Originality and Intelligence

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I would say you would be the space which allows apparent objects to appear.
Like the screen on the tv - always present even when there is no moving picture appearing.

But when one TV gives out, another is receiving the signal. If all TVs give out, none receive, but the signal is still there.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I would say you would be the space which allows apparent objects to appear.
Like the screen on the tv - always present even when there is no moving picture appearing.

But when one TV gives out, another is receiving the signal. If all TVs give out, none receive, but the signal is still there.

You are the entire screen on the only tv - but the screen has no edges - it is boundless. Everything that appears is just an appearance appearing on that one boundless screen - including the character you may have believed yourself to be.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I would say you would be the space which allows apparent objects to appear.
Like the screen on the tv - always present even when there is no moving picture appearing.

But when one TV gives out, another is receiving the signal. If all TVs give out, none receive, but the signal is still there.

You are the entire screen on the only tv - but the screen has no edges - it is boundless. Everything that appears is just an appearance appearing on that one boundless screen - including the character you may have believed yourself to be.

There is too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity in that post.

In other words, you're not the only one. For if you were, then you created the entire history of the universe upon your birth and also created the potential for all the atrocities to this day, and also your own. Then all should be subject to your whim and the very world lives and dies by your word.

There is a certain sense of narcissism and blasphemy in that idea.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

In other words, you're not the only one.

Well - there is no me - there is simply what is appearing. The screen isn't a someone - it is just the space in which all apparently happens.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TarzanBeta

In other words, you're not the only one.

Well - there is no me - there is simply what is appearing. The screen isn't a someone - it is just the space in which all apparently happens.

If someone plucked your eyes out suddenly, you would realize differently.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TarzanBeta

In other words, you're not the only one.

Well - there is no me - there is simply what is appearing. The screen isn't a someone - it is just the space in which all apparently happens.

If someone plucked your eyes out suddenly, you would realize differently.

It would be more obvious if there was nothing appearing as vision. Shut the eyes and notice how sounds arise and subside but the aware space is there continuously.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You would also be aware if you were blind, deaf, couldn't taste or smell, and had no ability to feel any physical stimulus. You would be alone with your thoughts for company. You'll excuse me if that doesn't sound fun. Our senses are what give our experiences meaning- in such an isolated state you would have no concept of other with which to evaluate your concept of self-control far from being deflated your ego would inflate. With only yourself for reference, you would not be able to tell at any point whether you were sane or not. Everything you experienced would seem completely sane. It's only with referent to things outside of the self construct that we are able to perceive flaws in ourselves.

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: Itisnowagain

You would also be aware if you were blind, deaf, couldn't taste or smell, and had no ability to feel any physical stimulus. You would be alone with your thoughts for company. You'll excuse me if that doesn't sound fun. Our senses are what give our experiences meaning- in such an isolated state you would have no concept of other with which to evaluate your concept of self-control far from being deflated your ego would inflate. With only yourself for reference, you would not be able to tell at any point whether you were sane or not. Everything you experienced would seem completely sane. It's only with referent to things outside of the self construct that we are able to perceive flaws in ourselves.

All you ever are is AWARE.
Whatever comes (including thoughts) is just an appearance - thought arises and subsides. Problem arises when the thoughts are believed to be yours. Or the belief that the thoughts are speaking about you.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I totally get what you're saying, and I agree.

People are more connected than the information that their eyes are telling them.

Rephrase: There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

originally posted by: Neith
There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

It is not the senses that say they is an edge - it is thought.
When sitting on a chair - can 'chair' be felt separate from 'you'? Is there a line? Or is it not two feelings - just one?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Neith
There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

It is not the senses that say they is an edge - it is thought.
When sitting on a chair - can 'chair' be felt separate from 'you'? Is there a line? Or is it not two feelings - just one?

I will refrain from delving too deeply into this one, people aren't awake enough to grasp what I have to share. However, I will say this... What we comprehend as separate is nothing more than an illusion. It's a rearrangement of electrons. And even then, that is but, another illusion.

