It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Consciousness and Matter: A Bogus Distinction?

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
When we speak of consciousness and matter, we make the distinction because the former is inward and subjective, while the latter is what we're collectively exposed to. The latter therefore takes on a prominence, particularly in today's positivistic reductionism, but I still think the distinction is uncanny, and may in fact be a product of a mind asininely stuck in a paradigm that has no effective outlet.

I make this assertion because the world as we experience it is essentially non-linear. We break things down and hope that by breaking it down were coming to a more essential understanding; but this is wrongheaded. Peering beneath our skins and seeing cells is no doubt wondrous - it has opened a whole field of human inquiry: molecular biology. But the fact of genes, or amino acids which organize themselves and seem to have a directive influence on biological process, for decades, led to the erroneous idea that genes were the 'core' reality. This is the basic premise of materialist thinkers like Daniel Dennet, Patricia Churchland and Richard Dawkins.

And yet, if we follow biological development, we see how utterly circular development is. The gene which gives rise to a particular protein needs the protein in order to 'signal' another gene into activity. In this way, cause and effect become conflated; the effect becomes a cause while the originating cause is occluded by the necessity of it's effect.

This same circularity governs damn near everything that can be studied. Psychological development and the formation of self depends on an underlying biology - which was given it's basic structure from the mother thinking, feeling, diet and sleep patterns during its time in her belly. When the baby is finally born, it's born to suit the same environment that the mothers biology (and mind!) has engineered it for. As the baby evolves, its brain and self evolve together. The environment 'cues' the brain, establishing basic neurochemical and global patterns; this cues the subjective mind of the baby to anticipate and expect exactly what it is has evolved in response to. Here, we see the observations of the growing baby/brain/mind transforming into the observer itself. Observation BECOMES observer. The self is formed in this way because there is essentially no distinction between the evolving brain and the experiencing subject. It's a feedback loop, between mental and physical, observer and observation. And ultimately each individual in the baby's life, as well as the culture itself, embodies it's own large scale and smaller scale circularities.

This being the case, how utterly HILARIOUS it is the type of stories we tell ourselves! Theres a God! There is no God! Matter is all there is! Consciousness is all there is! All dualities. All simplistic LINEAR reductions as a way to bring stability to the complex circularity we exist within.

Just earlier, I was thinking to myself: what happens following death? Undoubtedly, much of the abstract and concrete capacities of the human mind are dependent on the brain; but is that it? Is that all there is? And, if the nondual duality, the co-emergence of inner and outer, is a basic fact of reality, what would consciousness be like; or rather, what would it correspond to, if not to our deceased body (and rotting brain) then what? And some thoughts went through my mind. What about space? Space is real, yet it's empty. It is a pervading expansion, flowing outwards, while within its confines, hard bodies form: planets. And upon these planets, complex organisms have emerged, paradoxically growing and absorbing the chemical properties around it in defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: that the whole universe is moving from a state of order to disorder.

There's a popular idea in science that ontogeny mimics phylogeny; in a sense, this idea reflects the concept of fractals: within any part of a system is the whole system. Thus, when we think about space, we can imagine the 'inward' part, the part lost to our outward senses, as the 'cosmic' consciousness posited by spiritual traditions; the Atman of Hinduism, or the subtle states of Buddhism. Still, it has been argued, that beneath this, there is something 'impinging' upon consciousness in the same manner that gravity impinges upon space. This impingement could be interpreted as the 'inner witness' - the part of ourselves distinct from the objects of our observation; distinct from the formations that come with the birth of our self-hood.

