Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

[surreptitious57]

Can you please let me know your definition of mind and the one that owns this mind ?

I cannot seriously answer such a complex question as that but I wish someone else would
So then I might have some basic idea as to what a mind actually was and also what it did

There are two members who speak with knowledge on this but they are way above my head
I find it hard to understand what she is saying because I cannot see it the way that she does

[Age]

You can freely choose between all available potential / possible alternatives

Can you? How many potential alternatives can you weigh up before deciding on one of them?
Are you aware that there is an infinite number of so called "choices" unfolding every moment... and again the next?
And you really think you can choose freely between all of them?

There is no chooser independent of the mind of the one making the choices

This sounds contradictory to me.
You say that there is no chooser, but then you go on saying that there is a "one" that is making choices via the mind...
To me, this sounds like this "one" is an independent chooser, right?

Can you please let me know your definition of "mind" and the "one" that owns this mind?

alexw just wondering, when you ask these questions are you yet aware of what the actual answers are?

[Age]

Thought happens in thought? Sorry, I don’t understand...

You don't have to understand everything. At some point you just have to accept that certain things are beyond language or human understanding and the law of non-contradiction is a pipe dream thanks to the incompleteness of human knowledge.

That is just what you BELIEVE. It is NOT necessarily true, nor even close to being somewhat true.

Thought is an emergent property. It happens in brains.
I conceptualize my mind (and this is where your brain misfires because of the recursion) as an Oracle machine.
It is a conceptual and pragmatic truth. A necessary evil to enable model-constructive thought.

Kolmogorov and Tarski explained to us why a machine cannot describe itself so I am well aware that my conception of my own mind is just a model...

I do NOT need people to tell me why you are totally unable to understand some things. The reason why you do NOT understand is OBVIOUS.

[AlexW]

when you ask these questions are you yet aware of what the actual answers are?

Yes.
But it doesn’t help anyone to trumpet them out.
People have to look themselves and find their own answers. I think it does help to point out where to look, but looking they must do on their own.

[Age]

Do you think using words like "idiot" somehow makes your made up conclusions more right?

Wrong again, calling idiots idiots helps keep things in perspective.

Fair enough. If that is the perspective you have, then so be it.

(What about the other obvious "footnote"? Have you considered that one also? If not, then why not? That "footnote", by the way, is the actual Truth of things. Why have you not worked out what the Truth is yet?)


For the readers, I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum. I do this to point out and SHOW how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings, in the days of when this is written. However, curiosity usually jumps to the forefront when some things are written. We will wait and see.

All you show the "readers" is your insanity. Again: curiosity doesn't lead to discovering some magical "actual Truth of things" that you think you have access to.

Once again, more evidence that curiosity is complete gone, to some adults.

I told you this about 20 times now.

Do you think that the more you say some thing the more truer it becomes?

Do you actual think that just because you say some thing often then others are going to accepted it as being true?

Why do you think you failed to grasp it 20 times?

Do you really think just because you say one does not possess some thing then that in and of itself makes it true?

Just because you BELIEVE some thing that does NOT mean it is true. Without any actual evidence for what you are saying then it is just what you BELIEVE is true.

I grasp what you are saying, that is very easy to grasp and understand. The actual Truth of it is what is in question.

Then you would have to admit to yourself that you're just another nutcase with a huge delusion.

When you prove that I do NOT have an actual Truth of things, then you have proven that. But can you prove what you are saying is correct without any actual evidence?

If I have an actual huge, or small, delusion we will have to wait and see. It will become clear and obvious soon enough. Until then just remember that what you now BELIEVE is true may NOT be what the 'actual Truth of things' IS at all.

Unless of course you have some access (magical or not) to the 'actual Truth of things'. Do you?

[Atla]

Do you think using words like "idiot" somehow makes your made up conclusions more right?

Wrong again, calling idiots idiots helps keep things in perspective.

Fair enough. If that is the perspective you have, then so be it.

(What about the other obvious "footnote"? Have you considered that one also? If not, then why not? That "footnote", by the way, is the actual Truth of things. Why have you not worked out what the Truth is yet?)


For the readers, I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum. I do this to point out and SHOW how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings, in the days of when this is written. However, curiosity usually jumps to the forefront when some things are written. We will wait and see.

