Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[TimeSeeker]

What is 'aware' of the thought in the brain? what 'knows' there is a thought in the brain?

I am aware. What am I? Where am I?

The IDEA of I exist in a brain.
Thoughts exist in a brain.

Am I a thought?
What is a thought?

This is Russel's paradox in set theory.

[Atla]

In the broadest of meanings - I agree with you (but we have to get to the particulars at some point). Either way - this is good enough to say then that objectivity is the product of observation/measurement, interpretation/deduction AND consensus. Which is broadly what the system of science is.

If both of us observe that perspectivism is subjectively true AND both of us agree to that then perspectivism is ‘objectively’ true within the system containing only two nodes: You and Me.

Lets expand this system and add another node: You <---> REALITY <----> Me

This is a system. A three-node system. Which is isomorphic to the Distributed consensus problem in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And we have various strategies for solving it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(computer_science)

Soo what happens when you apply consensus on a planet where the vast majority believe in a personal God, and then call the consensus objective?

[Dontaskme]

Timeseeker, your approach to this simple realisation is too technical and intellectual, which actually takes the attention away from what is being pointed to which is direct experience.

This can be put into words, but its very difficult and even more difficult for others to comprehend until they too have had direct experience of what is being disccused albeit in a messy kind of way since what we are talking about is the Absolute silence that is Infinity.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Soo what happens when you apply consensus on a planet where the vast majority believe in a personal God, and then call the consensus objective?

Then you are speaking different languages (metaphysical of otherwise).

Before you agree or disagree first you need to understand what the meaning of the words 'believe' and 'god' are. Which has been agreed upon by majority alien consensus. If you want to communicate with them - first you need to learn their language.

The vast majority of humans believe in objective truth (God by another name). Try and convince them it doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, the onus is on the smarter entity to adapt their language and blend in.

[TimeSeeker]

Timeseeker, your approach to this simple realisation is too technical and intellectual, which actually takes the attention away from what is being pointed to which is direct experience.

Nonsense. What about the direct experience of one's own thoughts, feelings, emotions, senses, conceptions and calculations? The direct experience of one's own cognition?

I recognize and assert them to be real. My 'technical and intellectual' approach is just the language I use to DESCRIBE my cognition as best as I can.

Like all language - it is incomplete. As Gödel has shown this to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

Because it is impossible to describe my cognition completely and exhaustively, due to pragmatic considerations I label the whole thing with one word.

I

[Dontaskme]

What is 'aware' of the thought in the brain? what 'knows' there is a thought in the brain?

I am aware. What am I? Where am I?

The IDEA of I exist in a brain.
Thoughts exist in a brain.

The reason people say a thought is in the brain is because they really have no idea where a thought is
so they say the obvious place ..which is the thought is in ''me'' my brain, the thing that is ''me''

Yet they do not know where the ''me'' is even....they call the ''me'' a brain function because the brain is a seen and known thing. So that's all they have to identify with.

They say I am that seen thing, aka the brain... but then they are still left with the big question mark ..if they are the brain, how does the brain see and know anything?

You see, there is no seer or knower inside the brain that can be seen and known?

.

[TimeSeeker]

The reason people say a thought is in the brain is because they really have no idea where a thought is
so they say the obvious place ..which is the thought is in ''me'' my brain, the thing that is ''me''

Yet they do not know where the ''me'' is even....they call the ''me'' a brain function because the brain is a seen and known thing. So that's all they have to identify with.

They say I am that seen thing, aka the brain... but then they are still left with the big question mark ..if they are the brain, how does the brain see and know anything?

.

Emergence. Minds are emergent properties of brains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Dontaskme]

Emergence. Minds are emergent properties of brains.

Emergence of what?

[TimeSeeker]

Emergence. Minds are emergent properties of brains.

Emergence of what?

Minds.

[Dontaskme]

Emergence. Minds are emergent properties of brains.

Emergence of what?

Minds.

And so does the mind exist?

[TimeSeeker]

And so does the mind exist?

Not THE mind.

Minds exist. Plural. Your mind exists. My mind exists.

A mind is a TYPE of thing that exists. From Type theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

[Dontaskme]

Timeseeker, your approach to this simple realisation is too technical and intellectual, which actually takes the attention away from what is being pointed to which is direct experience.

Nonsense. What about the direct experience of one's own thoughts, feelings, emotions, senses, conceptions and calculations? The direct experience of one's own cognition?

What I meant was we don't need ''knowledge'' to have direct experience of the Absolute Infinity that is reality.

.

[Dontaskme]

And so does the mind exist?

Not THE mind.

Minds exist. Plural. Your mind exists. My mind exists.

A mind is a TYPE of thing that exists. From Type theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

So existence is?

...existence is not impossible, in that its always possible..possibilty?

.

[Dontaskme]

Timeseeker, your approach to this simple realisation is too technical and intellectual, which actually takes the attention away from what is being pointed to which is direct experience.

Nonsense. What about the direct experience of one's own thoughts, feelings, emotions, senses, conceptions and calculations? The direct experience of one's own cognition?

My point was, you don't experience your thoughts, you are the thought.

You don't experience your feelings, you are the feelings, you don't experience your senses, you are the senses. You don't experience cognition, you are the cognising.

This is what's meant by direct experience. To see that you are the experience and the experiencer in the same instant, there is no division where there is a ''you'' and then there is a ''thought'' in that ''YOU'' ..rather, its ALL YOU

All that knowledge does it it informs I ..I am this, and I am that, it informs the illusory nature of the I being a ''something''

The I is not a thing, yet appears as all things, albeit illusory...

Do you see this?

.

[TimeSeeker]

My point was, you don't experience your thoughts, you are the thought.

You don't experience your feelings, you are the feelings, you don't experience your senses, you are the senses. You don't experience cognition, you are the cognising.

This is what's meant by direct experience. To see that you are the experience and the experiencer in the same instant, there is no division where there is a ''you'' and then there is a ''thought'' in that ''YOU'' ..rather, its ALL YOU

I am thought and thought is me? That's tautological.
What is 'thought' ?

I am feelings and feelings are me?
What are feelings?

Yes. It is all "me". The collective noun for all of me I use is "I". The collective noun for all of me you use is "You".