This to me seems like a profound idea. Instead of assuming a distinction between mind and matter, mind and matter are seen as two parts of a single reality. But still, then, like gravity, were left with the mystery of this impinging inner witness. Its as mysterious, for example, as the bizarre claims made by mystics that they can be aware of themselves as they sleep a deep sleep. To just elaborate this point a little longer, gravity brings all of matter into connection. Similarly, it is our inner witness, implied but frustratingly ignored by most people in todays world, which draws 'meanings' into formation. The ego can be regarded as a condensed awareness, like the sun which shines down upon us, it allows us to see a field with which we operate within. The earth can be seen as our body, while the various emotions which operate within us (established over our evolution) can be regarded as forces which impinge upon our awareness, just as the presence of the planets sustain earth and the other planets in our solar system in a particular gravitational field. Each is a disturbance upon the other. But together they remain stabilized in orbit around the largest body (the sun; or our ego consciousness).

If our personal existence is fractally present in the universe around us, then the deepest part of us, the part that transcends our body - or our earth bound self - would be symbolically akin to the space - or foundational consciousness - which our bodies and selves evolve within.

If this layout turns out to be the case, it is rather astonishing to think about. On a deeper note: is history also dependent on our transformations? Consider space travel or ideas about 'anti-gravity'? Does such a concept require an awareness complex enough to understand relationships? In other words, since complexity theory and non-linear science is all about relationships between 'points', it is somewhat ironic that as we crave to transcend our planet and sail outer-space, such a feat might be intrinsically related to our own phenomenal experiences of self vis a vis other selves; in other words, a self narcissistically committed to it's otherness and individuality - a self, in other words, born and developing within a culture that gives metaphysical privilege to individuals over communities (capitalism) will, in effect, prevent the type of non-linear awareness needed to tackle problems as relational as gravity. Maybe, the prospect of space-travel will only become a scientfic possibility - an imaginative possibility! - when we as a species are united in 'spirit'; where knowledge is 'spread through out the land'. Where democracy, equality, and rights are given to all. Where each person not just feels, but intellectually UNDERSTANDS (via knowledge from non-linear sciences) how interdependent we all are on one another.




posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
I, as usual, applaud your meditations. I will be re reading your thoughts in order to grasp the more subtle more underlying connections between notions. You are of course suggesting Panpsychism. I am a strong believer in the Atman and until im done absorbing the given subject material i will leave you with this. "Although the driver is not the vehicle, he will move according to the nature of the car."


The sun analogy is alluding to the neoplatonist Plotinus. I do not believe that your crossrefrence to the physical universe and the Observer holds up. Close your eyes and picture a cat, now tell me,what is looking at the cat? You are. That "you," is the Atman. As the quote above implies, the Atman moves according to the nature of the car, but it is not car itself. This "I" is impinges upon the crude stimulus response mechanism called the "reactive mind," but, it is not the reactive mind. The reactive mind is the mind that forms in a cyclistic nature, not the Atman itself.
edit on 7-12-2014 by satsanga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Amazing thread. Thank you.

There is a reason that the output of a nonlinear system is not directly proportional to the input. Our reality is an orthogonal linear matrix. The reason you note the witness calling us is not the volution around a fixed point so much as the matrix that we swim through. The same Higgs Boson field and particle they search for is the same fixed center of volution.

See it this way. Invariant symmetry is a fixed point represented by the strong nuclear force. Both proton and neutron are invariant and balanced. The Proton has two up quarks and one down. The neutron has two down and one up. Together, they follow the laws of invariant symmetry. Electrons do not follow symmetry laws and break symmetry with the fixed center. From this, we see volution at a ratio of 1:1.618 in all things.

Move this beyond what you see to what you do not see. For each fixed point in time/space, there are dimensions higher. At any give time in the linear matrix below, a dot of indeterminate space moves as a shadow to the next dimension. This 1D point is then the shadow of a plane, with all shadows orthogonal to the dimension below and above. A 2D plane is then the shadow of a 3D object. From there, we now have infinite right angles (orthogonal symmetry) from any given point in the matrix. Spatial dimension then gives way to temporal orthogonal movement.

Imagining this simply, look at a dot.

.

.......................

................
................
................
................

Each right angle from the first fixed point then becomes the next higher dimension as right angle movement. Once you reach the 3D object, it then moves in an infinite range. In this, where is the consciousness choosing the movement?

