Everything is consciousness.

a reply to: Peeple

It's because of the material world and the fact that we are human that everything is consciousness.

*It's because of the material world





*in robotvoice*

originally posted by: Peeple
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.

I don't need to debunk any kind of matter definition because I don't disagree with it. Any description of matter is the description of the content of perception.

And again, because it seems you don't read, I talk about a form of idealism where there is an objective world out there but it is made of mental stuff. There is no need to invent a hypothetical fundamentally separate substance called matter which would sit outside of perception. This is purely metaphysics, I am not sure you understand.

And again, this is not reductionism because experience is the only thing about which we can say with 100% certainty that it exists. I am merely stating the obvious: experience is the only thing that exists and all the rest is pure inference.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's not possible to allow or disallow thoughts.

It's hard work but people do seem to manage. In fact, it's quite a common thing. Distraction and conditioning are the usual methods. Drugs of various types are also popular.

a reply to: gosseyn

I didn' ask you to debunk the definition of matter.
I was asking how matter objectively has all those properties if it is all "mental stuff".

a reply to: Peeple

Do the objects that you see in dreams appear outside of the mind?
Or are they made of 'mental stuff'?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

no. because that's my mind without the sensory input of objective reality.

Why even ask?

a reply to: Peeple

Because dreams are just like this that is here now in the 'waking state'.......full of what appears to be matter.

How can it be known that there isn't just dreaming occurring?

a reply to: Astyanax

If you had watched the short video I provided (in the post you replied to), you would see that understanding what the thoughts are talking about......would automatically cut out most of the noise.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

...well...
if you can't differentiate between dreams and awake participating in reality... that explains a lot actually.

a reply to: Peeple

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The point is that intrusive or unwanted thoughts can be avoided, temporarily at least. The question that interests me is whether anyone who does this can also do philosophy.

a reply to: Astyanax

You can read the transcript on the yt page.

Edit to add.
Oh you appear to have completely changed the post I replied to.

a reply to: Astyanax

Isn't philosophy where people seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

I didn' ask you to debunk the definition of matter.
I was asking how matter objectively has all those properties if it is all "mental stuff".

Why is it a problem that it has so many properties? Again, it's all happening in perception already, I don't have to prove it, and so it is all already mental, in case you didn't notice.

Until you accept the fact that everything you perceive is happening in perception, we won't make any progress.

I've just read the last post and the word Perception caught my attention ...

This is how i would describe it:

Touch is there to perceive solidity of an object.
The Nose perceive the gaseous range.
The Ears perceive what we call the sound range.
The Eyes perceive the color/light range.


All of these are perceptions and filter through (or go into the brain) so that the correct interpretation can be made.

The interpretation is made by the mind and is therefore 'mentally based'

The materialistic oriented people say that only what Touch, nose, ears and eyes report is what really exists.

But the truth is that there is more to all of this.

To convince yourself, understand following:

Eyes only perceive a part of the color spectrum. (which i call range, above)
There is light, which is not visible to the eyes ...
there are smells which human nose can not distinguish, but some animals can.
There are sounds which human ears can not hear, but animals can ...

There are things which are hurtful to the human body, like extreme heat/cold ... touchable but ...


And then there is the mind ... and there is more to it.

Andrei Linde, physicist:

Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know for sure that my pain exists, my ‘green’ exists, and my ‘sweet’ exists … everything else is a theory. Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perceptions. This model of material world obeying laws of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are only helpful for its description.

a reply to: gosseyn

everything you perceive is happening in perception

What I perceive is happening in perception is so circular, but ok sure true. I can't perceive what I don't perceive.
That doesn't change the fact though that there are plenty of things ongoing and existing that are outside of my perception.
Independent of my perception.

Just because I perceive it also doesn't mean it is 'mental' in its nature. It just means my perception of it is a mental interpretation of what is outside my own existence.

a reply to: gosseyn

Any description of matter is the description of the content of perception.

The Buddhist cannon labels this as a self not self that leads to suffering termed: Skandha.

The debate body is known as Jehovah witnesses as; More has to have been seen there than the observed subject or object in question... As the initial sighting would be "god" and the constant between the observable meaning indeed there was consciousness present then but how much it actually witnessed can only verify as reality as to what remains... not what was seen; However memory being persistent so is the belief it was there only amounts to beauty is in the eye of the beholder until a representation is made. In not denying reality or memory still present indeed is a self persisting that something was there is also not debated no longer there or observable? Then just memory remains.

Remember that time? Is likely the only "hell" that could be said to exist when memory tries to convince that it or the no longer present for others to observe it without help or pointing persists.

At least that's the basis for it and also acknowledging religion exists as well by calling that impermanence "god" that others may or may not have been able to experience at the time it was occurring.

Some may say that; That is a beautiful foundation on which to rest and the attached "dogma" an unfortunate side effect of calling that impermanence or time between others observing such a thing stated "god" as verifiable.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Isn't philosophy where people seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other?

It was that once, I suppose. For most amateur philosophers, it probably is still. But I'm not sure that professional philosophers, the kind of people who are paid to do and teach philosophy, think so any longer. The burden of seeking to understand reality has been passed to the sciences. No new schools or modes of philosophy are being developed; I don’t suppose there have been any since Nietzsche. The existing schools are all well established and work within them tends to focus on elaboration, criticism and refinement rather than coming up with new ‘truths’ about mind or the world.

But I’m still not seeing an answer to my question, which is whether people who shut out unwanted or intrusive thoughts can practise philosophy. It seems to me that they cannot. But perhaps you have a different answer.