The 'Mirror Test' and Self-Consciousness of "I"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Cogito Ergo Sum. I Think therefore I AM.
The 'I Think' i.e. the "I" that thinks is an empirical "I" which is not an transcendental illusion.

So the empirical "I" is Awareness without an object?

Note that awareness does not look for differences, it's undifferentiated, it doesn't distinguish ?

The empirical "I" is related to properties that represent the living individual that is empirically verifiable, i.e. the individual's physical self, mental activities, thoughts and potentials.

What you are alluding to is the "I AM" which is the transcendental idea and that is an illusion if claimed to be real.

Okay, I get that...as in real and unreal pertain to duality the world of conceptual opposites aka knowledge, the dream of separation?

This "I AM" is the soul that many claim to survive physical death.

But this is just an interpretation right?

The I AM doesn't look for differences. ie: birth and death...it is birthless and deathless?

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.
Just as the brain duped the individual to see that distorted face as a normal face, the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.
Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

[Dontaskme]

The I AM doesn't look for differences. ie: birth and death...it is birthless and deathless?

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.
Just as the brain duped the individual to see that distorted face as a normal face, the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.
Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

The I pointing to the AM ..is a phantom appearing in the AM that has no point/centre.


The two are one. And this one is real.

The real doesn't look for differences. Differences are of the mind...aka appearances, known only to the real which cannot be known by the mind.

.

Sorry, but you haven't broken through the final brick yet.

.

You are still talking about 'theists''...there is no such entity/claimer/believer.

.

[Dontaskme]

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.

The brain doesn't create anything, it simply replays imagless information that already exists into coherent regognisable patterns via images.

the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.

The brain doesn't create anything, it's useless without the animating energy streaming through it.

Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

The only fact you are sure of is that you are. The 'I am' is certain. The 'I am this' is not.

.

[Ramu]

Note Cogito Ergo Sum. I Think therefore I AM.
The 'I Think' i.e. the "I" that thinks is an empirical "I" which is not an transcendental illusion.

So the empirical "I" is Awareness without an object?

Note that awareness does not look for differences, it's undifferentiated, it doesn't distinguish ?

The empirical "I" is related to properties that represent the living individual that is empirically verifiable, i.e. the individual's physical self, mental activities, thoughts and potentials.

What you are alluding to is the "I AM" which is the transcendental idea and that is an illusion if claimed to be real.

Okay, I get that...as in real and unreal pertain to duality the world of conceptual opposites aka knowledge, the dream of separation?

This "I AM" is the soul that many claim to survive physical death.

But this is just an interpretation right?

The I AM doesn't look for differences. ie: birth and death...it is birthless and deathless?

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.
Just as the brain duped the individual to see that distorted face as a normal face, the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.
Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

Veritas: why do you think you are the body? You think your mind is a product of brain which is sitting in your skull. You think everything we experience is happening in a brain? But if everything I'm experiencing including my body and thoughts is happening in a brain....then where is the brain occurring? Could it be instead that your body is in your mind? Perhaps identifying as body and mind is the illusion you could jailbreak to pull yourself out of this physicalism paradigm which is wrong. Quantum physics debunks physicalism by the way. By changing your paradigm you will see what is possible versus what is mere smoke and mirrors.

[Dontaskme]

Ramu

[Greta]

The mirror test's greatest flaw is that it assumes the same visual emphasis as humans.

If you tried an equivalent test on humans to see how well they recognise their own smells amongst others they would would appear as if unaware of the self.

As for all the supposition going on, one way or another, regarding the existence of "I", all I can say is "maybe". Yeah, the brain might just be a receiver and the thought flow from which we choose our foci is part of a higher mind. Yeah maybe. Then again, maybe not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The I AM doesn't look for differences. ie: birth and death...it is birthless and deathless?

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.
Just as the brain duped the individual to see that distorted face as a normal face, the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.
Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

The I pointing to the AM ..is a phantom appearing in the AM that has no point/centre.


The two are one. And this one is real.

The real doesn't look for differences. Differences are of the mind...aka appearances, known only to the real which cannot be known by the mind.

Sorry, but you haven't broken through the final brick yet.

You are still talking about 'theists''...there is no such entity/claimer/believer.

You missed the point.

The "I-Think" is the empirical self - the mind and the physical self.
The "I-AM" is equivalent to the 'atman' in advaita vedanta.

The "atman" is an interdependent entity with Brahman.
To you, Brahman is the real of real which cannot be known by mind, but this is an illusion which your mind has duped you into believing as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The "I AM" is merely an illusory self that is created by the brain.

The brain doesn't create anything, it simply replays imagless information that already exists into coherent regognisable patterns via images.

the brain also created an illusory "I AM" which theists think is real.

The brain doesn't create anything, it's useless without the animating energy streaming through it.

Theists claim this "I AM" as a soul that survives physical death which is a falsehood.

