"Reality" is founded on Thought and Consciousness, not Matter.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


You know, you have an excellent point there. Just remember that the next time you get a flat tire.



In all seriousness though, it does appear that reality is fluid like? At times very focused and painfully

meat hook. At other times,,, almost malleable in nature. Interesting post. S&F

Collective conciousness: "For all that is secret will eventually be brought into the open, and everything that is concealed will be brought to light and made known to all". -Luke 8:17

If our Reality is a Dream, so the Dream became our Reality...

If Reality is founded on Consciousness, not Matter, why Matter can't exist? Or our Consciousness create Matter?

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your point I just don't believe it to be the right way to fully understand our goal within this reality. Unless you're trying to give a solution to escape.

I would like to interject with a few points if I may.

We must be careful in how we are attributing these words of "consciousness" and "thought" to the human perception of "reality", because "Thought" and "Consciousness" are not the same. The way in which a human perceives or experiences this "reality" and then comes to a conclusion to explain it, through the five senses including the mind, requires the use of thought. However thought itself derives from, and is limited and conditioned by, these same senses and experiences. Therefore human "thought" will never be able to perceive "reality" beyond what these five senses allow. "Consciousness", on the other hand, pervades all that is moving, which is everything, including thought (human or otherwise). So everything, including what we perceive and label as "matter", is conscious.

"Thought" is what creates the "Self", or separation from the absolute "Reality". We can only say "Duality" is real from the perspective of human thought, not in an absolute term. Therefore, if we are to experience this "absolute reality" or "reality of oneness", we must be devoid of "thought".

I believe this is why the true essence of the Dao, in Daoism, is unspeakable. I believe this is why "God" in Judaism, is unnamable. I believe this is why intelligence (thought) in Christianity, the story of Adam and Eve, is frowned upon. I believe this is why "Enlightenment" or "Nirvana" in Buddhism, is a state devoid of "thought" or an actualization of emptiness.

I am not sure I see the relevance or association of "dreaming" in this, as that is still a product of thought, but maybe I am misinterpreting what is being said. If you could clarify that point further I would appreciate it.

S&F

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


I see you have put a lot of thought in to this.
Although for me it makes no sense at all.
To think you can think your way to the ultimate.
Or analyse what it means to be alive.
Or explain away the universe, is just silly.
I suppose I can resonate more with the poster above.
‘Life is energy’

And I don’t wish to nitpick, but can you explain the phrase,
“Eternal boredom”
And how you equate it with “eternal consciousness”
And why you have come to this conclusion.

Regards Midicon.

I no longer can edit my previous post, but I wanted to add something else after reading this thread again.

I must seriously question the idea that the human mind or psyche, we cannot use "consciousness" for this subject as we are speaking strictly of thoughts, has or is evolving. I especially have trouble with this idea in relation to evolution of the human mind or psyche within the recorded history of man. One may argue that new societal concepts, ideologies, technologies, philosophies... surely have "evolved" in some sense of the word since the age of barbarism, so therefore the human psyche has evolved, but I must question whether these things are not just aiding as an illusion of "mental evolution".

Is man not still partaking in "barbaristic" or primitive acts? When we think of "barbarism" or a "primitive" psyche, do we not think of murder, rape, insanity, corruptness, ignorance...? Are these things not still present in today's "modern" societies and psyche? To the contrary, were there not humans throughout recorded history who have had what one might call a non-primitive or "advanced" psyche? (Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Confucius...)

Therefore, how can one claim the human psyche is evolving, or can evolve? That is not to say the human mind cannot change, but I do question the validity of such arguments that it is evolving or has evolved.

I think the obvious fact of our growing level of mental "illness's", such as anxiety, depression, and other more serious forms, (26% of Americans as of 2004 according to the NIMH are diagnosed with one or more), insofar as the increasing levels of decay and corruptness as our systematic, societal and personal relationship aspects of our lives grow more complex, directly verify that in fact the human mind or psyche is not and has not evolved.

Just something to think about...

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


I have some more food for thought that I sometimes think about, such as hallucinations. People have hallucinations when they are not sleeping but are on some sort of drug. When a person is hallucinating is it the same as dreaming?

