Reincarnation

[Harbal]

Okay. But what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN, in case ANY one is interested.

I'm sure a great many people are interested, and I am certainly one of them, along with the Nobel Committee, no doubt.

Please tell us.

Consciousness was actually solved ages ago, by the Eastern philosophy of nondualism. By "solved" I mean that it's the Occam's razor solution to the philosophy of mind. I think nondualism is most clearly expressed in Zen buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Just listen to Alan Watts videos for a year, and the penny will drop eventually.

I don't think there is anything I want to know badly enough to be able to endure a year of Alan Watts.

[Atla]

I'm sure a great many people are interested, and I am certainly one of them, along with the Nobel Committee, no doubt.

Please tell us.

Consciousness was actually solved ages ago, by the Eastern philosophy of nondualism. By "solved" I mean that it's the Occam's razor solution to the philosophy of mind. I think nondualism is most clearly expressed in Zen buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Just listen to Alan Watts videos for a year, and the penny will drop eventually.

I don't think there is anything I want to know badly enough to be able to endure a year of Alan Watts.

Actually almost everything he says makes perfect sense, way beyond any major Western philosopher including Kant, once one realizes what he's on about. But yeah the solution to consciousness is kind of a letdown anyway, so you can totally skip it. Often it just creates more problems for everyday life, than it solves.

[Harbal]

Actually almost everything he says makes perfect sense, way beyond any major Western philosopher including Kant, once one realizes what he's on about. But yeah the solution to consciousness is kind of a letdown anyway, so you can totally skip it. Often it just creates more problems for everyday life, than it solves.

I became aware of him via Youtube. I wouldn't normally give those sorts of videos more than a few seconds attention, but I found the sound of his voice so compelling that I listened for quite a while, and even looked at some more of his videos. It didn't make any difference how long I listened, though; very little of what he said made sense to me. I suspect you have to have a certain kind of mind, and outlook, for that kind of stuff to resonate. I don't have that sort of mind. I seem to remember that much of what he said was to do with achieving some sort of happiness in our lives, but I couldn't quite feel confident that a man who died from alcoholism was the best person to listen to on that subject.

[Atla]

Actually almost everything he says makes perfect sense, way beyond any major Western philosopher including Kant, once one realizes what he's on about. But yeah the solution to consciousness is kind of a letdown anyway, so you can totally skip it. Often it just creates more problems for everyday life, than it solves.

I became aware of him via Youtube. I wouldn't normally give those sorts of videos more than a few seconds attention, but I found the sound of his voice so compelling that I listened for quite a while, and even looked at some more of his videos. It didn't make any difference how long I listened, though; very little of what he said made sense to me. I suspect you have to have a certain kind of mind, and outlook, for that kind of stuff to resonate. I don't have that sort of mind. I seem to remember that much of what he said was to do with achieving some sort of happiness in our lives, but I couldn't quite feel confident that a man who died from alcoholism was the best person to listen to on that subject.

Nah, though most nondualists indeed become somewhat happier for psychological reasons, nondualism by itself has absolutely nothing to do with happiness. The pure bliss talk is just nonsense from Eastern philosophy. Also, Watts is just a philosophical entertainer, not a proper philosopher and definitely not some kind of holy man. But I haven't seen anyone else explain so well to a Western audience, what some Eastern philosophies mean by being awake (to our true nondual nature).

[Harbal]

Nah, though most nondualists indeed become somewhat happier for psychological reasons, nondualism by itself has absolutely nothing to do with happiness. The pure bliss talk is just nonsense from Eastern philosophy. Also, Watts is just a philosophical entertainer, not a proper philosopher and definitely not some kind of holy man. But I haven't seen anyone else explain so well to a Western audience, what some Eastern philosophies mean by being awake (to our true nondual nature).

Maybe I should revisit him.

[Atla]

Nah, though most nondualists indeed become somewhat happier for psychological reasons, nondualism by itself has absolutely nothing to do with happiness. The pure bliss talk is just nonsense from Eastern philosophy. Also, Watts is just a philosophical entertainer, not a proper philosopher and definitely not some kind of holy man. But I haven't seen anyone else explain so well to a Western audience, what some Eastern philosophies mean by being awake (to our true nondual nature).

