To Vilify the Ego

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Our claims can easily be verified.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me they actually know what a single thing IS in reality. What it IS exactly. Not just some description about it, but what it IS.

Okay, if you can't do this, what does any object even look like in reality? Every point of view must be accounted for, of course.

Okay, still not possible? Then how about proving your claim that you are, without a doubt, the body?

Since your claims are so easily verified, the above should be readily possible, right? And none of that self-evident business you so readily dismiss when it comes to others (myself included) speaking about consciousness and awareness.

Or does body-based materialism have its limits in terms of knowing even what the humblest thing is or even appears like? And yet you put all your faith in such a limited mechanism and base your entire life on this myth that you are the body-mind complex? Hmmm.....

reply to post by bb23108

I am still waiting for someone to tell me they actually know what a single thing IS in reality. What it IS exactly. Not just some description about it, but what it IS.

How am I supposed to explain what anything is without describing it?

Okay, if you can't do this, what does any object even look like in reality? Every point of view must be accounted for, of course.

You're no better qualified for this than the rest of us. I'd love to watch you sit next to Stephen Hawking and finally not have anything to say because you're still trying to figure out what the hell he just said.

Okay, not possible? Then how about proving your claim that you are, without a doubt, the body?

I don't have to prove I am the body for you to prove I am not. Go on. Impress me.

Since your claims are so easily verified, the above should be possible, right? And none of that self-evident business you so readily dismiss when it comes to others (myself included) speaking about consciousness and awareness.

I've already provided my evidence. I am sensing everything my body is sensing. My awareness is synonymous with that of my body. If you can't go back and read my posts again, that's not my problem. Again, prove to me that I am not my body. The burden of proof lies with those who reject previously established science.

Or does body-based materialism have its limits in terms of knowing even what the humblest thing is or even appears like? And you put all your faith in such a limited mechanism? Hmmm.....

I fail to grasp the relevance of this allegation. Perhaps you should consider the logic of your posts before actually posting. This is not Woodstock where anything even slightly mystical sounding is accepted without question. You are required to substantiate. That's how all rational minds work.

Sorry to disappoint you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
I am not asking you to describe what something is. Just answer the question - do you know what anything actually IS?

reply to post by bb23108

I am not asking you to describe what something is. Just answer the question - do you know what anything actually IS?

Do you? Because I feel whatever answer I come up with, you'll just come up with some smartass rejoinder that attempts to make my answer look like a complete failure to recognize reality for the great quantum nothingness you seem to believe it is.

So yes. My hand is 99% empty space. The 1% that is not empty space is composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons, among a variety of other subatomic particles in thrall to a specific set of nuclear and electromagnetic forces that influence the behavior of the entire atomic universe. Altogether, they create an amazing tapestry that drifts somewhere between science and art, a chemical marvel that serves just as many purposes as I can imagine for my hand.

How did I do, professor?

reply to post by AfterInfinity
No, I don't know what a single thing is. But many people think they do until they fully inspect their assumptions.

By the way, can you dispense with the petty insults - they sound pretty pathetic and do not really encourage a continued dialog.

reply to post by bb23108

No, I don't know what a single thing is. But many people think they do until they fully inspect their assumptions.

By the way, can you dispense with the petty insults - they sound pretty pathetic and do not really encourage a continued dialog.

I'm not insulting you. I am conveying my increasing impatience with your abundance of talk and notable lack of empirical evidence by which to reach the conclusions you cling to.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
I said pages ago that we are awareness and this is only self-evident, not provable by any scientific methodology. And, of course, I also noted that such an approach is taken by rationalists when it comes to assuming they are simply the body-mind - that this is self-evident.

I have no empirical evidence that we are awareness, and have never spoken about any. You have no evidence that truly supports your notions of being the body and that fundamental awareness dies at death.

However, to bring up questions that make one think about their own so-called empirical evidence is worthwhile, I would think, for any truly inquiring mind to consider.

reply to post by bb23108

I said pages ago that we are awareness and this is only self-evident, not provable by any scientific methodology. And, of course, I also noted that such an approach is taken by rationalists when it comes to assuming they are simply the body-mind.

ev·i·dence
noun ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s
Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

We are not simply awareness. We are so much more than that. And that is self-evident. We are one of the few species on this planet able to both ascribe and detract meaning from our world and its inhabitants. Unfortunately, this gift becomes a curse when we mistakenly turn it on ourselves in our misguided pursuits of an ideal we know nothing about.

And because some approaches to this ideal teach us that our bodies make us weak, we become eager to disown the chemical complexes that make us vulnerable. I describe this process as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". We seek to shed this mortal shell because we're tired of being subject to fear and pain. But maybe we haven't learned what we're supposed to yet. And once we do, we'll stop inflicting it on ourselves. We are the cause of our own suffering, and our egos are the only way to master that part of ourselves. The very same thing that gives us our greatest strength, also gives us our greatest weaknesses.

That's why ego is so important. Because that's how we're supposed to learn.

I have no empirical evidence that we are awareness, and have never spoken about any. However, to bring up questions that make one think about their own so-called empirical evidence is worthwhile, I would think, for any truly inquiring mind to consider.

Sorry, empirical is the wrong word. Scientific study. We'll just go with scientific study for now. Something that goes to great lengths to ensure that absolute objectivity is maintained throughout.

reply to post by bb23108

But you simply do not know what happens to awareness at death if you think it dies with the body-mind. To make claims that billions of examples exist of this, as your evidence, is nonsensical, since no one can know simply by observing the death of the body-mind. How would you know? If so, prove there is no awareness that survives death, if you please.

Remember, I don't think "awareness", as you and others have deified it, exists in the first place. Me saying awareness doesn't survive death implies that it at one time existed and survived, but this isn't the case. I must first be shown it exists before I can reason about the possibility of it persisting after death. So far, it cannot persist because it never existed in the first place.

If we use the dictionary, awareness is the appearance of a being awake and conscious. I say appearance because the word is an abstract nominalization, what was once an adjective turned to a noun. Awareness is a mental concept. I concede that concepts can persist in human thought and writings long after the one who thought them dies.

But awareness as something fundamental to existence?

Watch someone die. Before death, they appear aware. After death, they no longer appear aware. Quite simple.

You cannot observe that there is a such thing as awareness in the first place. You or someone else said it is unobservable, abstract and intangible. You cannot even explain what awareness exists as, let alone that it has the capability to exist before and after death. Why would you suggest that something doesn't exist in the first place, somehow exists after death, is contradictory to say the least.

Now I'm willing to accept your definition of "awareness" to move this discussion forward, but I fear you nor anyone else has a definition to offer. So either call it something else, or offer a definition to the term you are using.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Now I'm willing to accept your definition of "awareness" to move this discussion forward, but I fear you nor anyone else has a definition to offer. So either call it something else, or offer a definition to the term you are using.

"Awareness" = The state of consciously processing data. That is the only definition I recognize.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

"Awareness" = The state of consciously processing data. That is the only definition I recognize.

Yes. This works and is in accordance with its denotation. Whether this is what they are talking about or not is still unclear.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


If they are using some other definition, then it is one they have concocted on their own. It is unofficial, unauthentic, and all-around unprofessional. I don't think I need to explain how that affects the legitimacy of their arguments. They continue to vilify the ego using science and standards they themselves invented. It doesn't get more "armchair" than that.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
Yes, the fact that you only assume awareness is a product or result of the body-mind complex and I, and many others, recognize it is prior to the body-mind complex, is the twain that does not meet. This is not to say that mind, experience, observing, knowing, etc., is not the product of the body-mind complex - I am only talking about fundamental awareness itself.

Have you even considered that perhaps you are simply identifying awareness with change itself rather than recognizing that awareness is who you actually are in reality? That you simply are the witness of whatever arises and that this one does not age? If, after all this discussion, you cannot even consider that possibility (for whatever reasons you may have), then I do think further discussion of this is pointless.

Regardless, here is a post I wrote at the end of another thread of yours, LesMis, about awareness:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
"Awareness" = The state of consciously processing data. That is the only definition I recognize.

That is the brain-mind function of the observer or knower who assumes a point-of-view separate from the data or object.

Awareness is simply the witness regardless of what arises. It is not separate or abstracted from what arises, as the observer or knower is.

reply to post by bb23108

Yes, the fact that you only assume awareness is a product or result of the body-mind complex and I, and many others, recognize it is prior to the body-mind complex, is the twain that does not meet.

What's it like, being aware before you were born or even conceived?

This is not to say that mind, experience, observing, knowing, etc., is not the product of the body-mind complex - I am only talking about fundamental awareness itself.

My above question stands. Also, if you are not observing or knowing, how do you know awareness exists? Without observation or knowing, awareness cannot be said to exist.

Have you even considered that perhaps you are simply identifying awareness with change itself rather than recognizing that awareness is who you actually are in reality? That you simply are the witness of whatever arises and that this one does not age? If, after all this discussion, you cannot even consider that possibility (for whatever reasons you may have), then I do think further discussion of this is pointless.

Awareness is the state of consciously processing data. You have thus far failed to explain your own definition by which to clarify the conditions you are describing. As such, your suggestions are incompatible with the official definition of the word that you are mistakenly applying so haphazardly.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What's it like, being aware before you were born or even conceived?

What good does it do to tell you about a past life?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Also, if you are not observing or knowing, how do you know awareness exists? Without observation or knowing, awareness cannot be said to exist.

You are once again assuming that I am saying the body-mind does not have these functions of observing and knowing. It most certainly does have these other functions! See my definition. Regarding awareness, it is self-evident and does not observe itself. How would that work? How could one even as an observer, observe the observer?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You have thus far failed to explain your own definition by which to clarify the conditions you are describing. As such, your suggestions are incompatible with the official definition of the word that you are mistakenly applying so haphazardly.

I posted a definition. And really, this favorite game of yours to emotionally jump to conclusions about anyone who differs from your materialistic views is getting old. You clearly do not understand these matters, and I see no point in continuing this with you when you are mainly emotionally frustrated with this consideration.

reply to post by bb23108

What good does it do to tell you about a past life?

What good does it do you to tell me that awareness exists separately from a material process without having evidence to support your theory? I just gave you the opportunity to prove your claim. Apparently, you'd rather not.

You are once again assuming that I am saying the body-mind does not have these functions of observing and knowing. It most certainly does have these other functions! See my definition. Regarding awareness, it is self-evident and does not observe itself. How would that work? How could one even as an observer, observe the observer?

Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't.

I posted a definition. And really, this favorite game of yours to emotionally jump to conclusions about anyone who differs from your materialistic views is getting old. You clearly do not understand these matters, and I see no point in continuing this with you when you are mainly emotionally frustrated with this consideration.

Yes. I see it.

Awareness is simply the witness regardless of what arises. It is not separate or abstracted from what arises, as the observer or knower is.

aware
adjective ə-ˈwer
Definition of AWARE
1
archaic : watchful, wary
2
: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

Can you simplify your definition so it's more like the one quoted right here? Because that one makes sense. Yours doesn't. We are not awareness. We are the tool that is aware. Awareness is the experience, but the tuning fork and the vibrations are not synonymous.

I am the tuning fork. Awareness is my vibration. I am not the vibration, but I am experiencing it. I am not awareness. I am experiencing awareness. Otherwise, how would I ever remember one moment from the next? Awareness precludes memory in the awareness is a present state, incapable of recollection. Unless you mean all-around awareness?

You are way too vague. You need to be more specific instead of all this mysticism crap.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What good does it do you to tell me that awareness exists separately from a material process without having evidence to support your theory? I just gave you the opportunity to prove your claim. Apparently, you'd rather not.

Okay, I clearly remember aspects of my past life. I guess you are now convinced!

Like I said, what good does that do to tell you this?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't.

So you can observe the observer. Alright, so can you observe the observer observing the observer? This is ridiculous, but go ahead and tell us how you can.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
We are the tool that is aware.

This is the fundamental difference between the materialistic definition and the self-evident definition of many spiritual practitioners. As I have said innumerable times, the twain ain't gonna meet on this one!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You need to be more specific instead of all this mysticism crap.

You really can't help it, can you? You are too frustrated and too disrespectful to too many of us for me to continue with you. Adios.

Allow us to look at this a different way.

Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (as opposed to some other theory, such as the currently rejected Steady State theory which claimed that the universe did not have a beginning), you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause. Call this whatever you like; I will call it 'God'. Now, since time and space did not exist until after the Big Bang, God must be both beyond time and space. There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist. This means that it was causeless, that it always existed and always will.

It is quite obvious that, in order for the universe to exist as utterly complex as it does, there must be some, shall we say, 'Divine Intelligence' behind its complexity. This is made especially obvious when we look at the four Fundamental Forces of Nature, which are:

The Gravitational Force - This is the weakest of the four forces, but it is what allows matter to be attracted to, and eventually, conglomerate with, other matter. Without gravity, There would be no stars, no planets, and consequently, no life.

The Strong Force - This is what keeps subatomic particles 'attached' to atomic nuclei. Without this force, the universe would be a mess of unbound quarks, leptons and bosons. Life could absolutely not form in these conditions.

The Electromagnetic Force - This force is described by electromagnetic fields, which are determined by the negative or positive charge of subatomic particles. Without it's electromagnetic field, Earth would be under constant bombardment by solar radiation, rendering it totally lifeless.

The Weak Force - This force is one of the most complex of the four forces, but essentially, it determines whether or not a specific neutron in the nucleus of an atom will become a proton. Without this force, all atomic matter would be fundamentally identical, with no differentiation of elements. Obviously, life could not have formed in a universe like this.

It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form. It is also obvious that some unbound conscious intelligence is responsible.
But before the universe, what was there for God to be conscious of? Nothing. But God was obviously conscious.

I think the issue is that people believe that consciousness has to be conscious of something, or else it is not conscious. This is a misconception. Consciousness does not have to have a subject for it to exist.

It is now easy to understand that the term 'consciousness' is not an abstraction of some phenomena, but a term used to describe the infinite and unmanifest potential in which all phenomena can exist.
I do hope this has brought understanding to those who were previously not in the know, or otherwise did not understand.

reply to post by HarryTZ

It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form. It is also obvious that some unbound conscious intelligence is responsible.

Not if this universe is one of the longer-lasting failures in an infinite series of failures. Something of an inconstant multiverse where every universe is randomly composed of a randomized assortment of principles and particles. All will likely be failures, some will last longer than others. This universe appears to have been a success because we have nothing to compare it to in our relative ignorance. Your theory requires that we possess a complete knowledge of everything that exists, has ever existed, and ever will exist. You lack the comprehension by which to establish an objective comparison. We all do.

As such, no statement such as yours can be made as we do not yet possess all the data necessary. Hence, you cannot declare that any "God consciousness" exists for the same reason.