Also I have had some experiences of sleep paralysis where I was awake and could not move but could see things that where not really there. It was like a combination of dreaming and hallucinating because I am awake but dreaming (not day dreaming of course lol). How could it be possible to dream while awake and not be on any drugs?

I think it has to do more with our brains when it comes to reality. Maybe are bodies are computers and our brains are the processors that are programmed specifically to perceive the current reality we are experiencing now. I see it that are consciousness can make and or experience reality, but only to the certain reality's parameters that where in. I don't think a thought creates our reality but thoughts are created from consciousness experiencing reality through our bodies which are necessary to live in this reality. Do you think we chose this reality? or we had no choice and is necessary for evolution purposes?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Well, now we are getting into some quite serious disagreements. Which is good. At least it clarifies things.

All of your above statements consist of thoughts of a 'thinker'--in other words, they pre-suppose the existence of the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself. But the subject at issue here is the consciousness of the "self"; something which existed prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'. What we are attempting to do is determine the origin of a consciousness which existed even before there was any such thing as a consciousness of the 'thinker' at all.

This is quite an exceptional challenge given our current vantage point within a linear context. I agree with your term non-temporal. The non-linear nature that clearly presents itself to "self" and consciousness suggests time potentially is a product of our waking mind's perception of serializing data. Much like a book, all the words, pages, chapters exist, but until we serialize the vocabulary it is not realized or known data to that linear part of us.

I do emphasize that time/space exist here, but in the deeper dimensions of what we are, it's as you say non-temporal. I realize also that my time right now is not the best so I'll have to make some time for this post and come back to address a few of the points that are being brought up with a shared opinion.

Where this thread is going is quite favorable.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy[/url]


That's an excellent point. That illusion of evolution. I would like to separate both "types of evolution" you mention and ask: Isn't obvious, or apparently, that one "type" of evolution should reflect into the other (mind, thought, human characteristic/behaviour)? But the way you describe shows that actually it doesn't, and I agree. I found just curious when I try to think in the reason why. Maybe our "evolution" is missing something very obvious... (Sorry if I'm going to much off topic)

reply to post by shaeshase


I am not sure what you mean by "one type" versus another. I would say those things you mentioned are apart of the same, of human thought/psyche, so that is why they would not reflect different/separate growth or "evolution".

As far as our psyche/minds missing something that is "stunting" its "evolution", I would reiterate my previous point by saying I would have to seriously question the ability for it to "evolve". One might say that humans have the ability to "change" or "free" themselves from these mental dilemma's which are the causation of corruptness, greed, hate, suffering... and all other ills which plague the human mind, but it would not, and cannot, be done in a process of "evolution" or growth, nor through practice or discipline, for those all demand the use of "thought" itself which is what is the underlying problem at hand.

An explanation to the solution for this problem is something that we can go into, and study, further but it would demand much more conversation and being that this is not my thread I feel it is better left for another discussion.

ETA:
One thing I will say is that I think many scientists understand natural "evolution" of the human mind, whether through education, religion, laws or another means, is not possible, therefore they are heavily supportive of an artificial means of manipulation to achieve this whether that be through pharmacutical drugs, hypnosis, frequency/wave technology, or some other way so to alter the chemical foundation of the human mind. There are serious ramifications for doing such things though, and ultimately I am 99% positive they will create a far worse situation for our species. They are trying to use superior intellectuality of the mind and highly trained thought processes, which are obviously still corrupt, to solve this problem of the mind. Essentially they are using a corrupt mind to fix the problem of a corrupt mind, or chaos to fix the problem of chaos...

PM me if you'd like.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy "Thought" is what creates the "Self",

Although much of what Krishnamurti says is something that I observe as well, he is dead wrong about "thought" creating the "self" or the duality.

The "self" and the duality was created by a reflex 'movement' of self-reflection which instantaneously, and prior to the emergence of thought at all, creates the "self"/"not self" as a 'space' or 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists. (And, in other instances, Krishnamurti talks at length about the 'contents' of consciousness, failing to realize that, for any 'contents' of consciousness, there must be a 'container' of consciousness. And this, almost religious blindness to the reality of consciousness is followed unquestioningly by the vast majority of his followers even more than 20 years after he has died.)