Maybe I should revisit him.

The big irony of philosophy is that Western philosophers have been looking for something "extra" for centuries, in order to explain consciousness. But all this time, the solution was to get rid of their own underlying made-up dualistic assumptions, that are so ingrained deep down in every Westerner's psyche that they are more or less imperceptible.

[seeds]

...what is your personal explanation for "how and why" we and the universe exist?

FINALLY.

Now, so 'this' does NOT take AGES, let us SAY that the 'we' word here refers to 'you', human beings, then HOW 'you', human beings, and the Universe exist IS BECAUSE of the EXACT SAME 'thing', or process. That is; The Universe, Itself, EXACTLY like 'you', is fundamentally made up of 'matter' AND 'space', ALONE.

Now, there can ONLY EVER BE three scenarios:

Sorry, I just had to stop right there to highlight the absolute absurdity of that last prefacing sentence.

Continuing on...

1. There is just 'singularity', which would just be a solitary piece of 'matter', infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

2. There is just 'space', in the sense of absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL, again which would just be solitary also, as well as infinite 'spatially' and eternal 'temporally'.

Although 'spatial' and 'temporal' have NO ACTUAL 'meaning' here because neither solitary 'things' could be referenced to ANY OTHER 'thing'.

3. There IS 'what' exists HERE, NOW. That is; BOTH 'space' AND 'matter' co-existing TOGETHER. Which, by the way, have been infinitely AND eternally.

See, although 1. or 2. could exist, theoretically, they could NOT have, EVER, existed, and this is just BECAUSE 'one' could NOT CHANGE IN ANY way whatsoever. And 'we' KNOW that 3. DOES EXIST BECAUSE there IS, at least One 'Thing' here contemplating ALL-OF-THIS. Which then MEANS that BECAUSE there is SOME 'thing' BESIDES just INFINITE and ETERNAL 'space' OR INFINITE and ETERNAL 'matter', then 3. IS what ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY exists, and DOES SO FOREVER.

Now, some of 'you', human beings, may like to CLAIM that EITHER, there WAS absolutely NO 'thing', from which Everything CAME, or there WAS some 'thing', with some 'name' like 'God' or 'the big bang', from which Everything CAME. BUT, then 'we' ARE BACK to what EVERY child would PONDER and QUESTION now, 'WHERE did either of these two 'things' come from, EXACTLY, IF Everything BEGAN?'

Any so-called 'God', or 'thing', existing BEFORE Everything was created is just ABSURDITY in the ABSOLUTE EXTREME, for the CLEARLY OBVIOUS REASONS, that even EVERY child PICKS UP, on almost instantaneously. And, to CLAIM that Everything came FROM a so-called 'big bang', or 'singularity', then two 'things' here:

1. If some so-called 'big bang' created Everything, or was the cause of Everything, then BECAUSE of 'cause and effect', 'What CAUSED 'the big bang' to EXIST, prior to Everything, AND what caused 'whatever 'it' WAS' to go 'bang'?

2. Now, OF COURSE, what 'it' WAS, which went 'bang', could have been what is sometimes called and referred to as 'singularity', that is; an infinite compression of 'matter'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could have been existing, and when off with 'a bang', which could of, also OBVIOUSLY, occurred. However, an 'infinite compression of matter', which means a piece of 'matter' WITHOUT ANY 'space', WITHIN 'it', which could OBVIOUSLY exist. For all 'we' KNOW ALL the 'matter' in the Universe could have been 'crunched together' into one singular piece of 'matter'. But, 'this piece of matter' could NOT expand unless there WAS 'space', or a distance of NO 'thing', in which 'it' could EXPAND.

So, OBVIOUSLY, for a 'single piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', that is; 'matter' with NO 'space' in 'it', TO EXPAND, then there HAD TO BE 'space' EXISTING outside of 'that matter' went of with 'a bang'. Which all to EASILY and SIMPLY could HAVE OCCURRED. However, BECAUSE there MUST of been SOME 'thing', that IS; 'a piece of matter' AND 'space', at that 'time' or moment, EXISTING, then either BOTH of those 'things' were EXISTING eternally BEFOREHAND, or ALL matter IS CONTINUALLY 'expanding' and 'contracting', ETERNALLY. BECAUSE there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that 'one piece of matter' COULD go off with 'a bang', ALL by itself. For ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY 'thing' to BE CREATED, there HAS TO BE at least TWO 'things' PRIOR, which CAME TOGETHER. For EVERY 'action' there IS a 'reaction', and for EVERY 'reaction', there IS CREATION as some 'thing' NEW IS CREATED.

And, OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW could be CREATED if just one solitary single piece of 'matter' EXISTED WITHIN the whole of what is sometimes called and referred to as 'space'.

SURE, 'matter' could be CONTINUALLY 'expanding' FROM a so-called 'big bang', AND then 'contracting' into one solitary singular piece of infinitely compressed 'matter', but what was called 'the big bang' might then just be 'one bang' out of countless 'bangs', and in relative terms might not even necessarily been that much of a 'big' bang, as it might have only been A PORTION of ALL the 'matter' in the Universe infinitely compressed together into just 'one' of MANY, then misnomered, 'singularities'.

Now, since the Universe IS, the way 'It' IS, that is; made up of 'space' AND 'matter' TOGETHER, which IS infinite AND eternal, in length, HOW ALL 'things', including the Universe, EXIST IS BECAUSE of HOW 'matter' AND 'space' CO-EXIST TOGETHER. There is NO OTHER way than 'this way', and WHAT HAPPENS and OCCURS 'this way' IS; 'matter', BECAUSE OF 'space' is ABLE to move about ABSOLUTELY FREELY, and when 'matter' IS MOVING ABOUT 'it' IS INTER-ACTING with itself, and coming together with itself, CAUSING the CREATION of new/er 'things' ALL the time. That IS; thee One 'Thing' here KNOWN AS the Universe, Itself, is just CONTINUALLY CHANGING in shape and form ALWAYS, and in ALL WAYS, some might say or suggest. This CONTINUAL CHANGE, which 'creates' EVERY 'thing' is just 'evolution', itself, by the way. The One Everything IS just CREATING, through EVOLUTION, ALL of the 'things', which are KNOWN, or thought ABOUT, by 'you', human beings.

By the way, it IS the 'friction' CAUSED by 'matter' INTERACTING with itself, which OCCURS BECAUSE of 'space' remember, which is WHAT CAUSES or CREATES 'energy', itself. The friction caused by matter 'bumping' into itself, which HAPPENS ETERNALLY, is WHY 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another'.

EVERY action CAUSES a reaction, and it is, literally, this never-beginning and never-ending One REACTION that IS CREATION, Itself. HOW EVERY 'thing' EXISTS IS BECAUSE this is HOW EVERY 'thing' IS CREATED, through a never-ending EVOLUTIONARY process.

Now, WHY does 'you', and the Universe, EXIST, IS to bear witness to WHAT I AM Creating HERE-NOW. AND BECAUSE there just could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY, as, partly, EXPLAINED above here.

Do you actually believe that that incoherent hodgepodge of some general scientific concepts, cobbled together with a few of your purely speculative imaginings, explains how the utterly blind and mindless processes of chance managed to create this...



...this...



...this...



...this...



...and, finally, this...



...just to name a few of the amazing features of reality

If I were to adopt your adolescent habit of using LOLs after everything I disagree with, then now would certainly be a fitting moment.

Indeed, the sheer idiocy of thinking that the blind and mindless processes of chance could have magically produced what would take dozens of genres of innumerable encyclopedias to list, is beyond measure.

Anyway, to sum-up your so-called "explanation" of how and why we and the universe exist, then, according to you, the whole universe exists so that we humans ("...in the days when this is being written...") can all bear witness to an utterly meaningless and nonsensical explanation as to how and why we and the universe exist.

Got it.

Thank you, Age.

Thanks to your amazing offering of irrefutable truth and clarifying enlightenment, the only thing left for the rest of us to do from this moment on, is to chop wood and carry water.

In a later post, you accused Atla of the following...

'This one' LITERALLY BELIEVES what 'it' STATES and CLAIMS is SO TRUE that 'it' can NOT even SEE that a LOT of what 'it' STATES and CLAIMS is true here is ACTUALLY ALL of 'its' OWN MAKING, and exists SOLELY in the IMAGINATION WITHIN 'that body'.

