Existence

[AlexW]

The best I can do is answer that the lettering is the same and in the same order, but that there is a gap between the 'o' and the 't' so it appears to be different.

Do the two ways of presenting the concept in coded symbology make what each of the words are describing something different from the other?

I do not know.

What I do know is that the word Barbara uses in her article is the word 'nothing'. The article mentions something but not no thing.

I know in your reply to my post your state "Lets look at this from a different perspective" so I am asking you to expand upon your use of the question by explaining what you mean by 'no thing and nothing.'

Generally when it comes to the use of semantics, such often is used to distract so I always ask what people mean when they bring this type of thing to the table.

Haha... nice way of manoeuvring yourself out of answering the question... you should be a politician
I thought it might be possible to answer from your own perspective... this is what questions are for... to receive some information about the other's interpretation... Anyway, I will stop asking for your opinion - you have wriggled yourself successfully out of the dilemma - I will let you know my take on the above:

Close your eyes ... what do you see? Most people would answer: I see nothing.
If you are in a very quiet place ... what do you hear? Most people would answer: I hear nothing.

This of course doesn't mean we see or hear something that is, at the same time, nothing.
Saying "I see nothing" is simply our conventional description of there being nothing objective in our field of experience (there is no recognised pattern in the flow of experience that could be matched to a previously acquired pattern).
There still is experiencing happening, even it is not being conceptualised, but it happens without any patterns being recognised that could be conceptualised and linked into our relativistic framework that defines our dualistic universe.
To the mind this experience is "nothing" - nothing objective - but this doesn't mean there is no experience.

When I look at my desk I see a cup, a pencil etc... - but do I actually see something, some thing, nothing or no thing?
When investigating the direct experience of seeing properly one will find that it actually contains no separate things - basic seeing provides no information about separation at all.
"No thing is seen" is therefore a perfectly accurate statement when referring to the direct experience of seeing - but no thing is not nothing - nothing is a concept pointing to non objectivity - no thing, on the other hand, points to the simple truth of direct seeing.
Separation , and with it "things", only arises once previously acquired patterns have been matched, recognised and interpreted by the "mind" - they are a conceptual overlay of direct experience - not our direct experience itself. To say "I see a thing" is wrong when viewing the statement on the level of direct experience - it is only true when viewing it on the level of the mind, on the level of concepts, ideas and imagination.

[VVilliam]

The best I can do is answer that the lettering is the same and in the same order, but that there is a gap between the 'o' and the 't' so it appears to be different.

Do the two ways of presenting the concept in coded symbology make what each of the words are describing something different from the other?

I do not know.

What I do know is that the word Barbara uses in her article is the word 'nothing'. The article mentions something but not no thing.

I know in your reply to my post your state "Lets look at this from a different perspective" so I am asking you to expand upon your use of the question by explaining what you mean by 'no thing and nothing.'

Generally when it comes to the use of semantics, such often is used to distract so I always ask what people mean when they bring this type of thing to the table.

Haha... nice way of manoeuvring yourself out of answering the question... you should be a politician

Generally when one devolves into name-calling, it is a sign they are conceding a point.

I thought it might be possible to answer from your own perspective... this is what questions are for... to receive some information about the other's interpretation... Anyway, I will stop asking for your opinion - you have wriggled yourself successfully out of the dilemma - I will let you know my take on the above:

Hopefully then, we can move through this...

Close your eyes ... what do you see? Most people would answer: I see nothing.
If you are in a very quiet place ... what do you hear? Most people would answer: I hear nothing.

I would say that the questions imply there is something to see and hear...

This of course doesn't mean we see or hear something that is, at the same time, nothing.
Saying "I see nothing" is simply our conventional description of there being nothing objective in our field of experience (there is no recognised pattern in the flow of experience that could be matched to a previously acquired pattern).
There still is experiencing happening, even it is not being conceptualised, but it happens without any patterns being recognised that could be conceptualised and linked into our relativistic framework that defines our dualistic universe.
To the mind this experience is "nothing" - nothing objective - but this doesn't mean there is no experience.

I and others have been saying as much. Nothing doesn't exist, because even experience is something, and so wherever one is experiencing, that is something, even if it is apparently no thing.

When I look at my desk I see a cup, a pencil etc... - but do I actually see something, some thing, nothing or no thing?

Don't forget that the discussion is rolling off from Barbara the Atheists "Existence" article and her assertion that;

"there are only two possibilities – something existing, or nothing existing"

going on to add;

"the evident fact is that things do exist"

She follows that with a false statement;

"Since it is impossible, by definition, to encounter anything behind the totality of existence, existence itself cannot have a cause"

before concluding that;

"The question why there is something rather than nothing is therefore unanswerable."

What you see on your desk, as you have mentioned, is at least "a cup and a pencil" with the hint [etc] that there is other stuff as well.

