Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:53 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:08 am
Ramu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:10 pm But the brain is also a physicalist element so that too must be removed.
If you remove the brain/mind, how can you arrive at the above conclusion.

I wasn't aware of a brain in my direct experience that ever suffered from psychological issues. How strange!

Please tell me, where is this brain occurring?
Without a brain/mind you would not have any 'direct experience' at all.

Note a person in coma or sleeping would not be aware [conscious] of his brain, but as long as he is not officially dead, the active brain/mind [minimal] is still there.
Another observer can see his brain in a surgery or the activities of his brain/mind in an fMRI or monitor.

In your case, you may be in a no-self state, but that is only no-conscious-self which give you the illusion there is no-self at all. As long as you are not dead there is always the empirical-self. The point is you are ignorant that your empirical-self have a hierarchy of selves ranging from different levels of the conscious to the subconscious self.
In a no-self state [altered state of consciousness] the normal convention consciousness is switch off temporary a bit longer than in a split second orgasm which could linger thereafter.

Thus in a no-me state, it is a no-conscious-me, actually it is no-normal_conscious-me. The no-me is merely an altered-state-of-normal-consciousness.
In one sense a no-self or no-me state is like one is in a drunken state but the degree of alertness is different.

Note a no-self or no-me state can also be easily induced by drugs, hallucinogen, etc.
It can also happen easily to the mentally sick, those suffering from brain damage, those who meditate, etc.

There is nothing significantly special with a no-self, no-me state when it is seen in its respective context.

So if I'm having brain surgery and the surgeon hands me a mirror and says, look Ramu..its your brain!! No it isn't actually...its a mere reflection of an appearance of some pink gray matter which you call a brain. However its not an actual brain is it? Its certainly not actual! Its merely a reflection of an appearance. It proves nothing actually. Still just a concept which is in reality a mere belief system. You and the religious zealot have a lot more in common than you think!

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:26 am**

Ramu wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:53 pm So if I'm having brain surgery and the surgeon hands me a mirror and says, look Ramu..its your brain!! No it isn't actually...its a mere reflection of an appearance of some pink gray matter which you call a brain. However its not an actual brain is it? Its certainly not actual! Its merely a reflection of an appearance. It proves nothing actually. Still just a concept which is in reality a mere belief system. You and the religious zealot have a lot more in common than you think!

So you the smartest guy on Earth will instruct your surgeon to get rid of that 'pink gray matter' inside your skull and throw it in the bin since that is not an actual brain?

A wise guy will always see reality in many perspectives without clinging to an absolute view ending with the Absolute [aka God, Brahman and the likes].

Take 'water' [that common fluid] which can be understood in many perspectives.
The optimal perspective is the one that produces the greatest net-positive in relation to the circumstances and objective on hand, e.g.

1. To the common man, water is understood as a common fluid that is critical to the survival of all living things which all humans need to drink. There are endless ways the common fluid labelled water can be studied.

2. In a more subtle perspective water is the same convertible to ice, steam, vapors, without a change in its molecular structure.

3. To the scientist and chemist, water is basically H2O i.e. a molecule combination of hydrogen and 2 oxygen atoms. Each atom has its nucleus, proton and electrons.

4. To the sub-atomic physicists, what is water to the layman is comprised of subatomic particles, quarks.

5. To the quantum physicists, that same water in reality is actually 99.9999% empty space. This 'water' in an ultimate sense could be made of wave or particle.

From the above there is no Absolute thing that made up of what is called 'water' to the laymen.
What is critical view is the positive results one can obtained within the selected perspective.

When the same lot of water is converted to ice for its purpose, the observer and user do not see it as 'water'. Factually there is no more water but only there is ice. However in reality it merely involve a change of form of the 'same' thing within a specific leveraged perspective.

The problem in this case is you have a very constipated view and understanding of reality in pushing your non-duality agenda.

Just like the water example above, you need to view the self in many perspectives, starting with two main perspectives, i.e.

1. The empirical self with a hierarchy of selves.
2. The transcendental self with many layers of selves.

There is no absolute and permanent self [permanent soul] which you and DAM has agreed?

However there is nothing else beyond the empirical and transcendental self which you would claim as the Absolute [aka Non-Dual, God, Brahman, Absolute, Oneness, etc.].

Why you and other claim there isthe Non-Dual is due to the psychological impulses from the empirical self and brain/mind.

What you are ignorant of is your own real self and brain/mind that is deceiving you to invent the idea of a real non-duality as Absolute, God, Oneness, and the like.
Have you ever bothered to study in more detail what is between your ears [brain] and how it works and your whole self?

