the brain. Unless you can provide some evidence that it might be located somewhere else, I'm sticking to the brain.

The evidence lies in the content of the mind, that what makes up the mind (not talking about the brain). The origins seem to lie outside us and are maintained by our relationships to external things. Therefore I maintain the position that the mind is a function of largely external influences only briefly stored locally as memory. Sense deprivation and extreme isolation will therefore cause a rather fast break down of mind as testing has indicated: memory losses, psychosis and breakdown of language ability. Or in other, simpler words: our mind is not ours.

Beingof1 wrote:Where does a thing exist? What defines a thing?

Our ability to conceptualize and distill terms out of that process. To be able to do so, any identity cannot be anything but itself. A hundred bosons in one "space" is not the same as having just ten there. There are not simultaneously ten and hundred bosons in the equation calculating that wave form, a wave which can't have even a fixed location (hence the "wave" property).

If you want to make the case that there's some "seamless", "interconnected" reality underneath it all, then, well: duh -- but you'd be really stuck at Sunday school, kiddo.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The evidence lies in the content of the mind, that what makes up the mind (not talking about the brain). The origins seem to lie outside us and are maintained by our relationships to external things.

The origins of our minds are not 'maintained' by any action of our will, as they are the causes of our experience (of will).

Therefore I maintain the position that the mind is a function of largely external influences only briefly stored locally as memory.

Agreed, minus "largely".

Sense deprivation and extreme isolation will therefore cause a rather fast break down of mind as testing has indicated: memory losses, psychosis and breakdown of language ability.

Any idea of sense deprivation or isolation necessarily involves a host and an environment to work, i.e., a person (with a brain) and a sense deprived or isolated environment.

Or in other, simpler words: our mind is not ours.

The same thing can be said about the brain. If we understand the mind to be a thing, then it is caused, and by all speculation the brain seems to be a good starting point.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Therefore I maintain the position that the mind is a function of largely external influences only briefly stored locally as memory.

All things are functions of external influences. Even the brain is an external influence on the mind, since it is not identical with it. But just because things are externally influenced doesn't mean they don't have a location.

Sense deprivation and extreme isolation will therefore cause a rather fast break down of mind as testing has indicated: memory losses, psychosis and breakdown of language ability.

In order to isolate and sense-deprive the mind you have to affect the body.

Or in other, simpler words: our mind is not ours.

"Ours", "mine" etc. are just categories. Ultimately our minds "belong" to Nature.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Therefore I maintain the position that the mind is a function of largely external influences only briefly stored locally as memory.

All things are functions of external influences. Even the brain is an external influence on the mind, since it is not identical with it. But just because things are externally influenced doesn't mean they don't have a location.

Agreed. But we still have to decide on some sensible prime location, true to form, so to speak. In my view it's more true to see the mind as non-locatable or if we have to locate it as largely external while something like brain tissue, a sensation or basic awareness is locatable and normally body-bound. Of course I'm also saying the mind is not a thing or an organ. The way I'd describe it would be a complex and compound, purely function driven phenomenon that arises from an immense web of interactions. It's just a less self-centered view, deviating quite a bit from many (but not all) common definitions of our mind, I should admit

Jupiviv:

B1:You apply all limits, properties, distinctions, and processes.

Jup: I'd have to be *separate* which is impossible

I agree, you are not separate from anything. I am glad you see that.

Your premise in this discussion is to convince in the same place at the same time?

I believe that anyone is capable of breakthrough truth at any moment.I would prefer being informed rather than opinionated any day of the week.



Hey, I figured if you could snip and mangle my post and then cherry pick what you want, its fair game. I am just using your tactics. An absolute requirement for enlightenment is honesty and that quality seems to be shrinking in these here parts.


How do you look in a mirror?

Jup:Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.


B1: Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?


Jup:Things themselves are distinctions.

I suggest you read what you said that 'we make distinctions arbitrarily'. Now you say things are distinctions. Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Before you get all emotional - think it through. If one person says a knife is sharp and you try to cut food with it and it doesn`t get the job done, who was right about the knife thingy?