There is no real "I AM" that is birthless and deathless.

The only fact you are sure of is that you are. The 'I am' is certain. The 'I am this' is not.

.

You seem to be lost on the above.

Note, in the case of the face demo, it is your brain and mind that duped you by creating an false 'normal' image from the real distorted face.

That "animating energy streaming in" as you claimed above as the ultimate [birthless and deathless] is actually an illusion your brain/mind has duped you into believing it as something absolutely real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas: why do you think you are the body?
You think your mind is a product of brain which is sitting in your skull.
You think everything we experience is happening in a brain?

But if everything I'm experiencing including my body and thoughts is happening in a brain....then where is the brain occurring?
Could it be instead that your body is in your mind?

Perhaps identifying as body and mind is the illusion you could jailbreak to pull yourself out of this physicalism paradigm which is wrong.
Quantum physics debunks physicalism by the way.
By changing your paradigm you will see what is possible versus what is mere smoke and mirrors.

The above are merely straw-man[s].
The don't represent my views at all.
I don't agree with Physicalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

My view is the body and mind are interdependent.
The body-mind is interdependent with the Universe which in turn is interdependent with the body-mind in a different meta perspective.

There is no independent "I" that is independent of the human conditions and there is no independent absolute being [Brahman] that exists as an Absolute like below;

Paul Deussen states that the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads expands to metaphysical, ontological and soteriological themes, such as it being the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe",[40] the "principle of the world",[40] the "absolute",[41] the "general, universal",[42] the "cosmic principle",[43] the "ultimate that is the cause of everything including all gods",[44] the "divine being, Lord, distinct God, or God within oneself",[45] the "knowledge",[46] the "soul, sense of self of each human being that is fearless, luminuous, exalted and blissful",[47] the "essence of liberation, of spiritual freedom",[48] the "universe within each living being and the universe outside",[47] the "essence and everything innate in all that exists inside, outside and everywhere".[49]

Gavin Flood summarizes the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads to be the "essence, the smallest particle of the cosmos and the infinite universe", the "essence of all things which cannot be seen, though it can be experienced", the "self, soul within each person, each being", the "truth", the "reality", the "absolute", the "bliss" (ananda).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

[Dontaskme]

You missed the point.

The "I-Think" is the empirical self - the mind and the physical self.
The "I-AM" is equivalent to the 'atman' in advaita vedanta.

Right, okay, I get the point.

The "atman" is an interdependent entity with Brahman.
To you, Brahman is the real of real which cannot be known by mind, but this is an illusion which your mind has duped you into believing as real.

I understand this conceptually, but as I keep saying, words are of duality, they are mental constructs.

The words real/unreal, atman, brahman, or what ever word is conjured, is a mentally generated library of knowledge believed.

In reality, life does not have any concept about it. Life does not say it is real, nor unreal, or that it is brahman or whatever...Life just IS..it's palpable,it's tangible, it's experiencial... What that sensation of ''being'' is.... cannot be known, YOU ARE IT...knowing you are creates the opposite.

WHO is the 'other' who can negate ''what you are'' into ''what you are not'' except your own self that cannot be known by another....who, who, who let the dogs out?????

.

[Dontaskme]

But if everything I'm experiencing including my body and thoughts is happening in a brain....then where is the brain occurring?

The above are merely straw-man[s].

My view is the body and mind are interdependent.
The body-mind is interdependent with the Universe which in turn is interdependent with the body-mind in a different meta perspective.

So then the brain must be occuring in the mind...if the brain creates a 'strawman' (body)..that body is dependent on a knower to know the concept...so the knower must be the mind...this all points back to the mind everytime. Can the mind be negated? if knower and known exist interdependantly then what is being negated here?.. both body and mind have to be in the same instant.. don't they?

You've just admitted..My view is the body and mind are interdependent.

So that must mean both brain and mind are one in the same instant...and there is no other outside of that arena...so who or what is this ''other'' that is trying to negate itself?

Can the negation of the existence of one... be possible? ...and if so..who is the 'other one' that can negate? ..ARE THERE TWO ONES?

How can that which doesn't exist (strawman) negate ...what is it negating?

Just answer the question? ...''But if everything I'm experiencing including my body and thoughts is happening in a brain....then where is the brain occurring'' ?

You can't just say that is a strawman argument...when you are certain of what you are saying is true...who knows this truth, the brain or the mind?


.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed the point.

The "I-Think" is the empirical self - the mind and the physical self.
The "I-AM" is equivalent to the 'atman' in advaita vedanta.

Right, okay, I get the point.

The "atman" is an interdependent entity with Brahman.
To you, Brahman is the real of real which cannot be known by mind, but this is an illusion which your mind has duped you into believing as real.

I understand this conceptually, but as I keep saying, words are of duality, they are mental constructs.