Ah! The most important consideration. Consciousness is the thing casting the shadow. Consciousness is the fixed point casting the shadow below and it is not found in the spatial matrix. It holds the matrix in place. Invariant symmetry allows for one thing below: invariance and asymmetry. Why? To answer this, you need to connect consciousness of individuation with translational symmetry. Consciousness is adaptation by seeking and finding. What is found? The original symmetry. It's the point of an orthogonal matrix for learning. Light dispels darkness in a hologram. It's an image. This is the reason we conclude that output of a nonlinear system is not directly proportional to the input.

I loved your AMAZING thread by this, use of words and thought process.

Can you bounce your thoughts off what I just outlined? I would love to hear what you would say.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

In relation to what I said: Quantum Current Flow

The appearance produced is not the process to produce the image. This is why observation and mathematics do not match. The error in the equation is the hidden dimension around the numbers measured. It's like trying to measure forward, backward, right and left only when you are living on a flat plane. You miss the fact that up and down are implied by the shadows. We view the world from 3D and miss the two implied directions of time, which like time/space, are relative to the fixed point producing them. The Dirac Relativistic Quantum Wave Equation shows this to be the case. Matter is parallel to antimatter, which is not directly observed.

Each of us are parallel to the larger whole, as you point out. It's a type of fractal for generating individuation of consciousness. Translational to the invariance. One changes and the other remains constant. Our view of God would be the constant.




edit on 7-12-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I have been saying that around here for awhile now and you are maybe the 3rd or 4th person that I have seen across the net (and I visit a lot of religious/philosophy sites) that has been able to partially recognize and "draw" it/translate it.


Similarly, it is our inner witness, implied but frustratingly ignored by most people in todays world, which draws 'meanings' into formation.


And, sorry, but it is the very definition of Christian spirituality... Yahweh spoke/breathed the meaning/translation/conceptualization of his will/Spirit into formation/his body/Son - it is exactly what this place is, as described by the Bible [I can show you verses if you like], but understood by almost no one.

How I have been saying it is "good" concept (re)producion -- as in, we are interpreting/translating/conceptualizing our spirit/will, and by doing so, we are literally then (re)writting or (re)producing or (re)drawing our conceptualization/awareness into this light/body (that we call matter/logos/matrix/Yeshua).

And it is a cycle: the conceptualization is of our will/spirit/desire to conceptualize [what Idk... maybe rest, maybe language, or maybe just to see "good/love" - seeing is sort of like eating/bread for the soul/awareness. I am still trying to translate what the main objective is, but I am leaning towards God reproducing his concepts just to share the love of his awareness... and his awareness is of his Spirit and his Spirit is described as love -- so there is our loop: love of his awareness - his awareness of love.

Anyways, it's good to see someone else is starting to see it... good luck further translating.
edit on 12/7/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

We really must be all made of "atoms" and so is our environment- even the spirit or soul, because, how else would we be bound to a physical body?

Some can say that we are "resonances" or "waves" that affect matter, and perhaps an entity is like some kind of "dynamo" that can generate a stable state of "resonance" or vibration and acts as a discreet "unit of consciousness" - yet has obvious effects upon its surrounding environment.


edit on 7-12-2014 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2014 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SystemResistor

Instead of thinking of atoms as a physical thing that has "forces" within it, think of it as a "force" that has been given a conceptualized physical appearence...

then, think of that "force" as a spirit...

and then think of all things as spirits - some with physical appearences and some without...

and things without physical appearences stay without appearences until they are conceptualized, or translated, into a physical appearence.

Then the next time you try to figure something out, or conceptualize something, pay attention to the process... You should see that you start by conceptualizing your spirit/desire.

e.g. If I wanted to envision a house to draw, I would start by seeing/conceptualizing/translating that desire itself - that I wanted to draw a house. Then, I would start to see/conceptualize/translate, within my mind's eye, the basic shape of the house that I wanted to draw... etc

To better understand what I mean, think the number 1, but then realize that it is not the shape of el número uno that makes it a one. Instead, it is the spiritual pattern/spiritual form/purpose/will/desire of 1, that existed when a soul/awareness translated it into physical form/a word/a symbol, that makes it a 1.