Now thought preserves and maintains that 'spatiality' of consciousness over time--as Krishnamurti says: "Thought is time"--but that does not mean that the "self" has been created by thought.

We can only say "Duality" is real from the perspective of human thought, not in an absolute term.

Simply incorrect. My "self" is over here and your "self" is over there. This is nothing to do with thought; this is the reality of the situation.

Therefore, if we are to experience this "absolute reality" or "reality of oneness", we must be devoid of "thought".

Descartes did this by pursuing radical doubt in Meditations on First Philosophy and was brought to the very edge of psychosis, as clearly described in the opening passages of the Second Meditation. (And anyone else who seriously pursues radical doubt will be brought to the edge of psychosis as well. Most people turn back in cowardice.)

Not only must we be separated from the thoughts of the 'thinker', but there must also be a time-reversal to prior to the 'movement' of self-reflection itself. In other words, we must also be outside of and prior to the consciousness of the "self" as well as the 'thinker'. That consciousness which exists prior to the 'movement' of self-reflection is the only escape from the duality. Getting beyond "thought" is only half of the problem.

I believe this is why "Enlightenment" or "Nirvana" in Buddhism, is a state devoid of "thought" or an actualization of emptiness.

Of course, the word "Enlightenment" is also a thought of a 'thinker'. I don't believe in any "Enlightenment" at all. But in order for there to be any "emptiness" there must be a 'container' for the "emptiness". In other words, when you pour out the contents of a coke bottle--those contents being "thoughts", "emotions", "memories", "sensations" and "perceptions"--that coke bottle does not disappear. It is still a container; only the container is now empty. The mistake of Krishnamurti and his followers is that, if you merely empty the 'container' of consciousness of its 'contents', that the 'container' too disappears. It doesn't. What is left is the empty 'space' of the consciousness of the "self" (really, the dualistic "self"/"not self") created by the reflex 'movement' of self-reflection.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Hi Michael,

I respect your opinions and understand you are a fairly passionate and argumentative person, however I simply just have to disagree with mostly all you have "corrected" me on. I feel as if you are taking much of what I said out of context and creating your own definitions out of it. Also, Krishnamurti was a wise man, however, I do not base what I have said from what he has said, and I am definitely not one of his "followers" as it seems you are eluding to. I have studied many people, and they may have confirmed what I already knew but was unaware of at the time, but ultimately these are my own realizations, as I am sure yours are also.

When we talk about the "self", what are we talking about? When I speak of the "self" I am merely speaking from a human perspective of it, as I cannot speak from any other perspective of it. You say the "self" was not created out of thought, and you argue it from a metaphysical stand point of before a humans or intelligent beings existence. However, when one meditates to a state of "no-mind", to the cessation of thought, they actualize the reality that the "self" is not there, that it is in fact an illusion or a cause that derives from thought. Therefore, one must come to a conclusion that when there is no thought there is no "self". One must also come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as Duality, except for from the perspective of human thought.

Your example of Descartes is a prime example of a man who used thought to understand a state of no thought (as I assume you are), and is left with a deep sense of doubt and succombs to his fears of the unknown, which is a direct reflection of the very problem with human thought/psyche/mind. In fact, you yourself have eluded to the way to "escape" this problem, by coming to a place of simple consciousness or as the Buddha said "Pure Awareness", a state void of attachment to thought.

Also, your example of the Coke bottle is not entirely accurate of the theory of emptiness. In fact, the word "emptiness" or "nothingness" is not a suitable translation for its actual meaning. In reality, there is no way to describe or speak of such a thing using words, as that would require the use of thought to explain something that is void of thought, so it just is what it is.

There is an old saying that goes "A Buddha is supposed to be misunderstood, for that is the very reason he/she is a Buddha." Considering such a person as a radical is nothing new and is to be expected as most of our great minds throughout the history of mankind have been labeled as such. Many have even been put to death for these things, only to later have their words/teachings/beliefs engraved within the history of our species and revolutionize our understandings of life.