All you show the "readers" is your insanity. Again: curiosity doesn't lead to discovering some magical "actual Truth of things" that you think you have access to.

Once again, more evidence that curiosity is complete gone, to some adults.

I told you this about 20 times now.

Do you think that the more you say some thing the more truer it becomes?

Do you actual think that just because you say some thing often then others are going to accepted it as being true?

Why do you think you failed to grasp it 20 times?

Do you really think just because you say one does not possess some thing then that in and of itself makes it true?

Just because you BELIEVE some thing that does NOT mean it is true. Without any actual evidence for what you are saying then it is just what you BELIEVE is true.

I grasp what you are saying, that is very easy to grasp and understand. The actual Truth of it is what is in question.

Then you would have to admit to yourself that you're just another nutcase with a huge delusion.

When you prove that I do NOT have an actual Truth of things, then you have proven that. But can you prove what you are saying is correct without any actual evidence?

If I have an actual huge, or small, delusion we will have to wait and see. It will become clear and obvious soon enough. Until then just remember that what you now BELIEVE is true may NOT be what the 'actual Truth of things' IS at all.

Unless of course you have some access (magical or not) to the 'actual Truth of things'. Do you?

You need to prove it you sick fucktard that you have this magical knowledge.
Every other sick fucktard who made such claims in history was delusional / shown to be a charlatan. You haven't shown anything either so far that would prove otherwise.

[surreptitious57]

For the readers I very rarely if ever explain things fully in this forum . I do this to point out and SHOW
how curiosity is just about all but lost to adult human beings in the days of when this is written

I am not really that interested in being curious unless the answer is something that is already there
I just want to hear and see the thoughts of others with as little judgement upon my part as possible

[Age]

The moon is a KNOWN conceptual perception (an appearance) within the perceiver.
( ''within'' ) being the important factor here. In that an appearance is not actually external to you, everything that appears to be outside of you is actually appearing within you, inseparable from you. ''YOU'' being the first person subjective consciousness.

To 'you', how many 'you's' are there?

ONE

Okay. So, there is only one 'you'.

Now, considering the connotation of the word 'you' and it implying/inferring another, and/or a separate, human being could there be a better word to use here to infer Oneness other than the 'you' word?

The word 'you' is used to refer to an-other. What is a better word to use that refers to One?

Without a conscious observer no thing can possibly KNOWS it exists. Therefore, consciousness is the only knowing there is. And there is nothing outside of that KNOWING.

Why do 'you' propose such a thing?

If, as you propose, consciousness is the only knowing, then why do 'you' say that there can NOT be thing outside of consciousness?

Because consciousness is all there is, it's without beginning or end, it's infinity now.

There is nothing outside of infinity. And nothing inside it either, for what is inside/outside except as a known concept arising here now in consciousness that has no known begining nor end...which is another term for everything and nothing existing simultaneously here now infinitely for eternity.

Just because a thing is infinite that does not mean that it is not made up of separate and different labelled parts.

'you' say consciousness has no known beginning nor end, which is just stating that 'consciousness is infinite'. Now, that is fine. However, 'you' then state that that is just another term for everything and nothing existing simultaneously here now infinitely for eternity.

What do you mean by 'everything' when you also state that 'consciousness' is all there is. When you use the word 'everything' do 'you' just mean 'consciousness'?

Also, the word 'everything' can imply there are many different things. But according to 'you' this is an impossibility, correct?

If yes, then why use words that confuse that what you are trying to express?

Why not just express the Truth without using words that confuse and complicate what is really very simple and easy to understand?

Concepts are relative to itself only which is 'not a thing' formless consciousness appearing as a formed thing or put another way, form is relative to itself only aka formless source, the shapeless formless being the ultimate shapeshifter that can take on many forms while it itself is formless ..forms being illusions of the formless.

Fair enough. But WHY the seeming absurd and confusing language?

This can be explained in a much simpler and easier way.

If, for example, there is consciousness/knowing of a "moon", then surely that would suggest that there is A thing outside of the consciousness/knowing, right?

See above answer.

But 'you' just explained WHAT happens, which is already OBVIOUS. You did NOT explain how nor why it happens like that.

Why not explain HOW this happens, and then also explain WHY it happens this way?

If a conscious observer is seeing things, then that suggests that there ARE things, to see and observe, correct?