I can confidently claim, you [of one particular self] are in state of fear [coward, chicken] in understanding your own selves [empirical and transcendental] and the existential crisis within.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:18 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:26 am So you the smartest guy on Earth will instruct your surgeon to get rid of that 'pink gray matter' inside your skull and throw it in the bin since that is not an actual brain?

A wise guy will always see reality in many perspectives without clinging to an absolute view ending with the Absolute [aka God, Brahman and the likes].

You need to study your metaphysics more instead of clinging to the absurd notion that you are the brain.

The brain is a first person conceptual appearance. If you are aware of a brain then you are not the brain.
You cannot be that which you are aware of.

Reality is not happening inside a brain (conceptual appearance)

The first person experience is subjective, not objective. What science has done is it has artificially superimposed and created a conceptual distinction upon nondual reality known as 3rd party objective but has conveniently overlooked the problem that this 3rd party objective is still occuring in first person experience simply because there is nothing else here other than that subjective. So anything other than first person exxperience is only ever a conceptual appearance within first person experience.

Everything objective is actually subjective. Any gathering of concensus by science into the nature of reality is all conceptual appearances occuring in the first person experience which is consciousness one without a second. And that there is a consensus objective agreement further validates the truth that reality can only be occuring in first person experience and that there is nothing outside of this first person subjective experience.

So it is clear in the metaphysical mind that there is zero empirical evidence for an external world separate from the first person experience.

So when you are looking at your brain. A problem of circularity appears in that the brain is a conceptual appearance appearing in your first person experience, the brain is seen as nothing more than a conceptual objective appearance still leaving the problem of where this appearance is occuring?

it cannot be occuring in someone elses brain either for then there is the problem of where that other brain is occuring too?

Vertitas you simply cannot pin the SELF down to a specific actual location like that and state catergorically that SELF is happening inside a brain.
The SELF is not a conceptual objective appearance. There has to be a metaphysical substrate behind all appearances. And yes, no one knows what that is, and yet paradoxically it is this unknown knowing. The absolute metaphysical substrate that is all reality cannot look at itself, no more than a tooth can bite itself or a knife can cut itself.

To assume you can look at yourself by saying you are happening inside your brain is absurd.

And then you can go even deeper into this mystery by pondering the exact location of intelligence behind that which built a material brain from nothing?

Do you not see that YOU the SELF is the ABSOLUTE ...and that the Absolute is nothing being everything?

.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:42 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:26 am So you the smartest guy on Earth will instruct your surgeon to get rid of that 'pink gray matter' inside your skull and throw it in the bin since that is not an actual brain?

A wise guy will always see reality in many perspectives without clinging to an absolute view ending with the Absolute [aka God, Brahman and the likes].

You need to study your metaphysics more instead of clinging to the absurd notion that you are the brain.

The brain is a first person conceptual appearance. If you are aware of a brain then you are not the brain.
You cannot be that which you are aware of.

Reality is not happening inside a brain (conceptual appearance)

The first person experience is subjective, not objective. What science has done is it has artificially superimposed and created a conceptual distinction upon nondual reality known as 3rd party objective but has conveniently overlooked the problem that this 3rd party objective is still occuring in first person experience simply because there is nothing else here other than that subjective. So anything other than first person exxperience is only ever a conceptual appearance within first person experience.

Everything objective is actually subjective. Any gathering of concensus by science into the nature of reality is all conceptual appearances occuring in the first person experience which is consciousness one without a second. And that there is a consensus objective agreement further validates the truth that reality can only be occuring in first person experience and that there is nothing outside of this first person subjective experience.

So it is clear in the metaphysical mind that there is zero empirical evidence for an external world separate from the first person experience.

So when you are looking at your brain. A problem of circularity appears in that the brain is a conceptual appearance appearing in your first person experience, the brain is seen as nothing more than a conceptual objective appearance still leaving the problem of where this appearance is occuring?

it cannot be occuring in someone elses brain either for then there is the problem of where that other brain is occuring too?

Vertitas you simply cannot pin the SELF down to a specific actual location like that and state catergorically that SELF is happening inside a brain.
The SELF is not a conceptual objective appearance. There has to be a metaphysical substrate behind all appearances. And yes, no one knows what that is, and yet paradoxically it is this unknown knowing. The absolute metaphysical substrate that is all reality cannot look at itself, no more than a tooth can bite itself or a knife can cut itself.

To assume you can look at yourself by saying you are happening inside your brain is absurd.

And then you can go even deeper into this mystery by pondering the exact location of intelligence behind that which built a material brain from nothing?

Do you not see that YOU the SELF is the ABSOLUTE ...and that the Absolute is nothing being everything?

.

You are off point on this.
In the above I am not arguing the brain itself is the self or the "me."

The empirical-self [conscious and subconscious] is represented by the whole living physical body, brain and mind of the person. The empirical-self is the person you represent to others and the self that others recognize you as a living person by a certain name.This is the empirical-I, empirical-me or empirical-you.
If the heart is dead the brain and the person [empirical self] will eventually be dead. However the physical brain is the ultimate determinant of the empirical-self as evident in a heart transplant case.

In our discussion we have agreed there is no-I & no-me [transcendental] as a permanent soul that survives physical death.

However you insist the ultimate of the empirical I, me or you is an Absolute, ONENESS, unknown-knowing, or God and the likes as claimed by others.
You have not been able to prove such a thing exists as real.
I am arguing this is an illusion like how a schizo believe gnomes exist because he had talked to them in his garden.

Why you [& theists] believe in such an illusion is because you are driven subliminally by terrible psychological impulses to soothe the desperate pains of an inherent existential crisis.

The critical point is you are very ignorant of your own brain, mind, whole empirical self and how it works. When your mind deceived you, you are not even aware of that.

Do you not see that YOU the SELF is the ABSOLUTE ...and that the Absolute is nothing being everything?

When you are so ignorant of your brain/mind how can you even trust yourself or expect me to trust the views above you are posting are true?

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:32 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:42 am However you insist the ultimate of the empirical I, me or you is an Absolute, ONENESS, unknown-knowing, or God and the likes as claimed by others.
You have not been able to prove such a thing exists as real.
I am arguing this is an illusion like how a schizo believe gnomes exist because he had talked to them in his garden.

Can you prove or demonstrate that ''others'' exist separate from you? ..you can't, so you have no argument here at all in regard to claiming something is real or not. All you can know is your own direct experience and that is all the proof you have. There is nothing outside of you that you can prove to be separate from you, because anything outside of you will always be A conceptually generated overlay appearance occuring within you ONLY.

You talk to others and others talk to you, but this apparent two way communication phenomena is an internal self sustaining feeback loop occuring in the first person subjective experience, it's an echo response on reflection. It's the proof of duality so to speak albeit illusory because it's actually no thing reflecting itself as other, it's same self.

You cannot prove another person exists, nor can another person prove You exist, because there is no such thing as a person, it's a mental construct, meaning it's no thing...there is zero evidence for an external world outside of this immediate first person non-conceptual experience which is what the sages call pure empty awareness.

And so that which appears to be outside of you, as every other thing is not out-there, it is a conceptual appearance within you here. There is no dividing line between one conceptual thing and another conceptual thing except as a conceptual contruct, aka no-thing thinging, a brain is no thing braining.

You are consciousness itself which is not-a-thing..there is nothing outside of not-a-thing consciousness, it's all consciousness and the contents of that consciousness one without a second appearing as the many.

So you yourself are left with the same problem that you accuse the schizo of having when you are believing you are talking to some other thing outside of your own experience believing that other thing exists for real...so this is just the same problem for you,
because those so called ''others'' that you believe to exist for real are nothing more than what you call gnomes in the garden.

.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:23 am**

All experience is first person subjective but this does not mean external reality does not exist but that it cannot be demonstrated
However as external reality cannot be manipulated it has to be real and mind independent and not limited by human imagination

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:51 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:23 am All experience is first person subjective but this does not mean external reality does not exist but that it cannot be demonstrated
However as external reality cannot be manipulated it has to be real and mind independent and not limited by human imagination

In what and where is the external world occuring? when existence itself is one big hallucination that is not taking place in the brain, because even the brain itself is an hallucination.

The materialist will then say where are these hallucinations taking place? And the answer is they are not talking place anywhere. There is nothing to make any thing of, there is no solid substance anywhere in reality, everything is without substance. Reality is totally formless and empty at it's core essence. All the effects of solidity are part of the hallucination. Hallucinations are a powerful phenomena that the mind mistakenly believes to be reality. The illusion is real in the sense it is believed to be real because without you there is nothing. The external world is dependant on you, and not the other way around. You are not dependant on an external world, there is no external world separate from you. You are the whole enchilada.

What the brain is and also what physical reality is is an extraneous fictitious metaphysical entity. An illusory hallucination...appearing nowhere, and everywhere all at once.

And that's what God is, nothing more, nothing less, call this hallucination by any other name you like, but it's still a metaphysical divine phenomena that is not impossible, because it's actually here right now as you. As this direct actual first person experience...aka consciousness being another name for YOU.

You don't ever lose consciousness because you never had it to lose it. You are consciousness, you are the hallucination. Births and deaths are all illusory hallucinations within the same hallucination that is existence one without a second.

Hallucinations, illusions, dreams, concepts, thoughts, ideas, mind, consciousness, awareness are all nothing but hallucinations within hallucinations...that cannot be grasped by the mind or held by the physical hand because there is nothing behind them ...add infinitium.

No such thing as human imagination ..human is an imagined concept by imagination itself which is also part of the hallucination no thing or one is having.

Appearances do not take place in a physical substratum, this is an assumption, because the physical conceptual object is the hallucination, which is empty at it's core.

.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:33 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:42 am
When you are so ignorant of your brain/mind how can you even trust yourself or expect me to trust the views above you are posting are true?

All you are doing is grounding your belief in a substance that has become your empirical I ..your grounding substance is a physical reality with brains and neurons etc and that grounding substance is where all appearances are talking place, yet there is no empirical evidence for any physical grounding substance at all except ..this is all taken on faith and belief by indoctrinated knowledge that was implanted into you like a mind virus. And this physical substratum is your God, you are so God damned adament about your God, so you see, you have the same problem going on here that you condemn in the believer of God.

Note the mystic is not a believer or a theist of some God existing separate from itself or as being something outside itself, the mystic is the one who has illiminated the idea that it has a physical existence in and of itself, and thus dissolved that idea of physicality as pure fantasy until all that's left is this what is, was, and ever will be, forever unknown knowing direct experience of pure being.

.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:43 pm**

Reality cannot be COMPLETELY empty because nothing could exist including hallucinations and dreams and concepts and ideas

Most of what is perceived as reality is indeed empty as atoms are mostly empty themselves
However there still has to be SOMETHING no matter how little of it there might actually be

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:03 pm**

Now if EVERYTHING is Consciousness then Consciousness must exist and so it is therefore REAL
And if EVERYTHING is NOTHING then Consciousness cannot exist and neither can EVERYTHING

Either SOMETHING exists or NOTHING exists but you cannot have them existing simultaneously
And if NOTHING exists then there cannot be any hallucinations or dreams or concepts or ideas

My brain tells me that I exist and physical reality exists too and I have no reason to think otherwise

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:21 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:42 am However you insist the ultimate of the empirical I, me or you is an Absolute, ONENESS, unknown-knowing, or God and the likes as claimed by others.
You have not been able to prove such a thing exists as real.
I am arguing this is an illusion like how a schizo believe gnomes exist because he had talked to them in his garden.
Can you prove or demonstrate that ''others'' exist separate from you? ..you can't, so you have no argument here at all in regard to claiming something is real or not. All you can know is your own direct experience and that is all the proof you have. There is nothing outside of you that you can prove to be separate from you, because anything outside of you will always be A conceptually generated overlay appearance occuring within you ONLY.

You talk to others and others talk to you, but this apparent two way communication phenomena is an internal self sustaining feeback loop occuring in the first person subjective experience, it's an echo response on reflection. It's the proof of duality so to speak albeit illusory because it's actually no thing reflecting itself as other, it's same self.

You cannot prove another person exists, nor can another person prove You exist, because there is no such thing as a person, it's a mental construct, meaning it's no thing...there is zero evidence for an external world outside of this immediate first person non-conceptual experience which is what the sages call pure empty awareness.

And so that which appears to be outside of you, as every other thing is not out-there, it is a conceptual appearance within you here. There is no dividing line between one conceptual thing and another conceptual thing except as a conceptual contruct, aka no-thing thinging, a brain is no thing braining.

You are consciousness itself which is not-a-thing..there is nothing outside of not-a-thing consciousness, it's all consciousness and the contents of that consciousness one without a second appearing as the many.

So you yourself are left with the same problem that you accuse the schizo of having when you are believing you are talking to some other thing outside of your own experience believing that other thing exists for real...so this is just the same problem for you,
because those so called ''others'' that you believe to exist for real are nothing more than what you call gnomes in the garden.

.

"Can you prove or demonstrate that ''others'' exist separate from you? ..you can't, so you have no argument here at all in regard to claiming something is real or not."

You are so stupid on this.
I stated the empirical self [& selves] of others exist separate from my empirical self.
It is so easy to prove 'me' and 'others' exist physically and mentally in the empirical perspective.

Say,
if someone wanted to chop 'you' up in pieces to feed to the dogs, would 'you' agree to that?
According to your theory 'you' should agree because 'you' and the 'other' person are not real.
Whatever happened [you being chopped up] does not matter and is not real to 'you' as ultimately there is only the Absolute.

A normal person [not stupid like you] will recognize s/he exists as real and the 'others' exist as real people. Because they are real people and alive, they would never agree to be chopped up to be fed to the dogs.

I claimed there are many perspectives to "what is reality"
Note I raised this,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
In this perspective, all of reality is an illusion.
Such a perspective is useful for some reason but this is only one perspective of reality, thus one cannot claim this is THE ABSOLUTE REALITY.

I agree with the perspective of non-duality [no Absolute] but only as one perspective of reality.
You however stupidly, rigidly & dogmatically insist non-duality with the Absolute as the only reality.

You need to "know thyself" and understand your own psychological self.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:02 am**

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:38 pm To me it seems contrary.

That which has no form can be detected through form, with this absence of form being the negative boundary which can be observed through form as positive/existing.

In simpler terms all negatives are observed through positives.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:25 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:42 am
When you are so ignorant of your brain/mind how can you even trust yourself or expect me to trust the views above you are posting are true?
All you are doing is grounding your belief in a substance that has become your empirical I ..your grounding substance is a physical reality with brains and neurons etc and that grounding substance is where all appearances are talking place, yet there is no empirical evidence for any physical grounding substance at all except ..this is all taken on faith and belief by indoctrinated knowledge that was implanted into you like a mind virus. And this physical substratum is your God, you are so God damned adament about your God, so you see, you have the same problem going on here that you condemn in the believer of God.

Note the mystic is not a believer or a theist of some God existing separate from itself or as being something outside itself, the mystic is the one who has illiminated the idea that it has a physical existence in and of itself, and thus dissolved that idea of physicality as pure fantasy until all that's left is this what is, was, and ever will be, forever unknown knowing direct experience of pure being.

What sort of credibility is your above view when you don't even know much of going inside your own brain?

I'll repeat,

When you are so ignorant of your brain/mind how can you even trust yourself or expect me to trust the views above you are posting are true?
Provide justified rational evidence and argument to support your claims.

Note a kid can be easily taught to claim and say the same thing as you are doing above.

Rawat is the youngest son of Hans Ji Maharaj, an Indian guru and the founder of the Divya Sandesh Parishad (later known as Divine Light Mission, or DLM) After his father's death, eight-year-old Rawat became the new "Satguru" (True Master).
At age 13 Rawat travelled to the West, soon taking up residence in the United States. Many young adults took interest in the claim that Rawat could impart direct knowledge of God to his followers, and some have said to have experienced it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat

Whatever I had proposed are supported by empirical evidence and philosophical arguments.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:16 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:03 pm Now if EVERYTHING is Consciousness then Consciousness must exist and so it is therefore REAL
And if EVERYTHING is NOTHING then Consciousness cannot exist and neither can EVERYTHING

Either SOMETHING exists or NOTHING exists but you cannot have them existing simultaneously
And if NOTHING exists then there cannot be any hallucinations or dreams or concepts or ideas

My brain tells me that I exist and physical reality exists too and I have no reason to think otherwise

The common belief that something cannot come from nothing is knowledge-which is not the truth. Wisdom indicates that everything is an illusory manifestation of light which cannot be held by our hands. This signifies that everything comes from nothing.

What could the mind exist of? is it the brain? the neurons? atoms? that which wants to possess something (the mind) is itself nothing meaning light.The point is reality is all one unbroken whole (oneness) (SOURCE)which translates to not-a-thing AND EVERYTHING ..THING implies otherness albeit illusory.

When there's just EVERYTHING then EVERYTHING is not-a-thing...except in this conception.

.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:32 pm**

DAM: wrote..
"Can you prove or demonstrate that ''others'' exist separate from you? ..you can't, so you have no argument here at all in regard to claiming something is real or not."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:21 am

You are so stupid on this.
I stated the empirical self [& selves] of others exist separate from my empirical self.
It is so easy to prove 'me' and 'others' exist physically and mentally in the empirical perspective.

Well of course others exist but only because you exist, (first person appearance) aka direct experience...

The external world is your reflection else you cannot see,know or experience yourself. Without you there is no other, you create other because YOU ARE - other is not outside of you. Without you there is no other, without other there is no you..you are a two way mirror, nothing and everything, mirror and reflection in the same instant.

There is no you because there is no other than you. You are the ONE and the ONE is you.

Opposition and free thinkers are labeled as mental disorders. Sad that humans themselves are their biggest evolutionary blockade.

.

Philosophy Now Forum

How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?

Re: How something which has no form, soul, can be detected?