Thought... is another consortium altogether. One of which at this time, I shall pass on.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: liveandlearn


Everyone knows more than others on certain subjects. Even a 5 year old child knows something their parents don't know Saying the more I learn the less In know is equivalent to the more questions I have. In fact, I know more that isn't true than what is true.

You said: In multiple choice, it is possible to ascertain the right answer by knowing what is wrong.

It may be possible but i have yet to find the truth by just knowing what is wrong. While I like the premise it has not
been proven to me

I know the metaphysical experiences I have had but it is only validated by others.

I may lack your education but I do have my experience and own understanding at 71.

While you danced around saying it, because you realize that it would disrupt your intent, you are basically saying that you know for a fact that you understand that you do not have understanding.

I think you can see that what seems profound doesn't actually add up.

I agree that there are more questions; but there comes a point in time when questions become more of a hindrance than they should be.

You may lack my education, but not your own. Or, as you mentioned at the beginning, maybe the 5 year old knows something you don't.

Thank you, sir, and please forgive any disrespect. I do firmly believe in respecting my elders and their experience as a part of my moral code.

It was not my intent to dance around. Don't recall if I said it on this thread but I often say the more I learn the less I know.

Simple person with my simple understand from much reading and putting together things that seemingly don't fit.

originally posted by: Neith

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Neith
There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

It is not the senses that say they is an edge - it is thought.
When sitting on a chair - can 'chair' be felt separate from 'you'? Is there a line? Or is it not two feelings - just one?

I will refrain from delving too deeply into this one, people aren't awake enough to grasp what I have to share. However, I will say this... What we comprehend as separate is nothing more than an illusion. It's a rearrangement of electrons. And even then, that is but, another illusion.

Thought... is another consortium altogether. One of which at this time, I shall pass on.

Hey now, Neith. Maybe I'm not awake enough, who knows? But I motivated you. Return the favor!

originally posted by: liveandlearn

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: liveandlearn


Everyone knows more than others on certain subjects. Even a 5 year old child knows something their parents don't know Saying the more I learn the less In know is equivalent to the more questions I have. In fact, I know more that isn't true than what is true.

You said: In multiple choice, it is possible to ascertain the right answer by knowing what is wrong.

It may be possible but i have yet to find the truth by just knowing what is wrong. While I like the premise it has not
been proven to me

I know the metaphysical experiences I have had but it is only validated by others.

I may lack your education but I do have my experience and own understanding at 71.

While you danced around saying it, because you realize that it would disrupt your intent, you are basically saying that you know for a fact that you understand that you do not have understanding.

I think you can see that what seems profound doesn't actually add up.

I agree that there are more questions; but there comes a point in time when questions become more of a hindrance than they should be.

You may lack my education, but not your own. Or, as you mentioned at the beginning, maybe the 5 year old knows something you don't.

Thank you, sir, and please forgive any disrespect. I do firmly believe in respecting my elders and their experience as a part of my moral code.

It was not my intent to dance around. Don't recall if I said it on this thread but I often say the more I learn the less I know.

Simple person with my simple understand from much reading and putting together things that seemingly don't fit.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I do it all the time when my wife asks me what I want to eat. But if she asks what I want to talk about... Well, no. She doesn't do that often anymore. She just keeps me happy and I'm the perfect emergency responder, mechanic, plumber, engineer, and adviser. She's in charge of all those other things I don't understand like wanting to cook or talk to people on the phone.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Neith
There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

It is not the senses that say they is an edge - it is thought.
When sitting on a chair - can 'chair' be felt separate from 'you'? Is there a line? Or is it not two feelings - just one?

Both. You can detach without detriment. But you can feel strong enough perturbations in the chair.

But if you want to think that way, then while our feet are on land, an earthquake must prove that we are the earth itself, and vice versa. The only problem is that you can die in a devastating earthquake and the earth won't.

Downplaying hyperbole, If I sawed off a leg of your chair, you'd disconnect from the chair and become one with your floor.

