How to Achieve Non-Dualism Intellectually?

[TimeSeeker]

That's what free will means...intention is the rider of the will...will (am-ness)

Choosing not to choose is still intention.

The will has freed itself from choice. Hence - a passenger.

[Dontaskme]

That's what free will means...intention is the rider of the will...will (am-ness)

Choosing not to choose is still intention.

The will has freed itself from choice. Hence - a passenger.

That would still be no one choosing to choose or to not choose.

No one is a passenger on their own ship.

You are making the mistake of mistaking the contents of consciousness for consciousness itself.

.

[TimeSeeker]

You are making the mistake of mistaking the contents of consciousness for consciousness itself.

Who is this "no one" asserting my mistake?

A no one drawing a distinction between right and wrong? No one is questioning nature’s programming?

Tsk tsk.

[Dontaskme]

You are making the mistake of mistaking the contents of consciousness for consciousness itself.

Who is this "no one" asserting my mistake?

A no one drawing a distinction between right and wrong? No one is questioning nature’s programming?

Tsk tsk.

It's a distinction between consciousness and its contents which such a distinction doesn't actually exist.

.

[TimeSeeker]

It's a distinction between consciousness and its contents which such a distinction doesn't actually exist.

Who is saying that it does?

[Dontaskme]

It's a distinction between consciousness and its contents which such a distinction doesn't actually exist.

Who is saying that it does?

No one.

But assumptions are made all the time, they are appearances.

.

[TimeSeeker]

It's a distinction between consciousness and its contents which such a distinction doesn't actually exist.

Who is saying that it does?

No one.

But assumptions are made all the time, they are appearances.

.

So can no one assume they know mistakes from non-mistakes?

Wouldn’t that be challenging nature’s programme?

[Belinda]

There is a distinction between consciousness and its contents.

A neuroscientist who describes and explains the biological bases of the several ways to be conscious is distinguishing between consciousness and its contents.

If the neuroscientist works in concert with a psychiatrist the psychiatrist can relay the symptoms of someone who is troubled. For instance a man who is troubled by hallucinations tells the psychiatrist his symptoms i.e. the content of his hallucinations, and those are of interest to both of the experts who explain the hallucinations; the neuroscientist explains in the language of material brain and the psychiatrist explains in the language of mind. There is no inconsistency, and the two experts combine their explanations to treat the patient. Neuroscience provides the appropriate medication and psychiatry provides reassurance and understanding.

Briefly, consciousness is part of the language of extended matter i.e. brain and the contents of consciousness are part of the language of mind.Both languages are proper to us because we experience extended matter and we also experience mind.

[surreptitious57]

Neuroscience and psychiatry are entirely separate disciplines responsible for treating different types of brain disorders
Neuroscience deals with conditions that can be reduced or eliminated by surgery while psychiatry deals with conditions
that can be reduced or eliminated by therapy and / or medication and since they are separate they tend not to overlap

[TimeSeeker]

Neuroscience and psychiatry are entirely separate disciplines responsible for treating different types of brain disorders
Neuroscience deals with conditions that can be reduced or eliminated by surgery while psychiatry deals with conditions
that can be reduced or eliminated by therapy and / or medication and since they are separate they tend not to overlap

They are only separate in so far as we haven't established how higher order phenomena (minds, consciousness, anxiety, depression etc.) emerge from lower order neurotransmissions.

One day when we are smarter the distinction ought to be unnecessary.

[Atla]

Source Energy manifesting itself is a delusional story. Separateness is also a delusional story.

Non-separability was experimentally verified, so proper non-dualism is fact (well unless we subscribe to some brain-in-a-vat simulated universe smartassery instead). It pretty much singlehandedly debunks most of Western philosophy.

[TimeSeeker]

Source Energy manifesting itself is a delusional story. Separateness is also a delusional story.

Non-separability was experimentally verified, so proper non-dualism is fact (well unless we subscribe to some brain-in-a-vat simulated universe smartassery instead). It pretty much singlehandedly debunks most of Western philosophy.

The brain in a vat is not an argument against non-dualism. It's untestable/unfalsifiable and so it's not even wrong.

[Atla]

Source Energy manifesting itself is a delusional story. Separateness is also a delusional story.

Non-separability was experimentally verified, so proper non-dualism is fact (well unless we subscribe to some brain-in-a-vat simulated universe smartassery instead). It pretty much singlehandedly debunks most of Western philosophy.

The brain in a vat is not an argument against non-dualism. It's untestable/unfalsifiable and so it's not even wrong.

You somehow manage to conflate like 3-5 different contexts even in such a short comment.

[TimeSeeker]

Source Energy manifesting itself is a delusional story. Separateness is also a delusional story.

Non-separability was experimentally verified, so proper non-dualism is fact (well unless we subscribe to some brain-in-a-vat simulated universe smartassery instead). It pretty much singlehandedly debunks most of Western philosophy.

The brain in a vat is not an argument against non-dualism. It's untestable/unfalsifiable and so it's not even wrong.

You somehow manage to conflate like 3-5 different contexts even in such a short comment.

The irony.

A ‘non-dualist’ talking about ‘context conflation’.

[Atla]

The brain in a vat is not an argument against non-dualism. It's untestable/unfalsifiable and so it's not even wrong.

You somehow manage to conflate like 3-5 different contexts even in such a short comment.

The irony.

A ‘non-dualist’ talking about ‘context conflation’.

Plus you don't even understand what nondualism is about. The "irony".