If you break the handle off of the knife, is it still a knife or is it two knives?

You can't apply a distinction to itself.

This does not make any sense but I will bite.

Who says so?

A thing is distinguished by what it's not.

Who says?





Kunga:

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao ?

When you can explain this as a concept, you will have my attention.

You are trying to comprehend the incomprehensible/Infinite

No I am not. I have already realized what incomprehensible/infinite is.

Can you comprehend that the Infinite is every conceivable and inconceivable thing ?

Look at your statement and you tell me.

If we ourselves make up the Infinite, is it possible that we can comprehend our self ?

No, you cannot comprehend what you are.

[Isn't that what ENLIGHTENMENT IS ?] [Comprehending the Incomprehensible]
SHITWEASELS

No, enlightenment is about what is sane. It is insanity to claim you can comprehend what is incomprehensible/infinite.





Diebert:

Where does a thing exist? What defines a thing?


Our ability to conceptualize and distill terms out of that process.

You are right and that means - if you can conceptualize two things in the same place at the same time - leads to what?

To be able to do so, any identity cannot be anything but itself.

Yes, true - so what? Does that mean it follows that two things cannot be in the same place?

No, it does not follow logically.

A hundred bosons in one "space" is not the same as having just ten there. There are not simultaneously ten and hundred bosons in the equation calculating that wave form, a wave which can't have even a fixed location (hence the "wave" property).

Since when is a wave not a thing?

Still stuck on bosons?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Mind as mere occurrence or as some level of awareness, yes perhaps so. But it's not a container like lungs in which we can inhale air from outside and exhale again. The lungs can be put on the table and the air can be pumped around by machines. The boundaries and definitions are clear from a scientific perspective.

This is true in an empirical observation. But we do know that nothing appears to us 'outside' of our mind. Then it becomes, as you say below, a philosophical framework. In this sense, it does become the equivalent of all things, yes?

My concerns are about mind as content, like the air in our lungs. It's meaningless to see the body as "seat" of the air in our lungs. That's what my larger point really was. Despite some clear links to the brain and body awareness, the mind/body problem cannot be addressed by just resolving to scientific terms. It's a philosophical topic! And social, psychological, metaphysical just as well.

I agree and its good to see you write so Diebert.

But we still have to decide on some sensible prime location, true to form, so to speak.

Only if you define the mind as a thing. Can that be done?

Does the mind have limits and boundaries? Once the investigation is complete, the mind is seen as the equivalent of the universe.

In my view it's more true to see the mind as non-locatable or if we have to locate it as largely external while something like brain tissue, a sensation or basic awareness is locatable and normally body-bound. Of course I'm also saying the mind is not a thing or an organ. The way I'd describe it would be a complex and compound, purely function driven phenomenon that arises from an immense web of interactions. It's just a less self-centered view, deviating quite a bit from many (but not all) common definitions of our mind, I should admit

I think this is penetrating insight. Indeed, the mind is not subject to physics in that it cannot be measured and is therefore, non-local.

Beingof1 wrote:

Jup:Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.


B1: Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?


Jup:Things themselves are distinctions.

I suggest you read what you said that 'we make distinctions arbitrarily'. Now you say things are distinctions. Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

No I didn't. By "arbitrarily" I didn't mean out of thin air or independently. I meant that there is no special, fixed cause of the process of distinction-making .

You can't apply a distinction to itself.

This does not make any sense but I will bite.

Who says so?

I say so. You can't apply a distinction to itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.

A thing is distinguished by what it's not.

Who says?

Me.

I'm sure Diebert will respond, but I can't help myself.

To be able to do so, any identity cannot be anything but itself.

Yes, true - so what? Does that mean it follows that two things cannot be in the same place?

No, it does not follow logically.

If two finite things occupy the *exact* same location, then they cannot be two finite things. It's the equivalent of saying 1+1=3.

A hundred bosons in one "space" is not the same as having just ten there. There are not simultaneously ten and hundred bosons in the equation calculating that wave form, a wave which can't have even a fixed location (hence the "wave" property).