If you are really interested, you can check out synesthesia, or how others perceive things, especially someone who lacks a particular sense of something (like a blind person) or you can try to figure out convergent evolution (how animals are converging upon the same awareness of spirits.... like bats, insects, and birds all have wings because they have become aware of the spirit of flying [with wings], and they desired to fly... their bodies then became the form that they had translated, or rather, their bodies are the [physical] form of their awareness - you are the image of your forefathers desires conceptualized... like a giraffe reaching for a tall branch).

And from what I can tell, there is no reason to say this stops at "life" as we know it... as long as there is something sensed then there must be some type of awareness/soul that has translated the spiritual form into a physical form at some point or another.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: satsanga

I think I may have failed to properly express what I meant. The "I", as in the inner witness, is, I would probably concur, what Hinduism calls the "Atman". I don't personally use any particular name; just God as the over-all concept. Or how can it be just a concept? When it's just an ever moving process towards eternity.

Space, on the other hand, would correspond, in terms of Evan Thompsons (philosopher and author of the recent book "Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation and philosophy") distillation of Hindu views as waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and pure awareness, then space would be the objective representation subjectively experienced as deep sleep. The fact that awareness, or the witness, can stand before itself in a state of deep sleep sort of parallels gravity's impingement on physical space.

I would agree on the distinction though. And yes, space could be regarded in the category you call "crude stimulus response mechanism" (although I think its a wondrous mechanism, if crude in comparison to the deepest truth) since it follows laws, and is essentially the most basic impingement upon the structures which develop within it (i.e speed of light, etc).



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

You know, all of this sounds absurd. Implausible! To the mind of someone like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet. Both great guys, I'm sure, but nevertheless products of a damaging culture.

The fractcal continuities never end. How we organize ourselves in society - the philosophies we live by - train our emotions to respond in certain ways. Here, you have a cognitive feedback loop - self enjoys concepts it believes in; which feeds into an emotional feedback loop: this feels sooooo goood; its so much fun and impossible to ignore emotions which pump out dopamine and endorphins into the orbitofrontal cortex (where we think and regulate emotion; just behind our eyes) . But it doesn't stop there! There's social feedback loops which reinforce personal feedback loops. Biology - and our evolution - with it's self-reinforcing rules (again, proving the point that consciousness directs the whole thing) pushes upon us to follow recursive circles: to make us responsible to our behaviors; which ultimately means, to find ourselves in the other.

Take basic relational patterns between baby and mother. The mothers thoughts and feelings during pregnancy have to do with her own self regulation abilities, and thus implies her whole relational history. Here, it is simply far too complicated to assign blame. Everyone was once a baby; everyone passes through this same fulcrum of naivety. Were born, and our birth has already predetermined us along biology's mechanistic alley-ways, towards a "basin of attraction". Upon birth, the feedback between a biased biology and a mother with a volatile personality really kills the system of the baby. How can i possibly defend itself when it's evolved to rely on the mother for affect regulation? In our past evolutionary reality, crying baby meant alerting predators; evolution solved this problem by exciting empathy in the mother towards he baby; thus establishing a beautiful feedback called attachment. The basis of love. Think about that for a second, and considers its paradoxical etiology: danger, or threat, or harshness -> safety, softness, love. The universe is truly, truly a wonder to behold. I like it a lot.

As to what you just wrote, from a 'mathematical' viewpoint, I find it very fascinating. Though I'm not much of a mathematical thinker; I think more along the line of linguistics; words and concepts from biology, psychology, philosophy, ecology, neuroscience etc all within the dominant non-linear paradigm of contemporary scientific thinking.