A conscious observer is not the seer, it is the seeing that cannot be seen, it's a verb. What is seen is what is seeing, there is no separation.

If the formless consciousness, as 'you' propose, takes on many forms, and these forms are 'illusions' of the formless consciousness, then WHERE do the illusions come from and WHY does the one 'you', within the illusion of "human beings", take on the same 'dis-illusioned' forms.

WHY do 'you' take on so many forms?

What is the purpose of 'you' to take on so many forms, which are just illusions anyway?

There is no moon without a perceiver present to perceive it...and the moon will only be a KNOWN conceptual appearance within the perceiver that must be first, so the moon does not and cannot exist outside or external to the perceiver...

Why are you saying and/or suggesting that there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver? What evidence do you have for this?

Direct experience is the only evidence and it's not even evidence, it doesn't need evidence ..IT IS... NO such need for evidence for that would require a prover, but it's totally self evident via direct experience, no need for a prover, it doesn't require or need a middle man. Everything perceived can only be known if there is a preceiver present aware of itself as known. I am that instantaneous knowing when that knowing arises here.[/quote]

But 'you' are NOT even presently aware of 'you'. If 'you' were, then 'you' would be known.

How many perceiver's are there existing?

ONE

Who/what is A 'perceiver'?

It's not a who or a what... It just IS...

Where does a perceiver exist?

Everyhwere and Nowhere simultaneously.

How long have perceiver/s been existing for?

Time is a known conceptual idea, a thought appearance within timeless infinity..aka consciousness perceiving and knowing itself.

Where do perceiver/s come from if there is absolutely NOTHING without a perceiver first?

Perceiver and Percieved are one in the same instant which is NOW...NOW is the only place there is. This is it, source right here now manifesting all at once.

Yes, ALL of this is already KNOWN.

If the one replying can NOT answer the actual questions, then so be it. We will just leave it at that.

By the way, the word 'perceiver' implies one that has seen, and, the word 'perceived' implies some thing that has been seen.

Now, if all there is IS One consciousness and there is nothing outside nor inside of that One, then there is nothing to be perceived nor is there a perceiver. So, using the words 'perceiver' and/or 'perceived' is just going to confuse that what is NOT confusing.

the moon is inside the perceiver, so both the moon and that which is perceiving the moon do not and cannot possibly exist separately in the same sense that wetness does not exist separate from water.

So, A perceiver encompasses absolutely EVERY thing, and ALWAYS HAS, that is if THINGS have always existed also, correct? If, however, THINGS have not always existed and there still needed to be a perceiver FIRST, then in what shape and/or form was the perciever existing in, prior to 'things', which could be observed, coming into existence? But, if things ONLY exist because of A perceiver, then that would mean that while A perceiver is existing, then so are ALL the "other" things, which you say are inseparable from the perceiver.

The perceiver doesn't have a form, it's formless shapeless conciousness taking the shape of shape and form according to what concept /perception is placed upon itself.[/quote]

How can a formless and shapeless thing like consciousness have a concept/perception PLACED upon itself if there is NO other thing.

For any thing to have some thing PLACED UPON IT, that infers that there is some thing ELSE.

Again you are using confusing words to explain the extremely simple.

Any relationship or division between observer and observed is purely conceptual, so all concepts are illusory fictional characters within the infinite observer, therefore a character does not and cannot exist in and of itself separate from the perceiver/ KNOWER..which is CONSCIOUSNESS.

Back to; How many actual perceiver's/KNOWER's are there, to 'you'?

ONE

If you want to come across as KNOWING what you are talking about and that you are actually true, right, and correct, then you have to be able to clear up any and all seemingly perceived contradictions and/or absurdities. If not for "others" but for YOU.

Any contradiction is a mental illusory projection of the mind,

But there is NO mind as there is ONLY consciousness. Consciousness is the only knowing and there is nothing outside nor inside of consciousness as consciousness is infinite.

mind being an aspect of consciousness, projection is the content of consciousness itself knowing itself, the mind being the sense of separation, the dual aspect of nondual consciousness.

How could there be a mind and it being the sense of separation when there is nothing separate from consciousness. If there appears to be a separate mind, which causes a "sense of separation', then that would be consciousness, itself, doing it. For surely a mind could not cause a sense of separation because, according to 'your' logic, there is ONLY consciousness.