You sure know how to provoke a good debate though!

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Hi Michael,

I respect your opinions

Well, they are not opinions. Rather, they are observations. If you do not observe what I observe, then you do not observe it. But that does not mean that what I am saying consists of "opinions". And, interestingly enough, I have devised a thought experiment to demonstrate what I am talking about:

There is a man on a moving train who drops a ball. The train is going 50 mph. And, because he, the ball, and the train are all moving at 50 mph, he observes the path of the ball as being along a line perpendicular to the floor of the train. That is what he observes; and, if he performs this experiment 10,000 times, that is all he will ever observe.

Then, there is a person in the train station; perceiving this whole experiment from a (locally) inertial frame of reference. To him the path of the ball is a curved line since, in the time that the ball takes to hit the floor of the train, the train, the ball and the observer on the train have moved several yards along the "x" axis. And this is what he will always observe: that the path of the ball is a curved line rather than a line perpendicular to the floor of the train.

The person in the train station calls the person on the train on his cell phone and describes what he observes: that the path of the ball is curved. The person on the train says "That's just your opinion."

It is not any opinion; it is what the observer in the train station actually observes.

Similarly, for what you are terming my "opinions".

Also, Krishnamurti was a wise man, however, I do not base what I have said from what he has said, and I am definitely not one of his "followers" as it seems you are eluding to. I have studied many people, and they may have confirmed what I already knew but was unaware of at the time, but ultimately these are my own realizations, as I am sure yours are also.

I was unaware if you were a follower of Krishnamurti or not; but you have the same perspective.

And it is an intensely seductive perspective inasmuch as its very roots are in the preservation of the "self" against annihilation.

When we talk about the "self", what are we talking about? When I speak of the "self" I am merely speaking from a human perspective of it, as I cannot speak from any other perspective of it. You say the "self" was not created out of thought, and you argue it from a metaphysical stand point of before a humans or intelligent beings existence. However, when one meditates to a state of "no-mind", to the cessation of thought, they actualize the reality that the "self" is not there, that it is in fact an illusion or a cause that derives from thought. Therefore, one must come to a conclusion that when there is no thought there is no "self". One must also come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as Duality, except for from the perspective of human thought.

Well, you can 'come to any conclusion' that you want. But your very words indicate that you are operating exclusively from the 'frame of reference' of the consciousness of the 'thinker'; that is, the perspective of the observer on the moving train. Thought is motion is time. That consciousness simply cannot observe what is immediately observed by the observer in the train station. The observer in the train station does not 'come to any conclusion' that the path of the ball is curved. He does not sit down and 'think' or 'meditate' that it must be curved. This is something that is immediately observable.

Also, your example of the Coke bottle is not entirely accurate of the theory of emptiness. In fact, the word "emptiness" or "nothingness" is not a suitable translation for its actual meaning. In reality, there is no way to describe or speak of such a thing using words, as that would require the use of thought to explain something that is void of thought, so it just is what it is.

The reason I use the term 2-dimensional 'flat' space is because it can be directly observed, just like the observer in the train station observing the curved path taken by the falling ball. In other words, the 2-dimensional 'flat' space is essentially empty. (How many ounces of water can a flatpiece of paper contain, for example?)

Neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker' can observe this while on the moving train. Time and thought and motion have to stop in order for this to be observed.

What I am saying is that neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker' can observe the origin of the consciousness of the "self" in the 'movement' of self-reflection...

For the same reason that you cannot observe yourself being born.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


You may be making observations and drawing conclusions.
But like any good scientist, or logical thinker, you could still be wrong.

“What I am saying is that neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker' can observe the origin of the consciousness of the "self" in the 'movement' of self-reflection...”

You are just stating the obvious here
You are coming at this from a dual standpoint, either self or thinker.
when indeed there may be an overview.
Consciousness of self and consciousness of thinker may be just an illusion.
When indeed there is no self or thinker.