From my perspective, I do not see you , your desk, or even the cup and the pencil...

When investigating the direct experience of seeing properly one will find that it actually contains no separate things - basic seeing provides no information about separation at all.
"No thing is seen" is therefore a perfectly accurate statement when referring to the direct experience of seeing - but no thing is not nothing - nothing is a concept pointing to non objectivity - no thing, on the other hand, points to the simple truth of direct seeing.

Separation , and with it "things", only arises once previously acquired patterns have been matched, recognised and interpreted by the "mind" - they are a conceptual overlay of direct experience - not our direct experience itself. To say "I see a thing" is wrong when viewing the statement on the level of direct experience - it is only true when viewing it on the level of the mind, on the level of concepts, ideas and imagination.

I am sure if you explain that to Barbara the Atheist, she will nod and perhaps write an article on the foolishness of belief in the existence of 'things' as simply conceptual overlays of direct experience.

From my perspective, I fail to see your argument as relevant to what I wrote, which was a critique of Barbara the Atheists assertion that "The question why there is something rather than nothing is therefore unanswerable." when things exist but nothing cannot be shown to exist, is fact.

In relation to your answer as it stands [on its own] "no thing is seen" is interesting enough. My difficulty is in trying to ascertain why you thought it was relevant to this thread topic.

The best I can come up with following your explanation [thank you for that btw] is that only no thing exists and is made into something through some kind of indirect [misplaced?] manner in which one observes...

Do you think "No thing exists when viewed without "mind"?

All in all, I am perplexed as to why you thought it necessary to bring this particular argument into the discussion...

[AlexW]

Generally when one devolves into name-calling, it is a sign they are conceding a point.

I didn't think that "politician" is considered a swear word... but if you feel insulted, then please accept my apologies.

I would say that the questions imply there is something to see and hear...

Its not about what the question implies - its about actual experience - what do you experience?
Is it really so hard to actually LOOK and honestly describe what you see?

I and others have been saying as much. Nothing doesn't exist, because even experience is something, and so wherever one is experiencing, that is something, even if it is apparently no thing.

No... no thing is not something.

All in all, I am perplexed as to why you thought it necessary to bring this particular argument into the discussion...

I brought this argument into the discussion because of your statement:
I have to disagree with her opinion.
Why is there something rather than nothing is not unanswerable. The answer is that there is something, because nothing doesn't exist.

I think your statement is incorrect and as such wanted to add another perspective - as I see it, nothing exists just as something exists - they both exist conceptually. At the same time, neither nothing nor something exists in directly experienced reality.
Why? Because direct experience doesn't contain any things - and both, nothing as well as something are ultimately (imaginary) things (ideas/concepts).
Nothing is just an imagination, something is as well - now you can say: nothing doesn't exist - meaning: it cannot be experienced, but the same is true for something.
Something and nothing belong together like left and right, up and down, dark and light - one side has no meaning without the other - destroy one side you destroy both. Its like saying left doesn't exist because there is only right - you cant directly experience either, as such, non of them truly exist (they, just like nothing and something, only exist as ideas)

[VVilliam]

Generally when one devolves into name-calling, it is a sign they are conceding a point.

I didn't think that "politician" is considered a swear word... but if you feel insulted, then please accept my apologies.

I didn't say it was a swear word. Nor did I say I was offended. I said that generally the use of name-calling is a sign of conceding a point.

Its not about what the question implies -

The question implies there is something to see, so yes, it has something to do with that.

its about actual experience - what do you experience?

I experience myself. My conscious awareness of self.

I and others have been saying as much. Nothing doesn't exist, because even experience is something, and so wherever one is experiencing, that is something, even if it is apparently no thing.

No... no thing is not something.

I said 'apparently'. If you want to argue that experience of no thing is 'not something' then I think it is a misinterpretation of experience. However, if we are to accept that consciousness [that which is experiencing] is itself 'no thing' then you will have to explain how come it exists or refer to it as "That which exists but is not a thing."

I think your statement is incorrect and as such wanted to add another perspective - as I see it, nothing exists just as something exists - they both exist conceptually. At the same time, neither nothing nor something exists in directly experienced reality.

This is why I asked you to give an example of a conceptual 'nothing'. For example, I could say that I conceptualize 'nothing' as "a dark empty space" or invert that as "A light empty space" and already I have described something while attempting to describe nothing.
On top of that, even if I were describing "a dark empty space" and we could agree that it was 'nothing' there is still the problem of the observer existing in this apparent 'nothing'. The presence of the observer automatically (even within the conceptional) immediately makes 'something' from 'nothing'.

So even trying to imagine that nothing actually exists [as something actually exists] changes that nothing into something. We can even name that something 'nothing' but it is still something rather than nothing.

Why? Because direct experience doesn't contain any things - and both, nothing as well as something are ultimately (imaginary) things (ideas/concepts).

