Everything is consciousness.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Because humans a long time ago invented this crazy thing to transfer our knowledge: writing

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Because humans a long time ago invented this crazy thing to transfer our knowledge: writing

It took spoken "language" first didn't it?

Ug Ug?

Drums r fun too.

Boom Boom?

a reply to: nerbot

since we were talking physics equations describing "real" objects, "writing" seems appropriate.
Wouldn't you agree?

The fact that 2 or more people can report the same facts doesn't magically make the stuff happen outside experience, it doesn't defeat idealism either.

Everything still happens inside experience. As I said, nothing is ever outside of experience. Everything is experiential.

We don't need to postulate the existence of a substance called matter which would be fundamentally different and separate from mind/experience because we don't need to do it. We are talking metaphysics here, and only one fundamental substance is enough to explain and describe the world around us.

You don't seem to realize that postulating the existence of a fundamental substance sitting outside of experience is the actual unicorn here. You can invent whatever substance you want, if it sits outside of experience and there is no
way to ever experience it in any manner, then it might as well not exist at all.

a reply to: Untun


You are on the Right Track.................*)









......

a reply to: gosseyn

if it sits outside of experience

but it doesn't, it's actually your experience playing ping-pong with the world, everything you do is interaction with the "outside", even if you dream it's the substance of matter (your brain/body) reverberating the signals it got from the outside creating your mind's feedback.

Your mind is never not interacting with matter.

a reply to: nerbot

Directly pointing to "contact" as a link in the wheel of life as bhava-cakra and not saying thats what you were doing only leaves that first link blind(ignorant).

The author already said it was a pain or Ni... freely given(life itself(birth)) also giving others eye surgery that leaves them "blind"? Tries to assume position of superiority using something to (self)conquer as there is no other escape from it.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Untun


You are on the Right Track.................*)

Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”

By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons.

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. In a universe without purpose, such an ability would have to be nothing but the result of a mindless process. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The human brain has been described as “the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.” No amount of knowledge in the fields of physics and chemistry can in itself produce adequate explanations for the human capacity for abstract thought and our widespread search for purpose in life.

Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose “by chance”. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?

a reply to: whereislogic

a superior intelligence putting you in place doesn't automatically give you purpose, the only reason you believe it does is culture. Because it gave the groups a unifying identity giving "philosophy" (as in way to look at reality), so it was for a long time really just a tool of survival and the theological reason "be good or suffer" was always just a control tool to implement the real survival level reason "make your community more productive".

With or without superior intelligence or in general on whatever level of intelligence the purpose of life is always to live.

Just as "randomly" never did and never will mean "born out of chaos" because that's just not how anything progresses, you always go step by step and all those step need new possibilities* but are at the same time limited by the already achieved foundation.

*which are also not "random" but arise out of interactions of matter and life, or matter and matter, or life and life...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Because humans a long time ago invented this crazy thing to transfer our knowledge: writing

So words appeared in experience.....consciousness appeared as story.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I*d say "words emerged out of interactions, consciousness out of the evolution of the individual"
or something like that.

a reply to: ancientlight

What thoughts do you regard as intrusive or unwanted? Why should any thought be so regarded?

How does a person who doesn't allow themselves certain thoughts engage in philosophy?

a reply to: Astyanax

It's not possible to allow or disallow thoughts.....they either appear or don't.

What are they going on about though?

Everything is consciousness.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Seeing your habits and stepping out of the ones learned as shared and not self gives you one... As per example believing alcohol is was or a social lubricant or makes any experience occur other than drunkenness when not stopping at first sign of inebriation called as a slang alcoholic term buzz by just being able to see it like you turned into a watermelon instead of human. Knowing that conditioning led you believe it had any of those effects like donning a super hero outfit instead of what its actual effect is only makes things worse all of that a not self as it was an attempt to remove social stigma of isolation by saying well this is what people do there and start acting instead of actually knowing.