WHY can the one writing this NOT see the absurdity and confusion in 'their' writings, when consciousness can very easily recognize and see them?

ALL the answers to these questions are already KNOWN and are very simple and easy.

If, as according to the writer, there is ONLY consciousness, then if there is any apparent separation, then that would be the cause or result of the one and ONLY consciousness, obviously

Because, according to 'you', there is ONLY one 'you', which is the infinite consciousness, then surely 'you' (of ALL) would KNOW how to explain, what is after all Truly very simple and easy to understand, very simply and easily, by NOW?

'You' have, after all, had an infinite time to learn how to communicate better what IS the actual real Truth, and what is really extremely very simple and easy to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

Your own mind is getting in the way causing the consciousness that you already are to appear twice as in ''I know I am consciousness'' but that knowing I am is a conceptual thought appearing to itself only the only knowing there is... which is consciousness.

But there is ONLY one 'you'. So, who/what are 'you' talking and referring to when 'you' say " 'Your' own mind".

The one writing here really needs to learn how to communicate their own conceptual ideas if they Truly want to be understood and have their OWN ideas accepted.

Consciousness ALREADY realizes, understands, and KNOWS what IS thee Truth, that there is ONLY consciousness, and which is the ONE and ONLY One.

Unfortunately though this One gets mislabeled as a 'you', which only causes more confusion and misunderstanding.

Nondual Consciousness and the contents of Consciousness (the duality of split mind the unknown knower)... are the same ONE consciousness interacting with itself appearing to itself appearing as two, but not two.

And yes, the concept of ONE thing existing is absurd, and yet here it is. Ta Da!

.

But the concept of ONLY ONE thing existing is NOT absurd at all. What is Truly absurd is the way the One thing gets describes as.

The conceptually described way that the ONE and ONLY thing, which exists, gets describes here is very contradictory and absurd.

Again, there is NO need to confuse and make complex what IS really very simple.

[Age]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon. Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

The moon as you see it, from the physical eyes, does not exist anymore. That moon has already changed in shape and form. So, I do NOT know if the moon exists, at any current moment.

Fair enough.
So, suppose you're looking at the Moon in the sky, would you say you'd know that the Moon at least has existed at some point in the past, say, perhaps a bit more than a second ago, for example?
EB

No, I would say that I have witnessed some thing, which is generally known as the 'moon'. I would NOT say that I would know that the moon existed at some point in the past, because I do NOT know this for sure.

[Age]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

You only THINK that the moon exists. You do NOT KNOW this for sure.

Ok, so, is there anything you know?
EB

Yes, the thoughts within this head.

[Age]

Moon
1. The natural satellite of Earth, visible by reflection of sunlight and having a slightly elliptical orbit, approximately 363,100 kilometers (225,600 miles) distant at perigee and 405,700 kilometers (252,100 miles) at apogee. Its mean diameter is 3,475 kilometers (2,159 miles), its mass approximately one eightieth that of Earth, and its average period of revolution around Earth 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes calculated with respect to the sun.

Do you know that the Moon, as described here, exists outside your mind?
EB

What you are describing aka a 'Moon' is knowledge, it's a concept known. There is nothing outside of knowledge, language, that can be known.

There is no 'your' mind, or any thing outside of mind.. there is only mind and the contents..ie: thoughts, knowledge etc.

Did you say earlier that consciousness is all there is and any contradiction is a mental illusory projection of the mind, and that the mind being the sense of separation, the dual aspect of nondual consciousness?

If yes, then why did you write this above?
If no, then what did you write earlier?

The mind cannot be conceived of, for it is the source of conception.As the Unknowable, Knowing is known.

The Mind can be and has already been conceived of this is because the Mind is also already KNOWN, for what It Truly IS.

The ONE and ONLY 'you' already KNOWS this.

The Moon is an object. All objects 'exist' only as mental conceptions within the knowing which is one with Consciousness.

If Consciousness is all there is, which is what you stated earlier, then how can there be "other" 'objects'?

And, how can there be 'knowing' and 'it' be one with Consciousness if Consciousness is all there is? If there is nothing outside of Consciousness, then there can NOT be one with Conscious.

There is nothing outside of Consciousness.

So, how could there be one with Consciousness? Either Consciousness is all there is or there are other things, like 'knowing', which are one with Consciousness. What is it going to be?