Nothing is just an imagination, something is as well - now you can say: nothing doesn't exist - meaning: it cannot be experienced, but the same is true for something.
Something and nothing belong together like left and right, up and down, dark and light - one side has no meaning without the other - destroy one side you destroy both. Its like saying left doesn't exist because there is only right - you cant directly experience either, as such, non of them truly exist (they, just like nothing and something, only exist as ideas)

This is rather silly because in each case imagination [which is something] is required. One can conceptualize anything and nothing is not really an opposite [like 'left' and 'right'] of something. It can only ever belong in the 'something' group. Simply naming it makes it something.

That is why my statement "nothing doesn't exist" is true. It doesn't exist as a thing which cannot be experienced. Not even when something [someone] claims that things do not actually exist as things.

Nothing can only exist as something, not no thing.

Re you use of the phrase "Direct experience" I am at a loss as to what that means, and suspect that it has no thing to do with the human experience. You will have to expand upon what you are meaning because it obviously is central to your argument.

Because direct experience doesn't contain any things - and both, nothing as well as something are ultimately (imaginary) things (ideas/concepts

In that, you appear to be saying that all things are no things so are you saying that anything/everything is nothing?

Or if you are only focusing on imaginary ideas and concepts as being 'nothing' then how is it we are talking about such as if they were something?

And finally, I cannot myself imagine it, but IF consciousness was able to actually experience nothing, it [consciousness] would have to cease to exist. And if consciousness did cease to exist then it couldn't be said to be able to experience anything. So I fail to see how there is any getting around the premise that nothing [and no thing] doesn't exist.

[Dontaskme]

Barbara Smoker probes why there is something rather than nothing.

Nothing exists.

= Non-duality.

Why Non-duality? Is the one question to all our answers.

Does the question have an answer?

There are many answers to WHY questions, because the concept WHY implies some kind of information is available.
The amount of knowledge available will determine an appropriate answer to any question, which will appear as being either.. I know ...or ...I do not know.
Both I know ..or ..I do not know, will appear to be the answer to the question.

And that is the answer to the One WHY question to all our answers.

The questioner is always ONE... answers are many according to the knowledge that is available to the questioner. There cannot be a question without an answer and vice versa.

Another point to consider is that a question can only arise to the sense of a separate self, the self who is asking. That sense of separate self does not exist except as a conceptual thought arising from the original source of all concepts..and so this source can only inform the illusory nature of conceptual knowledge itself. In that the concepts arise from nothing appearing to be something.

So in essence, nothing and something are always and ever one and the same REALITY.... can’t have one without the other = Non-Duality.

What does can’t have one without the other mean?

It means there can’t be a question without an answer..There can’t be a knower without a known. Both knower and known are ONE





.

[AlexW]

I experience myself. My conscious awareness of self.

So... when you experience anything you always only experience yourself - I actually agree.
All you know is yourself... yet you call it "something"... why?
Do you actually experience yourself as a separate thing?

However, if we are to accept that consciousness [that which is experiencing] is itself 'no thing' then you will have to explain how come it exists or refer to it as "That which exists but is not a thing."

You can describe consciousness/experience (what you are) conceptually, using language, which is always dualistic - but no matter how much you try, the description is not it. But if you would ask me to describe it then I would say: "That which neither exists nor not exists."
This is a hint - a hint that it is not in the power of the mind to grasp it or define it. Can you (thought) be OK with that? Or do you insist on another interpretation?

This is why I asked you to give an example of a conceptual 'nothing'. For example, I could say that I conceptualize 'nothing' as "a dark empty space" or invert that as "A light empty space"

Yes, thats a good description - I agree.

On top of that, even if I were describing "a dark empty space" and we could agree that it was 'nothing' there is still the problem of the observer existing in this apparent 'nothing'.

There is no observer (you just said: I experience myself - what then is the "observer"? If anything at all then you are the observer as well as the observed - renders the observer redundant, doesn't it?)

The presence of the observer automatically (even within the conceptional) immediately makes 'something' from 'nothing'.

He does - exactly because the observer is also conceptual. It requires concepts to give birth to more concepts - go back to the root - to "I am" - the primary concept - you can trace all concepts from there.

One can conceptualize anything and nothing is not really an opposite [like 'left' and 'right'] of something. It can only ever belong in the 'something' group. Simply naming it makes it something.

Depends how you define "something"

That is why my statement "nothing doesn't exist" is true. It doesn't exist as a thing which cannot be experienced. Not even when something [someone] claims that things do not actually exist as things.

Ultimately nothing that we define conceptually exists in reality.
Simply because even the concept "existence" doesn't exist.

you use of the phrase "Direct experience" I am at a loss as to what that means, and suspect that it has no thing to do with the human experience

Actually quite the opposite - pinch your arm, feel that? You just directly experienced reality.
Where else do you expect to find reality if not here/now?
Now describe "pinch of arm" using language - how does it feel? Where is the sensation coming from? Who experiences it? Many words... more words... no truth.