Therefore, even if you are one with objects you're touching, you're enigmatic in that you can continually separate from objects and maintain yourself.

That means things are not at all a part of your core energy flow, or life.

Even an arm can be separated from you and you will still be you in the mind.

It would seem there is more evidence that we are only loosely connected to our bodies rather than fully connected to everything on any meaningful level.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Tell me what you know.

Or should I say, "Tell me what you believe."

Since you neglected to include much of what you complained is missing from threads, I will offer a bit on the above.
You seem to be conflating 'Knowledge' and 'beliefs'.
They are far from the same thing.
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

'Belief', on the other hand, is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the ego/thoughts that inhibits cognitive and intellectual ability leading to insanity.
It is not rational, not 'chosen', is 'caught' when resistance is low...

I did notice you mentioned 'originality'.
We do not 'originate' anything, not thought, not anything, we are perceivers.
And if 'intelligence' is the ability to live in harmony with the environment of which we are features, then man is about the only unintelligent creature, since possessed by 'thought/ego'!

... I wonder about some things:

Those who hold their beliefs to be true, even unto death, actually believe those things.

A feature of the very definition of a 'belief' is that it is (vainly) held to be 'Truth', vs opposite (other) Perspectives which are held, therefore, to be false.
An error.
Every 'belief' is held as Truth!

Those beliefs are rooted in knowledge.
You speak as if you think that people rationally, logically decide what 'beliefs' to have.
We don't.
We become infected, we 'catch' 'beliefs'.
As far as 'Knowledge';
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

'Beliefs' are rooted in 'thoughts', EGO, vanity... Pride!
That is why even the bible warns against 'believing' anything that you think or feel (feelings are thoughts)!

Those who would change their beliefs upon death never had knowledge at all.

Love can even heal a 'belief infection'.
Oftentimes they naturally die off, the smaller ones...
All will be gone in a couple of centuries;
Religion, born of ego, riddled with 'beliefs', will be gone, "we will all be mystics or we will not be!"

Honest beliefs are rooted in knowledge.

A) The consistent symptomatic behavior of a 'belief infection' does not discriminate between your dualistic vain niceties of 'honest' vs 'dishonest'?
All 'beliefs' are honestly perceived (there are no 'dishonest perceptions'), and the only Knowledge that is provided by a 'belief' is the knowledge that you perceive a 'belief'.
The Knowledge of the content of that 'belief'/'self-knowledge'!
Beyond that, all is pathological symptomatic emotionally powered behavior, with which you identify, as it is an infection of the ego, everything that you 'think' that you are!

Therefore, honest beliefs are rooted in some fact - whether the fact is true or not should be the center of the debate.

As it isn't.
A 'fact' is no more than another Perspective of a 'belief';

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

Science nor philosophy deals in 'facts'.
That is 'belief/True' land.
Science deals with 'tentative theory', something very different than a 'belief' in the (conditional) 'Truth' of a particular subject.

You say that all that we can know is what we perceive. That is untrue. Nuclear technology is possible because a few smart people saw that which was never perceived; it was conjured from the depths of the mind.

Duh! That is the source of everything that is perceived, which is everything that exists, which is everything!
The only 'conjuring' is the Perception of each unique Perspetive, each unique moment.

Television was not perceived until the mind discovered it. Shall I go on?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Your description of belief is so biased that I simply want to advise you to examine your own beliefs; which you seem to have expressed here... ... ...

No beliefs here, dear, just my observations and studies.
A classic symptom is the initial attempt to divert the discussion, using an assortment of fallacies, such as your attempted 'ad-hominem'.
Rather than calling my definition names, please feel free to refute the points which so disturb you, without going all symptomatic.

The only part I agree with is that we are not true originators. That's true. We are more akin to discoverers. But we have that creative instinct nevertheless.

How can we have a 'creative' instinct when 'creation' is no more than a... 'belief'?
Can we have instincts based on 'beliefs'?
That is exactly what we ALL are, 'discoverers' of 'Self!'!