Since when is a wave not a thing?

Still stuck on bosons?

If waves are things, then it is logically impossible for two waves to occupy the exact same location at any given point of time.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Of course I'm also saying the mind is not a thing or an organ.

If the definition of a thing is anything with boundaries, then the mind is a thing.

The way I'd describe it would be a complex and compound, purely function driven phenomenon that arises from an immense web of interactions.

This can be said of all things, and yet things other than the mind, like rocks, do have locations.

Beingof1 wrote: The Tao that can be named is not the Tao ?

When you can explain this as a concept, you will have my .

When conceptualizing the inconceivable as a conceptual conceivable thing [grasping]...you loose it.

As you said, the Inconceivable is Inconceivable.

_/\_

But I thought if one was Enlightened, they would know everything....even the Inconceivable....

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Agreed. But we still have to decide on some sensible prime location, true to form, so to speak. In my view it's more true to see the mind as non-locatable or if we have to locate it as largely external while something like brain tissue, a sensation or basic awareness is locatable and normally body-bound. Of course I'm also saying the mind is not a thing or an organ. The way I'd describe it would be a complex and compound, purely function driven phenomenon that arises from an immense web of interactions. It's just a less self-centered view, deviating quite a bit from many (but not all) common definitions of our mind, I should admit

I wouldn't call it self-centered to discern that this phenomena of the seemingly non-locatable mind happens to seemingly arise from the neural processes of the brain. Jup gave examples of evidence that backs this observance. Logical deduction plays an important role here. I think the key is to make sure we don't treat the mind or the brain as anything special or different in the grand scheme of causation.

There is an interesting dynamic when trying to define the boundaries of the mind. Whereas we can clearly identify and define the boundaries of just about every other thing in existence, discerning the boundaries of the mind is unique in that the 'edge' of our consciousness is where the boundary lies. Yet as soon as we think of, or begin to define the boundary, it becomes an aspect of our experience. It becomes part of the content of the mind.

It is from this dynamic we see people projecting all sorts of eternal, non-finite properties into the experience of consciousness. Hence the reincarnation advocates. Clearly this is nothing but wishful thinking, and fundamentally an expression of the longing for egotistical preservation.

The truth is that we are observing an infinite reality at all times, albeit in finite bits and pieces. Simply put, our consciousness is bounded by the things we cannot observe, such as reality as a whole, or what will happen next week.

Jupiviv:

Jup:Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.


B1: Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?


Jup:Things themselves are distinctions.


B1:I suggest you read what you said that 'we make distinctions arbitrarily'. Now you say things are distinctions. Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?


Jup:No I didn't. By "arbitrarily" I didn't mean out of thin air or independently. I meant that there is no special, fixed cause of the process of distinction-making .

Then it follows that they are arbitrary!

No matter how you slice it, as in the knife example, all distinctions are a choice. Is a knife sharp or dull? How long does a knife need to be before it is a knife? How sharp does it need to be to be defined as a butter knife or a hunting knife? At what point does a sharpened rock become a knife?

Jup: You can't apply a distinction to itself.


B1: Who says so?


Jup: I say so. You can't apply a distinction to itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.

You say so but its not you making the distinctions?

My fingertip cannot do other than "touch itself." I say so.

Who is right?

Diebert: To be able to do so, any identity cannot be anything but itself.


B1: Yes, true - so what? Does that mean it follows that two things cannot be in the same place?
No, it does not follow logically.


Jup: If two finite things occupy the *exact* same location, then they cannot be two finite things. It's the equivalent of saying 1+1=3.

If waves are things, then it is logically impossible for two waves to occupy the exact same location at any given point of time.

This is the first time you used the word "exact."

If you throw two rocks in a pond, they form two waves. Can these two waves exist in the same exact location at the same time?

Why yes, they can. They may appear to be one wave but who says so? If one wave becomes indistinguishable from the other, you can say there is only one wave and this would be correct. You would also be correct in saying there are two waves existing in the same "exact" location.