You keep proving my earlier assertions about your mental status. Indeed, you are so completely lacking in self-awareness, and so under the thrall of your "D-K E" (Dunning-Kruger Effect) affliction, that you are incapable of recognizing that the above quote is pure "projection" on your part.

You have inadvertently provided us with what is, in essence, a signed confession that succinctly describes the reason and impetus behind every comment you have ever made on this forum.
_______

[Harbal]

The big irony of philosophy is that Western philosophers have been looking for something "extra" for centuries, in order to explain consciousness.

I have come to suspect more and more that we will never have any significant idea of what true reality might be until we have discovered what consciousness is. I also suspect that understanding consciousness could well be impossible. I further suspect that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Gary Childress]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

I hope it's bonkers. Who wants to go back through this shit show again. No thanks, God. Please just go away and leave me out of any more of your "plans". That goes for "nature" or "fate" too. This world is a crap fest.

[Belinda]

I've been thinking about the possibility of reincarnation, and after much deliberation (one minute and twenty three seconds) I have concluded the notion to be utterly bonkers, and that's that.

I hope it's bonkers. Who wants to go back through this shit show again. No thanks, God. Please just go away and leave me out of any more of your "plans". That goes for "nature" or "fate" too. This world is a crap fest.

If you can threaten enough people with reincarnation into a lower status form you can control their behaviour. All religions either begin as political gambits or else they become politicised at a later stage.

[Will Bouwman]

I have come to suspect more and more that we will never have any significant idea of what true reality might be until we have discovered what consciousness is.

"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
Emerson M. Pugh

[attofishpi]

I have come to suspect more and more that we will never have any significant idea of what true reality might be until we have discovered what consciousness is.

"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
Emerson M. Pugh

GOLD.

I'm embarrassed by the number of times I had to read that to comprehend it.

[Age]

Okay. But what 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN, in case ANY one is interested.

I'm sure a great many people are interested, and I am certainly one of them, along with the Nobel Committee, no doubt.

Please tell us.

The word 'consciousness' just refers to being aware; awareness.

'Consciousness', capital 'C', refers to thee one and ONLY One, which is AWARE of ALL 'things', or Everything.

'consciousness', small 'c', refers to 'things' like 'you', human beings, who are, at times, aware of SOME 'things', or a part of Everything.

The word 'consciousness' is just in reference to the 'awareness', within a body.

But if ANY one at all finds ANY of 'this' 'interesting' or NOT, then we will just have to WAIT, and SEE.

[Age]

Here you admit with your own words that you have no proof, as proof has nothing to do with belief. You are the believer here.

LOL OKAY 'this' MUST BE TRUE, right "atla"?

Also, 'you' ARE AGAIN PROVING that 'you' are NOT READING and COMPREHENDING the ACTUAL WORDS WRITTEN and SAID NOR what IS ACTUALLY MEANT.

Which, for some one, who CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND 'context' appears RATHER CONTRADICTORY, to say the least.

I don't think anyone here fully understands your comments.

And NO one was expected to.

For example they mostly lack context in a way which we don't have time to learn.

Okay, MANY adults were just TO BUSY, CHASING AFTER MORE MONEY, in the days when this was being written.

Again, proof is proof, those who believe otherwise will have to change their beliefs, if they aren't stupid. That's what proofs are for.

[Age]

Consciousness was actually solved ages ago, by the Eastern philosophy of nondualism. By "solved" I mean that it's the Occam's razor solution to the philosophy of mind. I think nondualism is most clearly expressed in Zen buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Just listen to Alan Watts videos for a year, and the penny will drop eventually.

I don't think there is anything I want to know badly enough to be able to endure a year of Alan Watts.

Actually almost everything he says makes perfect sense, way beyond any major Western philosopher including Kant, once one realizes what he's on about.

So, what is 'he' on about, EXACTLY?

But yeah the solution to consciousness is kind of a letdown anyway, so you can totally skip it. Often it just creates more problems for everyday life, than it solves.

And, what was the SOLUTION to 'the philosophy of mind', EXACTLY?