As for intelligence - no. That is not the ability to live in harmony with others. Feeling is that ability.

First, I just suggested it.
Segundo, I find that a very ego levelling definition, and there is no reason at all to summarily dismiss it because it makes us uncomfortable.
Third, I said in harmony with "our environment", so much more than 'others', and vastly beyond the superficial ego spooge of conditional 'feelings'.
It takes 'Empathy', unconditional Love, Enlightenment!

Intelligence is merely a collection of knowledge.

Such a simplistic definition was never very popular amongst thinkers.
And, according to your definition, a 'library' is intelligent, wiki is 'intelligent'.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

But explain how you can sometimes literally feel an object you can't see? Maybe we are capable of connecting to things on instinct?

For example, and this has really happened to me: ive been walking with a hoodie on and the hood pulled low, reading a book. Between the hoodie and the book, I can't see ahead of me at all except for the ground. I have witnesses backing me up when I say, when a tree branch came up, i dodged, then looked at the beach zero as I was already moving. I literally felt it. And this has happened too many times to count.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Tell me what you know.

Or should I say, "Tell me what you believe."

Since you neglected to include much of what you complained is missing from threads, I will offer a bit on the above.
You seem to be conflating 'Knowledge' and 'beliefs'.
They are far from the same thing.
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

'Belief', on the other hand, is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the ego/thoughts that inhibits cognitive and intellectual ability leading to insanity.
It is not rational, not 'chosen', is 'caught' when resistance is low...

I did notice you mentioned 'originality'.
We do not 'originate' anything, not thought, not anything, we are perceivers.
And if 'intelligence' is the ability to live in harmony with the environment of which we are features, then man is about the only unintelligent creature, since possessed by 'thought/ego'!

I'll be honest.

I didn't neglect to mention my complaints. I ordered them in legal fashion.

(sigh) What I meant is that while you complained about lack of deeply 'meaningful content', you offered none, other than your complaints that there was none.
Yes, I saw the nice list.
Capisce'? *__-

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Tell me what you know.

Or should I say, "Tell me what you believe."

Since you neglected to include much of what you complained is missing from threads, I will offer a bit on the above.
You seem to be conflating 'Knowledge' and 'beliefs'.
They are far from the same thing.
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

'Belief', on the other hand, is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the ego/thoughts that inhibits cognitive and intellectual ability leading to insanity.
It is not rational, not 'chosen', is 'caught' when resistance is low...

I did notice you mentioned 'originality'.
We do not 'originate' anything, not thought, not anything, we are perceivers.
And if 'intelligence' is the ability to live in harmony with the environment of which we are features, then man is about the only unintelligent creature, since possessed by 'thought/ego'!

I'll be honest.

I didn't neglect to mention my complaints. I ordered them in legal fashion.

(sigh) What I meant is that while you complained about lack of deeply 'meaningful content', you offered none, other than your complaints that there was none.
Yes, I saw the nice list.
Capisce'? *__-

You did read in the OP that the OP was a border-line rant concerning this sub- forum, right? And that I asked for what people thought they knew or what they believed on purpose to make sure some color of philosophy was found herein... Right?

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: TarzanBeta

But explain how you can sometimes literally feel an object you can't see? Maybe we are capable of connecting to things on instinct?

For example, and this has really happened to me: ive been walking with a hoodie on and the hood pulled low, reading a book. Between the hoodie and the book, I can't see ahead of me at all except for the ground. I have witnesses backing me up when I say, when a tree branch came up, i dodged, then looked at the beach zero as I was already moving. I literally felt it. And this has happened too many times to count.

Introverted Intuition - Extraverted Sensing axis.

jungian / MBTI / Socionics cognitive function theories refer to this as the "Ni-Se" axis.

Extraverted Sensing understands every detail of the environment. Introverted Intuition offers sudden insights or clues which come in the form of abstract images, symbols, or feelings.

This cognitive function axis is likely the culprit as these belong in my conscious function stack and I have experienced exactly the kind of thing you describe here.