Both, are equally true.




You are claiming the body and mind cannot be separated and all at the same time they are. If two things cannot be in the same place at the same time, how then does the mind and body exist in the same place at the same time as you said earlier in this thread?

The body and mind are as inseparable as the ocean's surface and the waves upon it, like all things.

If the mind is a 'thing' and it is inseparable from the whole and the body, how do you use the premise that no two things can exist in the same place and time? Do you see the contradiction yet?



Kunga:

When conceptualizing the inconceivable as a conceptual conceivable thing [grasping]...you loose it.

As you said, the Inconceivable is Inconceivable.

_/\_

But I thought if one was Enlightened, they would know everything....even the Inconceivable....

You nailed it sis. I am waiting to share this with the board. The actual nuts and bolts of the how does one know everything.

First must be dispelled the myth that the infinite is finite because it can be conceptualized. Once one surrenders to the inconceivable, it opens a very bright door. Immense light that reveals "everything."


Namaste and maranatha

Beingof1 wrote:Jupiviv:

Jup:Every distinction we make, whether empirically observable or not, is arbitrary. Yet they do exist in reality.


B1: Since you apply all distinctions to all things, how do you determine one thing from another?


Jup:Things themselves are distinctions.


B1:I suggest you read what you said that 'we make distinctions arbitrarily'. Now you say things are distinctions. Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?


Jup:No I didn't. By "arbitrarily" I didn't mean out of thin air or independently. I meant that there is no special, fixed cause of the process of distinction-making .

Then it follows that they are arbitrary!

No matter how you slice it, as in the knife example, all distinctions are a choice. Is a knife sharp or dull? How long does a knife need to be before it is a knife? How sharp does it need to be to be defined as a butter knife or a hunting knife? At what point does a sharpened rock become a knife?

I specifically mentioned that by "arbitrary" I meant having no special fixed cause. Consciousness is not a special cause of any distinction. If it were then distinction-making would be the exact opposite of arbitrary, i.e, there would be a specific, inherent nature of every distinction(including consciousness).

Jup: You can't apply a distinction to itself.


B1: Who says so?


Jup: I say so. You can't apply a distinction to itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.

You say so but its not you making the distinctions?

My fingertip cannot do other than "touch itself." I say so.

Who is right?

My consciousness is one of the causes of the distinctions(things) I am aware of.

Diebert: To be able to do so, any identity cannot be anything but itself.


B1: Yes, true - so what? Does that mean it follows that two things cannot be in the same place?
No, it does not follow logically.


Jup: If two finite things occupy the *exact* same location, then they cannot be two finite things. It's the equivalent of saying 1+1=3.

If waves are things, then it is logically impossible for two waves to occupy the exact same location at any given point of time.

This is the first time you used the word "exact."

Actually I used it before, but I used it then because apparently you think it's alright to mix scientific terms with philosophical ones.

If you throw two rocks in a pond, they form two waves. Can these two waves exist in the same exact location at the same time?

Why yes, they can. They may appear to be one wave but who says so? If one wave becomes indistinguishable from the other, you can say there is only one wave and this would be correct. You would also be correct in saying there are two waves existing in the same "exact" location.

If only one wave appears then there is only one wave. You can't go beyond the appearance and know whether the one wave is really two waves or vice versa.

You are claiming the body and mind cannot be separated and all at the same time they are. If two things cannot be in the same place at the same time, how then does the mind and body exist in the same place at the same time as you said earlier in this thread?

You're projecting your meaning onto what I'm saying. The body and the mind are inseparable in the context of the All, not of a third finite entity. The All cannot be a location or space in the same sense as a finite thing, even a very big finite thing like the observable cosmos.

B1 wrote:

First must be dispelled the myth that the infinite is finite because it can be conceptualized.

I think you've been talking to yourself all this time, B1. Like, who said/argued that??

Once one surrenders to the inconceivable, it opens a very bright door. Immense light that reveals "everything."

Lol

PS: You know what a B1 is in Oz, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyrRl_B9RTs

(: