Nothing is real

reply to post by tkwasny


I love to talk about nothing, does that make consciousness vain?
Once consciousness recognizes itself it can not stop looking at itself, seeing itself.
There is no one who does not see consciousness.
There is no one but consciousness.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

 

Consciousness and language is all that is needed to beable to say 'I exist'. Existance is consciousness.
You are conscious are you not? What is the 'I'? 'I' is a word. There is not a 'you' and awakeness. Awakeness or conscious (ness) is what you are. They are not two things.
Consciousness thinks. Consciousness speaks. It learns language and speaking happens. This speaking that consciousness does once learned does not know how to stop speaking, verbalizing, it speaks to itself. In the thinking process there is a dialogue but who are you talking to?
This consciousness is 'I'. There is not a 'I' and a 'you'. I is one. Consciousness is the all seeing, all knowing 'I'.
Knowing is what you are. You are the knower of experience. You can only ever experience yourself having experience. What is experienced is never the 'thing'. We can not be sure there are any things as such because we can not ever experience anything outside of our experience.

Consciousness has to be but the body and mind are no more than illusionary, they are images appearing presently but changing constantly The body and mind (which is seen as thoughts appearing presently) are known by consciousness, they appear now. Now is what you really are - Presence. There is nothing but presence. Is presence a 'thing'? Is existance made of 'things'? Is consciousness a 'thing'?
Appearances appear within consciousness as consciousness presently, always presently.

edit on 26-11-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I disagree. If consciousness and language is all that is needed to be able to say I exist, then you (your consciousness) does not exist. There is no such thing as consciousness without a physical entity (and remember that energy is also part of the physical) in which it travels, at least that you or anyone could show me. Furthermore, language cannot exist without math and symbols and generally speaking, the elements. There is no such thing as language without the elements present because, as I said, there is no such thing as anything which thinks and does not have a physical existence, and physical existence requires the building blocks of the elements or forces of physics.

I may very well be consciousness, but I simply disagree that consciousness exists apart from the physical realm - I believe the two must coexist. If existence were simply "in your head" (idealist), then you could make anything you wished to happen, happen, but you cannot (or you wouldn't be on a conspiracy board, would you?). Furthermore, if existence were merely in your head (so to speak), then how do you explain your coming into being? Did you create a split personality and forget that you've always existed? I'm sorry, but that answer is far more complicated to me than the answer needs to be. I think the simpler solution is the answer, and to me that solution is the necessary coexistence of consciousness and the physical.

Again, consciousness cannot learn unless it somehow has the ability to retain information. How do you explain the retaining of information without a physical receptacle to store it in? If there is no physical receptacle to store it in, then it doesn't exist, which means there is no thinking going on.

You said, "in the thinking process there is a dialogue but who are you talking too?" It is not a dialogue, it is a series of 0s and 1s, on and off. Your brain, which does the thinking, acts like a computer. Your consciousness is not your brain, but it experiences existence through it (among its many other physical means). Think of your brain/body as the computer and your consciousness as the user.

And this, there is no "I" and "you" business. I don't buy it. I simply disagree that subjective idealism is reality, furthermore, I don't agree with the whole idea that we are "one". We are one, but we are also separate individuals, in my opinion. If all we are is one, then we are psychotic - that is all I have to say about that.

To me, consciousness is like spacetime and the physical is the other three dimensions. Neither makes much sense without the other. Hence, there must be the observer and the observed, and they may be one, but they may not be the same via the Law of Noncontradiction. Something cannot be what it is not; therefore, it is an impossibility to be both the observer and the observation.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


good that there are some smart folks here that represent right people outside which could b not very much interested to talk about nothing nor to know that right is to hell forever just bc there is a god nothing

reply to post by absolutely


it is such pervert lie to dare say that i or u exist objectively, clearly only for that god

as what insolence allow one to say that he is one by possessing everything and not one him out of all so always nothing but him constant

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Tindalos2013

 

Actually I prefer to think that it is NOTHING which is unreal. Recent scientific discoveries suggest that there is no such thing as empty space, the vacuum of our Universe is filled with virtual particles which come in and out of existence. So it is the idea of nothing which is the impossibility, not the idea of reality. No Such Thing as Empty Space

I was amazed when i first read this a few weeks ago. This is a topic to take very serious. We all know there is a something where we think there is nothing. Fascinating at the least.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


The observed can not be observed without the observer present. It sounds like two doesn't it, obsevered and observer but they can not be separate, there is no line between them. Apparent 'objects' change but the observer is constant throughout. The only one that has real validity is the observer.
You are/this is.
Consciousness is the container for all appearances including the phantom 'me'. 'Me' is just an appearance that is seen when the thought 'me' arises. It arises in consciousness.
Consciousness is now, it is presence.

There are not separate consciousness's. There is the 'one' doing everything, it is the unified field. Is there someone doing this moment or is it just here, is it just present?
Language is where it all goes horribly wrong because language says that there is an 'I' that is separate from what is happening (what is here). And if i believe in a separate 'I' then there must be 'things' that aren't 'I'. Division, fragmentation and conflict is the result of this 'thinking'. Life hurts because it has been built on a lie.
The truth shall set you free.

Great thread - at least I'm sure it would be if I hadn't imbibed too much of 'the grape' and could understand it.
Put in laymans terms there is such a thing as objective reality.
An elderly lady got mugged not far from here and is now fighting for her life in hospital - FACT
'The world is a terrible place'. I don't have the intelligence/perspective to know whether this is true as an objective fact. Personal experiences and subjective perception could lead one in either direction.

Just in my immediate neighbourhood we have very mixed circumstances. And our subjective experience/handling of even objective fact differs. In that sense we have different realities.
But there is such a thing as objective fact. We have to learn the difference.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


look at the observed/observer issue as u and things, u are absolute dimension to a relative thing, that is why when u mean to use it it moves from where it would b directed to absolute sense meaning it, so as it could b of that realm existence

so the problem is when we know that higher absolute dimension is meaning us, they use us as things while we mean getting to exist for sure we are killed until it becomes definitive and even worse is to expect since eternal hell is what is preached from god to justify his life

in true reality dimension, freedom is the exclusive variable, there u can mean the other u see or seeing u but it wont minus any of what u always are, in freedom dimension only the plus is the reason of objective smthg while u can get back to ur past free state anytime u want

conscious or consciousness is nothing to any truth, what matter there is only the proof of free sense so free stand still out of all objective which confirm existence as being a fact out of positive present absolute free logics that allow out of its constancy else free senses ones existence

reply to post by Tindalos2013


Your formal line of logical reasoning about whether reality is subjective or objective is faulty because your conclusion that reality is subjective is not logically entailed by your observations that we have limited sensory ranges and by your examples of variations in sensory ranges. Your line of reasoning implicitly suggests that you assume that if we had full sensory access, that is access to all the sensory spectrums, reality would be objective, but you observe that we don't have such, and conclude from that lack that reality is subjective.

You understand that humans are not omniscient, that we cannot perceive the whole of reality, only its parts, because our sensory ranges are limited, that is, more narrow than the full spectrums. Yet, you conclude from that lack that reality is subjective. That comparatively members of various species have distinct, limited sensory ranges, and that potentially some members of the same species could have slight variations in their sensory ranges, and thus perceive things abnormally indicates only that perception is psychologically subjective at least insofar as we do not not all hold exactly the same cognitive resources. Perception depends on one's particular perspective of existential constraint which is based on various experiential, social, biological, and cognitive resources. The only thing that is logically entailed by your observation about our limited sensory ranges is that one's perception is limited and subjectively constrained, and of course it is.

What you need to add to your reasoning process is that knowledge that reality is objective is easily accessed only by an omniscient mind, while minds that lack omniscience are prone to misidentifying perception as reality and thus get tricked into believing that reality is subjective and, even worse, consequently into relativism. So, while our perception is limited to what each of our brains, social learning, and cultural programming allows us to perceive, the nature of reality itself is not affected by our lack of cognitive capacity to fully access all possible sensory information about it. That reality is not entirely knowable by us does not indicate that reality is itself subjective; it only means that we can only have a subjectively constrained perspective on reality.

Reality is not what we think it is,,,,,,,,,Reality is what we think.....We think therfore it exsists ....If a tree falls in a forest an no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?.....The squirell it nearly landed on said it made a helluva crash...............

What Lucidia said........Very Lucid...............

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Its not possable to have nothing unless there is something..Its impossable for something to be empty unless something full exsists , Its not possable to contradict without contradictions.............

reply to post by Lucidia


no lucidia, we can know whole reality more then what u call omniscient or absolute free energy, bc we are real necessary from what they are first so we must realize ourselves objectively for being ourselves free sense

the problem is not there, but the problem is what they force us to inferiority away from our potentials our rights and our truth, and only for their oness life that they reach to end as meaning living only by abusing us

we are the center of their life

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
it is pretty good still is nothing to god as well .

reply to post by ecossiepossie


If you look around your room you will say that you see separate 'things', a monitor, a keyboard, walls etc. But really what you are seeing is an image, one image, but as humans we separate the one image that is seen into many, many separate 'things'. The world seems to be full of lots of different separate 'things'. The 'things' could be called the content of your experience. There are many 'things' in your experience but only one experience, one image. The one image that is your experience right now is one 'thing' but it is not really a 'thing'.
The 'thing' that is not a 'thing' is this present moment and you combined. You might 'think' you are a 'thing' but really you are occuring, you are happening.
The happening is always occuring presently.
There are no 'things' as such. The human has ability to build a 3d world of 'things' out of this nowness, this nothingness (no thingness).
There is 'this', 'this', 'this', 'this'. Out of the appearances we construct a solid 'real' world (residual image). There is no solid world, even scientists will tell you that they have not found any mass (matter) yet.
The only real thing is now, presence. Can presence be called a thing?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

There is no solid world

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Ok, you got me stumped. What is the message you are trying to convey?
Where do you think the anger comes from?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Ok, you got me stumped. What is the message you are trying to convey?
Where do you think the anger comes from?

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


It is all very well posting quotes but what are 'you' saying? What is your interpretation?
Are you saying there is a solid world?
Or do 'you' have nothing to say?

Originally posted by ecossiepossie
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Its not possable to have nothing unless there is something..Its impossable for something to be empty unless something full exsists , Its not possable to contradict without contradictions.............

what u fail to admit is that what is impossible, so no possessable is what exist, bc what is not possessable is surely bc of truth so really present free

what u can possess is at least related to ur free energy presence, it is surely a relative fact while its possessed end prove it

but there is smthg wrong in ur sentence there, despite the fact that ur present mean is not wrong and could b the reason of what it makes it sound right

any is only absolutely, but if any is absolute fact then all is any too

so nothing is not something
and never related to

nothing is also absolutely so it is the else

now the contradiction could b bc of those complete else fact, which explain evil ends that prevail by killing nothing and smthg, which become the third else fact