[surreptitious57]

It is not that nothing does not exist but that it cannot exist [ even a so called absolute vacuum contains something ]
A true absolute vacuum cannot physically exist because if it did it would be something and so could not be absolute

So that answers the question the anti theist [ Barbara The Atheist ] claimed couldnt be answered
I hope this gets back to her and if she hasnt already - she allows herself to finally be Agnostic

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

[VVilliam]

I experience myself. My conscious awareness of self.

So... when you experience anything you always only experience yourself - I actually agree.

I dear say you 'agree' because you put 'words in my mouth' as the saying goes. All I wrote was that "I experience myself. My conscious awareness of self." I did not define that as you have chosen to do.
Having said as much, I do not necessarily disagree...

All you know is yourself... yet you call it "something"... why?

Because in this setting where individuals are interacting for the purpose of finding understanding in what others have to offer, words and there shared [agreed upon] meanings are part and parcel of that. I don't know that consciousness can rightfully be called a 'thing' of itself, like the pen and cup on your table are things, but like 'spirit' and 'essence', at least it allows the opportunity of mutual understanding as to what is being discussed.

Whatever consciousness is, it is "something" even if, strictly speaking, it is not 'real' in a material sense.

Do you actually experience yourself as a separate thing?

Within this simulated reality I do. The recognition that we are all of the same 'spirit' [source] is most often forefront in my minds eye as "the real" and so this tends to help navigate me through the game-play...and be nice to the other 'me's' [do unto others] in as balanced manner as I am able to...

However, if we are to accept that consciousness [that which is experiencing] is itself 'no thing' then you will have to explain how come it exists or refer to it as "That which exists but is not a thing."

You can describe consciousness/experience (what you are) conceptually, using language, which is always dualistic - but no matter how much you try, the description is not it. But if you would ask me to describe it then I would say: "That which neither exists nor not exists."

Which of course is unhelpful. My point in saying that 'nothing does not actually exist" is still more appropriate to the overall situation. If duality is something you don't want [or otherwise think of as an incorrect way in which to 'see' things] then having the one [things] but not the other [non things] would seem an appropriate non-dualistic way of viewing [understanding].

This is a hint - a hint that it is not in the power of the mind to grasp it or define it. Can you (thought) be OK with that? Or do you insist on another interpretation?

I am not 'thought' Thought is data. I am that which examines the data. [consciousness] I am fine with the idea that the mind cannot always grasp and define some data. Such is placed in the 'presently non-defined' section. Often other data yet to come, will dovetail in with the non-defined data, helping the process of forming definition.

This is why I asked you to give an example of a conceptual 'nothing'. For example, I could say that I conceptualize 'nothing' as "a dark empty space" or invert that as "A light empty space"

Yes, thats a good description - I agree.

On top of that, even if I were describing "a dark empty space" and we could agree that it was 'nothing' there is still the problem of the observer existing in this apparent 'nothing'.

There is no observer (you just said: I experience myself - what then is the "observer"? If anything at all then you are the observer as well as the observed - renders the observer redundant, doesn't it?)

Of course there is an observer. The observer was asked to describe the concept of 'nothing' The observer clearly cannot experience that concept [the dark empty space] and report the experience without observing.

The presence of the observer automatically (even within the conceptional) immediately makes 'something' from 'nothing'.

He does - exactly because the observer is also conceptual. It requires concepts to give birth to more concepts - go back to the root - to "I am" - the primary concept - you can trace all concepts from there.

Even so, [and to the point] the whole process is one of observing, no matter which fractal path opens up because of that. "I Am" is observing the experience of existing, even if at point of source, there are no things in which to observe. I Am still experiences Self.

One can conceptualize anything and nothing is not really an opposite [like 'left' and 'right'] of something. It can only ever belong in the 'something' group. Simply naming it makes it something.

Depends how you define "something"

My point being, what one best not do is define something as nothing.

That is why my statement "nothing doesn't exist" is true. It doesn't exist as a thing which cannot be experienced. Not even when something [someone] claims that things do not actually exist as things.

Ultimately nothing that we define conceptually exists in reality.
Simply because even the concept "existence" doesn't exist.

Of course it is all very well to define it that way, but in doing so one is still defining [as a matter of having to] and my question then becomes [something along the lines of] "Why would anyone try to convince me of this using language and definitions to do so? [do like I say not like I do ~ fallacy...]

I could come up with ideas to do with finding the most obvious answer to that question...or place it in the department of 'presently non-defined' articles.

What I do notice regarding your somewhat mysterious/cryptic answer is your use of the word 'reality' and it appears a necessary addition to your argument "nothing that we define conceptually exists in reality"...as such, it is prudent that I ask you to define what you are referring to as 'reality'.

you use of the phrase "Direct experience" I am at a loss as to what that means, and suspect that it has no thing to do with the human experience

Actually quite the opposite - pinch your arm, feel that? You just directly experienced reality.
Where else do you expect to find reality if not here/now?
Now describe "pinch of arm" using language - how does it feel? Where is the sensation coming from? Who experiences it? Many words... more words... no truth.

Oh so after all this, you are speaking about this Simulated Reality as 'reality'.

But you appear also to use dualistic expressions in relation to that which we can achieve within said reality when it comes to matters of the mind.

Even that matters of the mind are a real aspect of said reality.

Would your opinion of reality being real, change if you were informed that this reality is actually a concept in the minds eye of The Creator? Would you then think of this reality as 'not being real'?

I find it far easier [less complex] to understand that the only real 'thing' is Consciousness. Every other 'thing' is simply a construct of Consciousness. As such these can be experience as real - and only because that which is experiencing them as real, is Real.

That is why I refer to this Universe as a "Reality Simulation".

Moving along with that, [idea] this reality is both somewhat permanent and temporary. Science has revealed that the universe is going to be around for a very long period. My experience of it as this individuate fragment of Consciousness is temporary.

(I find that in itself to be a good thing because I am not sure I would want to experience the unfolding universe as an individuate fragment of consciousness within one form, throughout its predicted [science] time-span.)

As such, my form will one day die of natural causes. It is not the perfect design for withstanding the harshness of the environment, [overall simulated reality] being that it is biologic in makeup.

The Consciousness that I am is most likely [in my learned opinion] going to survive the experience and move into another Reality Simulation.
With that, The Consciousness that I am will have with me, the data of experience of the individuate life I experienced as a 'human being'.

I see the data of experience as a "container" on/in which the memories are preserved. [The Soul] The memories are also not just what I consciously experienced but also include every detail [moments of now] that I did not consciously experience, inclusive of unconscious [dreams] and subconscious experience related [inextricably] to the simple conscious experience I can [in the now] recall/bring to and display upon the screen of imagination.

(I suspect that the bulk part of the overall data of experience of every human life, consists of the unconscious and subconscious experience related to the individuate conscious experience.)

In that, we are (humans) currently gathers of data, and that data goes somewhere [The Creator] and is stored there as well as in/on The Individuals Soul.

The free-flowing data is arranged as a picture in which The Creator Mind can make order out of, and the data produced in this process is then feed back into the simulation to the individual able [awake] to receive it.

That in turn is event, which also is saved onto The Soul storage unit. [as non free-flowing data]

As we should both agree... My report as to 'how I see [understand] that which you referred to as 'Reality' " [This Universe]
is conceptualizing based upon my knowledge [at least] through experience of said reality.

Does the conceptualizing have to be considered "unreal" because it is 'imaginary'? [the minds eye screen].

I do not believe so. The minds eye screen exists, even that it isn't entirely made of material. How each individual chooses to use this device of the mind is entirely their choice, but I do draw the line at being told conceptualizing cannot every be actually real. That is due entirely to my own actual experience within this reality [to date].

But it is only a line drawn, not a wall of a thoughtress. I am ever open to receiving better explanation. In the mean time, since none has been offered, I resume with the likelihood that the concept developing before me on the screen of my minds eye, is the closest to truth in relation to working things out.

In your own explanations [such as they appear] I find a language akin to that used by hypnotists. The image on the screen of my minds eye is somewhat like this;



The caption to the cartoon reads.

"The only thing that you observe as real is what is before you to observe. But even that is not real. Also, even the observer is not real."

I would say that if anything is 'not real' it is the guy with the watch trying to convince me I Am not real.

I wonder though..is my conception of the guy holding the watch a true representation?

It remains to be seen...for now it will suffice.

[VVilliam]

It is not that nothing does not exist but that it cannot exist [ even a so called absolute vacuum contains something ]
A true absolute vacuum cannot physically exist because if it did it would be something and so could not be absolute

So that answers the question the anti theist [ Barbara The Atheist ] claimed couldnt be answered
I hope this gets back to her and if she hasnt already - she allows herself to finally be Agnostic

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

That is hilarious!

Of course if I am correct regarding Simulation Theory, Barbara the Atheist has now had her eyes opened to the things she believed didn't exist.

[AlexW]

Which of course is unhelpful. My point in saying that 'nothing does not actually exist" is still more appropriate to the overall situation. If duality is something you don't want [or otherwise think of as an incorrect way in which to 'see' things] then having the one [things] but not the other [non things] would seem an appropriate non-dualistic way of viewing [understanding].

But thats exactly the point - it is unhelpful because, on the level of consciousness, of non-dual reality, there is nothing to understand.
Sure, the character wants to understand (besides many other things) what consciousness is - it wants an explanation that fits into the idea of the dualistic mindset that, at the same time, also is the foundation of the character itself.
But this approach will never work - conceptual thought is not able to think outside its dualistic box (no matter how much it tries)

I am not 'thought' Thought is data.

Depends what kind of "I" you are talking about... the individual/personal self is nothing but thought/data.
No data (memory), no person - remove all data and the only thing thats left is selfless functioning.

If with "I" you refer to consciousness itself then you are right - consciousness is not (only) thought - thought arises in consciousness, but consciousness doesn't self destruct if there is no thought arising (the personal self, on the other hand, does).

I am that which examines the data. [consciousness]

Ok...

Of course there is an observer. The observer was asked to describe the concept of 'nothing' The observer clearly cannot experience that concept [the dark empty space] and report the experience without observing.

First of all, concepts cannot be experienced - they are an interpretation of direct experience (or completely imagined - eg unicorn), not a direct experience themselves.
You cannot experience "apple" - you can, on the other hand, experience colour, texture, taste (and even these are just concepts, but this is the closest we can get to reality using language - I guess you understand what I mean?) - "apple" is only a conceptual overlay, linking all these (apparently) separate impressions/percepts of seeing, taste etc together - the process of conceptualisation creates an object where in reality there is only a stream of raw data (again: its like a pattern matching algorithm which detects acquired patterns, labels them, links them into a network of concepts and creates a "thing" which is part of the "world of things").
The observer is - like "apple" - a "mind-made" object - imagined - never directly experienced.

Even so, [and to the point] the whole process is one of observing

If this is a simulation running in a computer system, then it roughly consists of two main parts: memory/data and processing/algorithms.
What is this separate observer exactly?
It cannot be more than a specific set of data (what we call: memory) being evaluated by an algorithm?
Now, if this algorithm concludes "I see a pen on the desk" - is this proof enough for there actually being a separate observer?

Not even when something [someone] claims that things do not actually exist as things.

I have not claimed that (seems now you are putting words in my mouth )
I have said: Separate things do not exist in direct experience.
Of course things exist as things - things are and as such exist as concepts - unicorns exist conceptually, but you still wont ever see, hear or taste one...

I Am still experiences Self.

No. "I am" is still a concept - and concepts do not experience anything.
Its like saying - using the jargon of a computer simulation - that a set of data experiences the simulation. A set of data is part of the simulation, but it is not an observer.

Of course it is all very well to define it that way, but in doing so one is still defining [as a matter of having to] and my question then becomes [something along the lines of] "Why would anyone try to convince me of this using language and definitions to do so? [do like I say not like I do ~ fallacy...]

I don't know of another way but using language... do you?

Oh so after all this, you are speaking about this Simulated Reality as 'reality'.

Am I...?
I define reality as the only reality you can actually know directly - the reality of sensual perception - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touch (if you know of another way to directly experience really anything, please let me know).
I separate this basic, directly experienced reality from the conceptual reality of thought - thats all - I don't think it can be more straightforward than that, can it?

The problem is that you (like most people) seem to believe that you actually experience something directly which you actually don't - you believe you experience an observer or an "apple" - but these "experiences" are already all within thought-world, they are conceptual overlays, not reality (as I define it)...

Would your opinion of reality being real, change if you were informed that this reality is actually a concept in the minds eye of The Creator? Would you then think of this reality as 'not being real'?

No, why?
A brick falling on your foot will still hurt - no matter if this brick is really only in "minds eye of The Creator"...

I find it far easier [less complex] to understand that the only real 'thing' is Consciousness. Every other 'thing' is simply a construct of Consciousness. As such these can be experience as real - and only because that which is experiencing them as real, is Real.

Well, yes, but the issue is that Consciousness is not a thing... as I said previously: You never have and you never will experience a separate "thing".
It is utterly impossible because all you can experience is Consciousness and as it is not a thing these "things" cannot be experienced.
Further more, as all you can experience is Consciousness, the idea that there is an observer and something observed might make sense conceptually - for the imagined person/observer - but in reality, in direct experience this split into two does not arise.
When you close your eyes and feel - maybe the tingling in your hands or feet - how is this sensation experienced? Do you actually find the tingling and an observer? Or is there simply the "tingling"? If you are actually honest you will find that there is no such entity as an observer - you will find that all you can do is think about this entity - thats all.

As such, my form will one day die of natural causes. It is not the perfect design for withstanding the harshness of the environment, [overall simulated reality] being that it is biologic in makeup.

The Consciousness that I am is most likely [in my learned opinion] going to survive the experience and move into another Reality Simulation.
With that, The Consciousness that I am will have with me, the data of experience of the individuate life I experienced as a 'human being'.

I see the data of experience as a "container" on/in which the memories are preserved. [The Soul] The memories are also not just what I consciously experienced but also include every detail [moments of now] that I did not consciously experience, inclusive of unconscious [dreams] and subconscious experience related [inextricably] to the simple conscious experience I can [in the now] recall/bring to and display upon the screen of imagination.

(I suspect that the bulk part of the overall data of experience of every human life, consists of the unconscious and subconscious experience related to the individuate conscious experience.)

In that, we are (humans) currently gathers of data, and that data goes somewhere [The Creator] and is stored there as well as in/on The Individuals Soul.

The free-flowing data is arranged as a picture in which The Creator Mind can make order out of, and the data produced in this process is then feed back into the simulation to the individual able [awake] to receive it.

That in turn is event, which also is saved onto The Soul storage unit. [as non free-flowing data]

Thats a nice story but not more than that.

In your own explanations [such as they appear] I find a language akin to that used by hypnotists.

Interesting that you see it like that...
I am actually trying to wake you up, not put you to sleep.
All I am saying is: Look at reality yourself, but not through the lens of preconceived ideas, not applying all the conditioned beliefs that make up the conceptual "you" , but simply look, honestly, at what is here/now - see, hear, feel... its not that hard - and then build a new framework of existence/reality from there, unbiased from all the data/ideas that have been fed into your mind.
If you cant find separation in this direct experience, why believe in it? Why build all these creatures of the mind and then identify with some (and reject the others)? The conceptual mind is a complex mess, reality is as simple as it gets.

[VVilliam]

I am actually trying to wake you up, not put you to sleep.

Your presumptions about me are superficial. Overall it appears to me that your own interactions [regardless of the reasons you give] betray the ideas you try to pass off as [truth?] (hard to say but you appear to believe those ideas).

From my perspective, I am more open to allowing people to have their ideas even if they oppose my own when broadcast. It is no biggy in the scheme of things and adds to the overall flavor/spice of life.

I am happy for anyone to go their way and walk their walk, but I do not allow others to make assumptions about me which I know are not true...to the point that you have.

If your particular path and belief systems compel you to try and wake others up, and if those others [in your opinion] are asleep and will remain asleep until they abandon the truth of their life experience and adopt your beliefs...then it is not something I can personally accept as a genuine article - much as I do not accept Barbara the Atheists rant as a genuine article.

I gravitate to the genuine and am repelled by hypnospeak and don't give a toss whether that is some kind of sin of duality or not.

Go well.

[AlexW]

Sure, no problem, I am not here to convince you to follow any kind of belief - I said it multiple times, just look for yourself, but it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system, which of course you are perfectly free to do.
All the best.

[VVilliam]

Sure, no problem, I am not here to convince you to follow any kind of belief - I said it multiple times, just look for yourself, but it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system, which of course you are perfectly free to do.

Perhaps then it is just your approach which requires tweaking.

Can you answer that if there is no observer/observed, why your expressions appear to come from an observers perspective?

For example you wrote; - "I am actually trying to wake you up, not put you to sleep." tells the reader you are observing someone you think of as asleep

"I [the observer] am actually trying to wake you [the observed] up, not put you to sleep."

And in the above you wrote; "it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system" also a statement of observation.

"it seems [the observation] you [the observed] rather remain locked into your existing belief system"[the presumed]

Can you understand how your expressions appear to make the particular position of that which you are arguing, sound as hypnospeak? It might work on those who are trying awaken, but for those like myself who know their own awakening, telling them something which effectively appears to be saying 'go back to sleep' doesn't help your argument.

As to your presumption regard what you observe to be my 'belief system', I am open to being shown any holes in my presented understanding of The Universe and my place within it. I don't happen to believe in Simulation Theory. My position is that as far as theories go, it is the best one because it is the most logical.

My understanding of belief systems is that these are identifiable by their rigidity [dogmatism] and as well as this, those who have belief systems tend toward wanting others to also adopt the same and believe in them, and often express themselves from that perspective.

Of course, it is natural enough that those who have beliefs, to want others to believe the same. In this, they do tend toward trying to 'wake people up' and you using that expression tells me that it is you, not I, who have a definite belief system.

But what of those beliefs you are expressing? They make little sense in the way you have chosen to express them. They appear to be saying "you shouldn't see existence through a dualic lens", whilst the use of dualic language to say such, makes it sound of - as I stated - like one would expect hypnotist to speak.

If you can appreciate the points I am making about this, perhaps it can give you cause to change the angle of your approach by using language to better illustrate what it is you are attempting to say...even that what you have already said about the use of language, this should prove to be impossible for you to accomplish.

Which in turn allows for me - the individual reader - to wonder why you bother even trying. All it does is make you appear forked tongued, which only serves to help cause suspicion that all is not quite right regarding said belief that you have and express onto others...

[VVilliam]

Sure, no problem, I am not here to convince you to follow any kind of belief - I said it multiple times, just look for yourself, but it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system, which of course you are perfectly free to do.

Perhaps then it is just your approach which requires tweaking.

Can you answer that if there is no observer/observed, why your expressions appear to come from an observers perspective?

For example you wrote; - "I am actually trying to wake you up, not put you to sleep." tells the reader you are observing someone you think of as asleep

"I [the observer] am actually trying to wake you [the observed] up, not put you to sleep."

And in the above you wrote; "it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system" also a statement of observation.

"it seems [the observation] you [the observed] rather remain locked into your existing belief system"[the presumed]

Can you understand how your expressions appear to make the particular position of that which you are arguing, sound as hypnospeak? It might work on those who are trying awaken, but for those like myself who know their own awakening, telling them something which effectively appears to be saying 'go back to sleep' doesn't help your argument.

As to your presumption regard what you observe to be my 'belief system', I am open to being shown any holes in my presented understanding of The Universe and my place within it. I don't happen to believe in Simulation Theory. My position is that as far as theories go, it is the best one because it is the most logical.

My understanding of belief systems is that these are identifiable by their rigidity [dogmatism] and as well as this, those who have belief systems tend toward wanting others to also adopt the same and believe in them, and often express themselves from that perspective.

Of course, it is natural enough that those who have beliefs, to want others to believe the same. In this, they do tend toward trying to 'wake people up' and you using that expression tells me that it is you, not I, who have a definite belief system.

But what of those beliefs you are expressing? They make little sense in the way you have chosen to express them. They appear to be saying "you shouldn't see existence through a dualic lens", whilst the use of dualic language to say such, makes it sound - as I stated - like one would expect hypnotists to speak when they are trying to convince folk the oinion is really an apple...

If you can appreciate the points I am making about this, perhaps it can give you cause to change the angle of your approach by using language to better illustrate what it is you are attempting to say...even that what you have already said about the use of language, this should prove to be impossible for you to accomplish.

Which in turn allows for me - the individual reader - to wonder why you bother even trying. All it does is make you appear forked tongued, which only serves to help cause suspicion that all is not quite right regarding said belief that you have and express onto others...

[Dontaskme]

Sure, no problem, I am not here to convince you to follow any kind of belief - I said it multiple times, just look for yourself, but it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system, which of course you are perfectly free to do.

Perhaps then it is just your approach which requires tweaking.

Can you answer that if there is no observer/observed, why your expressions appear to come from an observers perspective?

For example you wrote; - "I am actually trying to wake you up, not put you to sleep." tells the reader you are observing someone you think of as asleep

"I [the observer] am actually trying to wake you [the observed] up, not put you to sleep."

And in the above you wrote; "it seems you rather remain locked into your existing belief system" also a statement of observation.

"it seems [the observation] you [the observed] rather remain locked into your existing belief system"[the presumed]

Can you understand how your expressions appear to make the particular position of that which you are arguing, sound as hypnospeak? It might work on those who are trying awaken, but for those like myself who know their own awakening, telling them something which effectively appears to be saying 'go back to sleep' doesn't help your argument.

As to your presumption regard what you observe to be my 'belief system', I am open to being shown any holes in my presented understanding of The Universe and my place within it. I don't happen to believe in Simulation Theory. My position is that as far as theories go, it is the best one because it is the most logical.

My understanding of belief systems is that these are identifiable by their rigidity [dogmatism] and as well as this, those who have belief systems tend toward wanting others to also adopt the same and believe in them, and often express themselves from that perspective.

Of course, it is natural enough that those who have beliefs, to want others to believe the same. In this, they do tend toward trying to 'wake people up' and you using that expression tells me that it is you, not I, who have a definite belief system.

But what of those beliefs you are expressing? They make little sense in the way you have chosen to express them. They appear to be saying "you shouldn't see existence through a dualic lens", whilst the use of dualic language to say such, makes it sound of - as I stated - like one would expect hypnotist to speak.

If you can appreciate the points I am making about this, perhaps it can give you cause to change the angle of your approach by using language to better illustrate what it is you are attempting to say...even that what you have already said about the use of language, this should prove to be impossible for you to accomplish.

Which in turn allows for me - the individual reader - to wonder why you bother even trying. All it does is make you appear forked tongued, which only serves to help cause suspicion that all is not quite right regarding said belief that you have and express onto others...

You either HEAR nondual speak or you don’t.

The point of bothering with nondual speak is to point any philosophical argument beyond the dualistic nature of the words being expressed.

I personally think the nondual speak as and through the ALEX character is perfectly well expressed, but only because I can see what is being pointed to.

Using dualic language ..is a necessity in any nondual discussion..because to remove a thorn requires a thorn. There are many ways to tweak the thorn away, but once it’s been tweaked away, that’s when the final understanding is laid bare. Everything becomes blindingly obvious and clear in that realisation.The realisation that nothing and everything are the same One reality.

And that oneness has no real argument with itself, rather, all dialogue is just self interacting with itself. In reality there is no other self because there is only self. All other apparent selves are appearing from the one self, which is no self.



.