Seeing that as in clothes things you've bought etc at home and live it as a social "norm" is why such people are seen as boring or vanilla as plain or like a clothes on a mannequin even though that is the new "in" thing for the season. Comments like get a life, or trying to hard etc are like cheer leaders of just be yourself. Guys are the number one bland and it is often when a guy says something it is because a woman has asked "hey" someone kill the norm before I have to adopt an adult child and take it shopping since it's(third person talk) clueless.

But as said; Removing all of that? The original not contrived authentic I don't give a... self appears; When that occurs it won't leave... As a cocoon cant jump back on a butterfly. However some go back in and out of character in social circles as testing the water of do they know? Which appears sociopath and predatory at which point people assume lost dog or a pedo.


Edit to add: the statement "mid life crisis" is the typical cover meaning all of this is known but that's middle age taking hormones hair replacement boob jobs or looking 65 going on 13 that only a fashion house owner or fashionista can pull off. That the others have already hinted at way back at "Trying to hard"... as being natural does not require "acting" or nudity.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

if it sits outside of experience

but it doesn't, it's actually your experience playing ping-pong with the world, everything you do is interaction with the "outside", even if you dream it's the substance of matter (your brain/body) reverberating the signals it got from the outside creating your mind's feedback.

Your mind is never not interacting with matter.

Everything that you perceive is part of your perception: colors, sounds, shapes etc.. You perceive something but you are the one doing the act of perception. What you call matter is actually stuff that has been called that way and nothing more. The idealism I am talking about sees this matter as just more mind stuff. Which means it is mental in nature, it is made of the same stuff as your mind or my mind, but it is not your mind or my mind, it is impersonal mental stuff. The way we perceive that impersonal mental stuff we call matter is dependent on our evolved perception mechanisms. Which means that atoms, electrons and everything else we call matter is something that appears on the screen of perception, it is the product of our mind. Someone like Donald Hoffman has shown why evolution has never given us the tools to see what the things out there really look like.



The burden of proof is on you and anyone else who claims that there is matter out there totally and fundamentally different from "mentality". Everything that we have always known is mentality, it is and has always been our only horizon, so there is no reason to imagine that beyond that horizon, there is something completely different. It is just a metaphysical mistake we make.



Not to mention that postulating more than one fundamental substance leads to problems like the interaction problem, "the hard problem of consciousness", and other questions like "what is the point in imagining fundamentally different substances if at the very first nanosecond they start to exist, they enter in interaction?"...

a reply to: gosseyn

No. Everything I perceive is the interpretation of signals my brain makes based on the sensory-input-data.

Definition of matter.
if you want to discuss all of it away it's really you who has to prove none of that is real

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

No. Everything I perceive is the interpretation of signals my brain makes based on the sensory-input-data.

Definition of matter.
if you want to discuss all of it away it's really you who has to prove none of that is real

Apparently you have a problem to elevate yourself to the level of metaphysics.

That definition of matter is the description of the content of perception.

Talking with you feels like a useless back and forth in which you ignore every argument and respond with one liners.

originally posted by: Crowfoot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
...
But as said; Removing all of that? The original not contrived authentic I don't give a... self appears; When that occurs it won't leave... As a cocoon cant jump back on a butterfly. ...

I only know a snowflake cannot exist in a storm of fire.

Monk: The sun is warm, the wind is wild, the grass is green along the shores. Here, no bull can hide.
O'Neill: Oh, I don't know about that.

a reply to: gosseyn

If you want to talk metaphysics I'm down with that. I have no problem with concepts like the noosphere f.e.
But you & the reductionist 'everything is consciousness' pseudo-philosophy crowd are just denying the existence of objective reality - what's there to discuss, really?
Especially since you just repeat the same argument over and over.

If you were serious, you'd have taken the definition of matter and worked it top to bottom explaining to me how all those properties of matter are explained by your 'theory'.
So start with that if you're serious.