Consciousness may exist independently of both, in fact it would explain a lot.
And emptiness needs no container, when there is nothing to contain.

* ~
Very interesting read.

One point in particular piques my interest.
The argument over which came first, the dream or the reality.
I have long pondered the idea of retro causality and the FACT that people seem to be aware of the non linear nature of time, even if only on a subconscious level.

From a simple vantage point, sure the dream may seem to come first, but what if an event occurred, and somehow an individual were able to communicate a message back into "their" past and change that possible future from ever happening.
Another point of view could be that if multiple versions of our reality are branching off with every decision, then perhaps the effects are being felt across dimensions. Perhaps in dimensions just above, or below, figuratively of course, are either 2 steps ahead of our own or 2 step behind.
An event that produces an emotional response may be enough to cause our subconsciousness to traverse that membrane.
I do believe that our conscious awareness is the least of our potential, and that the real treasure will be found when we become more able to access our subconscious minds.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

You may be making observations and drawing conclusions.
But like any good scientist, or logical thinker, you could still be wrong.

They are not conclusions. They are not a consequence of any 'thinking' process. And they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with logic; being prior to both logic and even thought.

Similarly, they are neither "wrong", nor are they "right".

Rather, you either see what I am talking about or you do not see it.

The perpendicular line of the falling ball observed by the observer on the train is not "right". It is merely what he observes. Neither is the curved line of the falling ball observed by the observer in the train station "wrong". It is merely what he observes. Those observations are merely different. There is no "right" and "wrong" here or "true path" of the ball. It depends upon the frame of reference of the observer in terms of consciousness.

In any case, there is no 'thinker'. There are only thoughts. Both the 'thinker' and the verb "to think" are violations of Occam's Razor.

“What I am saying is that neither the consciousness of the "self" nor the consciousness of the 'thinker' can observe the origin of the consciousness of the "self" in the 'movement' of self-reflection...”

You are just stating the obvious here

Well, apparently it is so obvious that you cannot see it.

You are coming at this from a dual standpoint, either self or thinker.
when indeed there may be an overview.

No. I am standing in the train station and observing from a (locally) inertial frame of reference.

Consciousness of self and consciousness of thinker may be just an illusion.
When indeed there is no self or thinker.

But reality is relative to frame of reference as well. The consciousness of the 'thinker' is quite real or I would not be able to do many of the things I am required to do to live in a technologically complex society. And the consciousness of the "self" is quite real or I would not be able to have close personal relationships with those who I love.

Each of those dimensions of consciousness has its own reality, even if understood to be illusory from a dimension of consciousness outside of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

Consciousness may exist independently of both, in fact it would explain a lot.

This is precisely what I am talking about: the consciousness represented by the observer standing in the train station.

And emptiness needs no container, when there is nothing to contain.

Now, precisely here is where the "self" becomes involved in the destruction of the meaning of words; a destruction of meaning--I term it nihilism--which is deemed to be absolutely necessary for the sake of preserving the "self".

There is simply no such thing as "emptiness" without a 'container' for that emptiness. In other words, that quality of "emptiness" must be 'possessed' by something. And that something can only be, in one way or another, a 'container' of that emptiness.

It is like the word "red". There is no such thing as "red" without a something that is "red"; whether it be a red light, a red piece of cloth, a red piece of paper. There is no such thing as "redness" independent of a physical representation/manifestation of that "redness".

Mi cha el

reply to post by YouAreDreaming

That was really a great post. Though much of it was speculative, nothing caught my attention as something I totally disagreed with, so my main reason for posting this at all is to give you a thumbs-up.

I've pondered the origins of consciousness for a long time. For many years I was a hardcore materialist atheist, believing unconscious matter/energy to be the fundamental building blocks of reality. During this time, the biggest philosophical problem that I wrestled with was how raw conscious experience can arise from these unconscious, "dead" building-blocks.

There have been atheist authors who have tried to tackle this subject, often with some remarkable insight. My favorite was Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, where he attempts to use an inanimate, "nothing but matter and energy" worldview to explain conscious experience. He does about as good a job as I could ever imagine, and yet it still fell short. It still left me with questions and a feeling that he still didn't really "get it", and was perhaps trying too hard to ponder consciousness while maintaining a materialist worldview. I think it was this book that finally made me realize that there was something wrong with my fundamental worldview.