Consciousness does not experience directly an external world out there, because there is no external world apart from Consciousness itself.

.

If there is ONLY 'Consciousness' and ONLY ONE 'you', which is thee ONE 'perceiver', then how come 'you' do NOT yet KNOW how to communicate and be understood with and by the ONE and ONLY 'you'?

[Dontaskme]

Consciousness ALREADY realizes, understands, and KNOWS what IS thee Truth, that there is ONLY consciousness, and which is the ONE and ONLY One.

Yes, that's what I have already said.

Unfortunately though this One gets mislabeled as a 'you', which only causes more confusion and misunderstanding.

'You' is just another label for the unamed one. It's doesn't matter what name is given to the unamed one ..lables are referential to itself, no self.
I aka consciousness the nameless one have no image of myself. The image of myself is what I imagine in the form of a conceptual label ( a thought) which is an illusory conceptual overlay upon the ineffable nameless one aka (Empty Consciousness appearing Full)

But the concept of ONLY ONE thing existing is NOT absurd at all. What is Truly absurd is the way the One thing gets describes as.

I agree, Words are crap, but what the heck, Divine crap.

No word can define 'what is', or every word defines 'it'.

The conceptually described way that the ONE and ONLY thing, which exists, gets describes here is very contradictory and absurd.

Again, there is NO need to confuse and make complex what IS really very simple.

I agree, that which is very simple can be very complicated, and that which is very complicated can be very simple.

.

[Dontaskme]

If Consciousness is all there is, which is what you stated earlier, then how can there be "other" 'objects'?

And, how can there be 'knowing' and 'it' be one with Consciousness if Consciousness is all there is? If there is nothing outside of Consciousness, then there can NOT be one with Conscious.

Being one with consciousness is just referring to itself, it's self referential. In that all objects are not outside of the subject, both subject and object are one with each other, two sides of the same coin.

When the subject and object duality collapses upon self realisation that consciousness is all there is, and there is no other, then that's nondual realisation.

.

[Age]

It's amazing the number of words that happen to not mean anything these days. Is that some kind of virus you're all infected with?!

Do you write your comments in French and then use Google translate or something? You don't seem to know how to use English words..

Here is what "subjective" means:
Subjective
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman).
So, either you don't speak English or you don't understand it.

The point of a philosophical discussion is to debate for example which meaning of "subjective" is most likely to be correct.

Is that the 'point' of ALL philosophical discussion, to you?

To some, that is NOT at all the point of philosophical discussions. In fact that is seen by some to be the exact opposite of a philosophical discussion.

Certain? I am asking if you think you know the Moon exists. What is it you don't understand in there? Simple question, answer yes or no.

Well I assumed that your question had a point, that the topic had a point, maybe, as it was posted on a philosophy forum. Guess it doesn't?
Okay, I'm about 98% sure that the Moon exists.

But earlier you stated: Of course I know it for sure, idiot. In regards to the moon existing. But now you are only 98% sure that the moon exists.

Did you change your view/sureness after you thought about what I wrote? Or, for some other reason?

[Age]

I understand the question in 8 different ways and I can't quite be sure whether any of those 8 interpretations are the one you meant.

Well if you really wanted to KNOW, then write out each of those 8 interpretations, which you say you understand, and ask if it is any one of those.

If you were Truly interested and curious, then you would do NOT what you continually do in this thread, and in this forum. That is, dispute and refute just about any thing any one says, even if it is disagreement with and contradicts with what you, yourself, have said earlier.

Which is why I am telling you that your question is ambiguous. If that was your intention - congratulations!

If you told the Truth, then you might get better responses from us. The Truth is the question is ambiguous, to YOU.

Thee Truth is the question is not necessarily ambiguous, but it appears ambiguous, to YOU.

Observe that you conveniently ignored my question.

This coming from one that has ignored just about every question I have asked of them.

You once even said that only you know what the meaning is that you are giving to a word, which you were continually using, and when I asked you for clarity about what that meaning is, you did not just conveniently ignore the question, you actually said that you would NOT give that meaning. You would NOT give clarity.

Yet you are here pushing for and expecting others to give you clarity.

What is the need driving your question?

What is the NEED driving you?

Is it still the same as I asked you before: Are you driven by the NEED to be right?