Though I did like how you put into geometrical language. It's mindnumbing, still. Why should this be the case? Why should this even be happening at all? Explaining it is interesting; but interpreting it is where the fun begins! For me, the whole thing is about love. Love is feeling connected with others. Morality is a way to utilize cognition to perform in ways that the affective core (love) is emotionally driving us. The complex fractal geometry is spellbinding, but still, I'm left with this sense of inexplicable awe and wonder. Why, I know is a silly question if taken too far. But thats just what were built for: to observe and explore with endless fascination and curiosity the world of the 'other' - yet truly ourselves reflected back in a different form.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I'm a philosophy major and always looking for the next good book to read. Do you reccomend the one referenced? Working on Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" now, a must read.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
I read your title and just want to disagree. It is a necessary distinction, especially when you aim for a "united spirit" you should embrace diversity.
What is consciousness? That's already the point were the diversity starts. Scientists are still arguing about it, but you know? Or do you just maybe have a personal definition?
The fractal thing is also partially true, but still no two galaxies are the same, no two cows, no two cells maybe either, depending how deep you look and how many distinctions you allow your reference system to have. And I am pretty sure, when you look at it from a few steps further back, our universe will turn out to be something entirely different. Like the Earth compared to a duck.
Also I don't get your arguement about how reality is non-linear? You use it as an example for something that evolves linear, building up on the findings of others before and next to them: science. Why?
About God, who told you God is no matter? What if it is the thing you would look at, if you could look at our universe from the outside? Maybe it is the sum of all the mysterious energies keeping the parts in the place, like gravity, love, magnetic radiation, etc.?
And your bit about the calve reflecting it's environment, is actually hilarious if you think about it: Most cows live in tight, unpretty spots with next to no external stimuli, but cleaning and feeding food for fattening. If you were right they wouldn't know what to do, if they enter a meadow the first time, but trust me, they'll eat. I don't what fluffy pony world you live in, but here most of the meat production is industrialised and not buffalos on a range.
So to sum up: Your assumption lacks the definition of what you're discussing: what is consciousness? And how did you come to that conclusion and then we'll see how it is impossible for it to be the same as matter...
edit on -06:00America/ChicagoAmerica/ChicagopMondayAmerica/Chicago by Peeple because: pre-coffee-writing



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I found this is a short 10 minute video that describes the connection that consciousness has to our universe. The more that Quantum Mechanics discovers, the more that it focuses thought to the non-material dimensions. We are vibrational beings in a vibrational universe. At the quantum level, actions are dependent upon the conscious awareness that is observing it. Matter has an awareness, this is demonstrated by the double-slit experiment, awareness is fractal in nature.

www.youtube.com...


If someone could embed I would appreciate it


I believe the ancient view that the infinate universe is within a particle and within every particle are infinate universes.

Even CERN has found micro black holes in particles which many believe lead to onther universes.

Many scientists believe that the big bang itself is just the other side of a micro black hole!



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte



...evolution solved this problem by exciting empathy in the mother towards he baby...Why, I know is a silly question if taken too far. But thats just what were built for: to observe and explore with endless fascination and curiosity the world of the 'other' - yet truly ourselves reflected back in a different form.


It is interesting to note that Darwin never used the word evolution in his book. It was not part of his vocabulary to connect this word with his theory. It was not until science figured out the truth that the correct word was used. E in Latin means 'out of.' Volution is the spin around a center. We emerge from the spin of a toroidal vortex. Nothing can evolve apart from involution. The true cause of all change is the Spirit / Consciousness entering the spin to change what the medium / matrix is given. Volution is a womb for information.

In terms simple enough for us to understand, you are mentioning the family. God did the same to define this for us.

Father is Aleph Bet, or letters of information that comprise chains and sequences. Note that DNA is a shadow of this process that we CAN observe as design with intent.



Mother is Aleph Mem, or the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) hovering over the waters.



From this, not the exact definitions left in the tree of knowledge for us to read the tree of life code. Father enters the mother's womb (Cup) to make bread from the seed.

Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun, or house of seed.



Note the shape of the Bet as the seed enters the strong house of the new father. The Mother is the Mater (Latin),or matrix. Language defines this from the beginning. This language is Proto-Cannanite, which is the origin of EL, or Elohim of Genesis 1. Ruach Elohim (mother) hovered over the waters. From this, Adam is the first Son.

As we are aware, the first pure language was scattered into many languages, leave the same trail of evidence throughout. Tracing back to the origin language provides the metaphor for decoding the evidence of how we were created. The Bible calls involution baptism, or a process to seek, find and adapt. We accurately call it evolution. We are here to develop sentience from the biomechanical animal we drive. The point is to overcome an adversary, which is the animal nature (Satan). Satan is pictured as a snake, or the helix of our production into the whirlwind.

As it is accurately described for us form the beginning, we emerge from the volution to enter the true kingdom. This kingdom is an image of male and female. From this, we emerge as a Son of the whole.

Return to the Aleph Bet (Father) above. Is this a coincidence, or providence for us to eventually know?

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Don't kid yourself about science. The ones that control the money are initiates into the mysteries. They know what I am saying here far more than they allow the common people to realize. It's a game to continue subverting the Father. It is THE conspiracy of all conspiracy, or with the spirit of error. Take the word apart. I am prospiracy myself.


edit on 8-12-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

"All matter originates and exists by the virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of an conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Great post, writing, and especially thinking.



When we speak of consciousness and matter, we make the distinction because the former is inward and subjective, while the latter is what we're collectively exposed to. The latter therefore takes on a prominence, particularly in today's positivistic reductionism, but I still think the distinction is uncanny, and may in fact be a product of a mind asininely stuck in a paradigm that has no effective outlet.


I rather think the reverse is the case. This "paradigm" (physicalism) you speak of, is relatively recent and young in historical terms; and due to thousands of years of suppression at the hands of orthodoxy, is a body of thought that has barely survived history (for instance Lucretius, Epicurus, The Cārvāka school of Hinduism, or any nāstika system, have all but vanished or barely survived in fragments). It seems quite obvious that orthodoxy and dualism, which always asserts a mind or soul or spirit, has always been the paradigm when it comes to these notions. In other words, folk psychology is still stuck on, and perhaps still superstitious about, thousands of years old notions of these sorts, ie. mind, consciousness, soul, etc., where a little man or being or "observer" is posited in the body, controlling it, aware of it, taking the reigns so to speak, but nonetheless, not a part of the body itself.

I also do not agree with reductionists and eliminative materialists such as Churchland, who no less posit the same sort of "little person", albeit a physical one, that controls the body – the brain. This of course, like all notions of mind or observer or consciousness, leads to the homunculus fallacy. Who or what observes for the observer? Does the brain have a brain? Does the Atman have an Atman? Infinite regress and reductio ad absurdem.

The idea of an "inner witness" is this same thousands year old notion as the mind, the soul, the spirit; notions that have arisen and have become solidified in human language exactly when humanity was particularly fearful of, and superstitious against, looking inside the human body.

Great thread. Great food for thought.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism
So you reject the notion that the Atman is awarness? You believe that the Atman needs an Atman to be aware?



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: satsanga


So you reject the notion that the Atman is awarness? You believe that the Atman needs an Atman to be aware?


I don't believe in the atman, nor that it is necessary to capitalize such a term. Therefor I do not believe it needs anything.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism
Okay. As a theoretical model however, if the Atman did exist, would it need an Atman itself?

I'm not looking for an argument, i'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

edit on 8-12-2014 by satsanga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: satsanga


Okay. As a theoretical model however, if the Atman did exist, would it need an Atman itself?

I'm not looking for an argument, i'm genuinely interested in your opinion.


If the atman is able to observe what the body sees, then yes it would need another observer to observe what it is observing.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: satsanga

I do. Its a very entertaining book. At least to me!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join