Kudos for a great and well-thought-out OP.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Let me try again.
You are approaching this from two reference points.
One is the self, and the other is the thinker (your words)
Both make an observation, relative to themselves.
Now I say to you, neither perspective is valid.
From an objective viewpoint,
Because they only see part of the picture,
But there is a third reference point.
Or should I say only one reference point.
One that is not local, or relative,
And that is consciousness, which is independent of both.
You have tied consciousness to self and thinker,
This creates the illusion of relativity,
When there is really no self or thinker at all.
And emptiness is just a word we use to describe,
Something that we can’t wrap words around.
And it is not like the word red.
Red implies something is.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Let me try again.
You are approaching this from two reference points.
One is the self, and the other is the thinker (your words)
Both make an observation, relative to themselves.
Now I say to you, neither perspective is valid.

To which I would say "Yes and No". Or both perspectives are both valid and invalid.

It is simply not possible in the modern world to get through life without a consciousness of a 'thinker'. The entire purpose of the consciousness of the 'thinker' is the biological survival of the organism. That is what it is for. It is not concerned with "objective" truth at all. It is concerned with survival. Similarly, it is not possible to live a whole and productive life without love relationships with other humans and without such things as art, poetry, music, dance, etc. These things are more in the realm of the consciousness of the "self" rather than the 'thinker'. And the purpose of the consciousness of the "self" is to add depth and dimension and emotions and beauty and the feminine to the essentially masculine perspective of the 'thinker' consciousness.

From an objective viewpoint,
Because they only see part of the picture,

Agreed. Fully. But they should not be condemned as utterly deficient for that reason.

But there is a third reference point.
Or should I say only one reference point.
One that is not local, or relative,
And that is consciousness, which is independent of both.

Sure. My point exactly. The perspective of the observer in the train station that observes from an inertial frame of reference in comparison to the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' which are both on the moving train.

You have tied consciousness to self and thinker,

Then you have missed the point. The person in the train station has a perspective which is not in any way "tied" to the perspective of the observer on the train.

This creates the illusion of relativity,
When there is really no self or thinker at all.

And this is where you fall into the abyss of the direct contradiction of reality.

If you did not have a "self", you would not be able to type the words you type here. If you did not have a consciousness of a 'thinker', you would not be able to remember your password or how to get on the Internet in the first place.

I simply do not agree that there is no "self" or 'thinker' at all. From the frame of reference of the "observing consciousness", they can be termed an illusion; but from their own frame of reference they are quite real. Two or three or 100 observers on the train will all observe the path of the falling ball as perpendicular to the floor of the train. That is not any illusion. That is an actual observation of reality.

And similarly for many, many observers in the train station. They will all observe the reality: that the path of the dropped ball is a curved path. Neither is that an illusion.

And emptiness is just a word we use to describe,
Something that we can’t wrap words around.
And it is not like the word red.
Red implies something is.

So does emptiness.

In any case, for anyone following this thread, I sincerely hope that you can appreciate the quality of the discussion that is going on here. This is a discussion about consciousness which probably cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet. The official journals on the science of consciousness--both the published variety and the Internet variety--are all very heavily censored in order to preserve the collapsing paradigm of the scientific method, which is based exclusively upon the consciousness of the 'thinker'. Clearly, any assertion or discussion about a third dimension of consciousness and/or any observations from that perspective is something much too threatening to the scientists of consciousness who insist upon the ability of the scientific method to describe EVERYTHING that exists.

I certainly hope that more people become involved in the discussion.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Nope, I'll disagree with you. We are most definitely living in a universe of matter and energy, as we have quite consistent evidence that both predate thoughts and consciousness and would continue to exist without the two.

mmm.. could you share some of this evidence with me plz..

If we were all deaf or had no ears or anyway of translating sound, there would still be sound. The tree falling in the woods would still fall if not seen and make sound even if not heard.