The words real/unreal, atman, brahman, or what ever word is conjured, is a mentally generated library of knowledge believed.

In reality, life does not have any concept about it. Life does not say it is real, nor unreal, or that it is brahman or whatever...Life just IS..it's palpable,it's tangible, it's experiencial... What that sensation of ''being'' is.... cannot be known, YOU ARE IT...knowing you are creates the opposite.

WHO is the 'other' who can negate ''what you are'' into ''what you are not'' except your own self that cannot be known by another....who, who, who let the dogs out?????

Obviously words in the ordinary sense or as intended to be are merely representations of something at certain perspectives of reality.

But the point is, you cannot insist there is "something" absolute that is wordless and cannot be known. What you need is to eliminate all traces of reification which is actually a burden and some fine level bondage.
The philosophy of advaita vedanta of atman, brahman by default leads one to reification.
However if you switch to the highest stage of Buddhist's philosophy [a 180 degree contrast to advaita vedanta] then I understand there is no reification at all. [btw, I am not a Buddhist but agree with the core principles of Buddhism].

As long as you are clinging to advaita vedanta you are entrapped and led to reification.

Btw, I have respect for advaita vedanta [more advance than dvaita vedanta] and similar philosophies which I think is very high level spiritual philosophy but it does not eliminate reification of the finest entity.

[Dontaskme]

Obviously words in the ordinary sense or as intended to be are merely representations of something at certain perspectives of reality.

But the point is, you cannot insist there is "something" absolute that is wordless and cannot be known. What you need is to eliminate all traces of reification which is actually a burden and some fine level bondage.

The YOU doesn't need to eliminate reification ...because the YOU cannot experience itself as an OBJECT...so there is no thing that is causing reification in the first place...that thing that has to be eliminated doesn't exist. You ARE, without question,doubt or error, and YOU ARE cannot experience your own absence..or be an ''ARE NOT''

The philosophy of advaita vedanta of atman, brahman by default leads one to reification.

No it doesn't, it leads one to one. It leads one back unto itself one without a second. One cannot be known without the other, both knowing and not-knowing are the same KNOWING.

However if you switch to the highest stage of Buddhist's philosophy [a 180 degree contrast to advaita vedanta] then I understand there is no reification at all. [btw, I am not a Buddhist but agree with the core principles of Buddhism].

All these conceptual denominations are pointing to the same ONE idea, and one is not higher than the other. What you are does not have an identity so saying you are this or that ..or one being higher than the other is stupid.

As long as you are clinging to advaita vedanta you are entrapped and led to reification.

The YOU doesn't cling to anything, there is no thing there to cling to...YOU cannot experience yourself as a conceptual object...aka knowledge. You are the not-knowing knowledge.

Btw, I have respect for advaita vedanta [more advance than dvaita vedanta] and similar philosophies which I think is very high level spiritual philosophy but it does not eliminate reification of the finest entity.

Yes it does.

But each to their own preferrence. It's only You the one and only seeing difference where there is NONE.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Obviously words in the ordinary sense or as intended to be are merely representations of something at certain perspectives of reality.

But the point is, you cannot insist there is "something" absolute that is wordless and cannot be known. What you need is to eliminate all traces of reification which is actually a burden and some fine level bondage.

The YOU doesn't need to eliminate reification ...because the YOU cannot experience itself as an OBJECT...so there is no thing that is causing reification in the first place...that thing that has to be eliminated doesn't exist. You ARE, without question,doubt or error, and YOU ARE cannot experience your own absence..or be an ''ARE NOT''

Note the point is one [the empirical I] can only said that when one is alive with a mind.
There is no empirical I if one is dead or brain dead.

You may introduce all sorts of terms but as long at you are with advaita vedanta principles, there is reification as driven by a psychological impulse.

The philosophy of advaita vedanta of atman, brahman by default leads one to reification.

No it doesn't, it leads one to one. It leads one back unto itself one without a second. One cannot be known without the other, both knowing and not-knowing are the same KNOWING.

However if you switch to the highest stage of Buddhist's philosophy [a 180 degree contrast to advaita vedanta] then I understand there is no reification at all. [btw, I am not a Buddhist but agree with the core principles of Buddhism].

All these conceptual denominations are pointing to the same ONE idea, and one is not higher than the other. What you are does not have an identity so saying you are this or that ..or one being higher than the other is stupid.

As long as you are clinging to advaita vedanta you are entrapped and led to reification.

The YOU doesn't cling to anything, there is no thing there to cling to...YOU cannot experience yourself as a conceptual object...aka knowledge. You are the not-knowing knowledge.

Btw, I have respect for advaita vedanta [more advance than dvaita vedanta] and similar philosophies which I think is very high level spiritual philosophy but it does not eliminate reification of the finest entity.

Yes it does.

But each to their own preferrence. It's only You the one and only seeing difference where there is NONE.

[/quote]
Note your use of 'The You' which is an reification.
Again, you may introduce all sorts of terms but as long at you are with advaita vedanta principles, there is reification as driven by a psychological impulse.

[Dontaskme]

Obviously words in the ordinary sense or as intended to be are merely representations of something at certain perspectives of reality.

Words are knowledge.
And knowledge is the experience within the experiencer. The two are inseparably ONE.
ONE is not an experience, the experience is within the one that is not an experience, the experience is known by NO other ONE but the ONE.

But the point is, you cannot insist there is "something" absolute that is wordless and cannot be known. What you need is to eliminate all traces of reification which is actually a burden and some fine level bondage.

No separate person is saying that...what is saying that is the ONE...how can one know anything without projecting other?
Both the projector and the projection is one unitary action.

The YOU doesn't need to eliminate reification ...because the YOU cannot experience itself as an OBJECT...so there is no thing that is causing reification in the first place...that thing that has to be eliminated doesn't exist. You ARE, without question,doubt or error, and YOU ARE cannot experience your own absence..or be an ''ARE NOT''

Note the point is one [the empirical I] can only said that when one is alive with a mind.
There is no empirical I if one is dead or brain dead.

If there is no empirical I when one is dead .. then there can be no emprical I when one is alive...the problem with saying there is no emprical I when one is dead is to assume one can be alive...but this is knowledge, and knowledge is the illusion. No one alive can know it is alive, just as no one dead can know it is dead. If you can know you are alive then you must be able to know you are dead.

Knowledge therefore informs the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no one dead or alive.


There is no one here dead or alive to know KNOWLEDGE, except KNOWLEDGE. There is only knowing without a knower.

The knower of knowing is known only to the knower which cannot be known...this is dualistic, this is the mind knowing itself through opposites, the mind is no thing knowing itself.

Both knower and known have to exist as one in the same moment. In that knowledge we can see that there is no ''emprical I'' that lives or dies.
For how can ONE THING be born, how can ONE THING die?...

Advaita Vendanta, is pointing to this immediate beginningless /endingless ETERNAL NOW.

This eternal now is not driven by a psychological impulse...any psychological impusle is a mental construction within the eternal now, it's an appearance of no thing, a mirage, delusion. The delusion belongs to the mind, and the mind is not-a- thing deluding itself as an object known..aka knowledge which is also illusory.


This immediate beginningless /endingless ETERNAL NOW is not an illusion. No one can know this immediate beginningless /endingless ETERNAL NOW..because there is only THIS.

To know you know would require ANOTHER KNOWER...there is no other knower known...there is only NOT-KNOWIN KNOWING

Your brain does not understand [recognize] the difference between;
1. The God which you think is real, and
2. The God which is illusory but you think is real.

Real or unreal IS of the mind..(knowledge)
The mind is an illusory appearance within awareness that has no concept of either real or unreal, but HAS TO BE if real or unreal is known.

Knowledge in this case is the illusory manifestation of unmanifest awareness..which has no concept of what is real or unreal.
This illusory manifestion is known as knowledge aka the emprical I ..it's inseparable from it's causer...(Awareness)

The emprical I is the experience within the experiencer...and not the experiencer itself. The experiencer cannot experience itself as the experience, it is the experience.
There is here only one experiencer experiencing itself as multiplicity.
There is no one to deny this, for this is without doubt or error. It's known in not-knowing.

As I had stated you need deeper understanding and reflection to understand that you have been fooled by your brain to grasp the idea that God exists is real.

The mind that fools does not exist... that which is aware of the trickery does.

You are prevented by your primal brain which is more dominant than your thinking [rational] brain to reflect deeper on this matter due to the existential crisis.

No, there is no existential crisis here... this is the trickery of the mind assuming it is a separate identity that can be fooled into believing it exists....it's belief, a thought...it's not real...what I AM has no identity full stop...any identity is an appearance in that which has no identity, appearances are illusions, while that which is aware of the illusion is not.
How can the concept illusion even be known without it's opposite ?

I don't think you are quite grasping the idea that ''opposites'' have to exist in the same reality, and that although they do appear to be in opposition is the illusion, they are not in opposition they are complimentary opposites that have to be. THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME NO/THING.

Your cognition that 'God is real' is an illusion,
it is the same as how your brain forces you to see the right face-image as normal, when in reality is not.

Cognition means separation...there is no separation anywhere to be found in reality. The separation simply means knowledge, knowledge is an appearance in not-knowing awareness known via experience. Awareness is not an experience because everything is awareness - awareness is without beginning nor end, it's the eternal now that is neither alive nor dead.

No one has an experience. There is only experience. (known in the experience no one is having)
No one has awareness. There is only awareness. (known in the awareness no one has)
You are the KNOWN that cannot be KNOWN.

_____________