Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:29 pm What do you mean by Life?

Read the article.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:22 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:58 pmyadda yadda ..bla bla ..bla!!

Dude could you like go somewhere else and go spew your pure nonsense and babble?!?!
There are plenty of other philosophy forum out there!

Sure!

Thanks for the reasonable comment.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:26 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:23 pm What does physical look like ?

Look in a mirror.

Reflections in mirrors don't know anything do they now? rather,they are being known and looked upon and known from that place only.

Assuming the physical reflection seen in a mirror is the knower of physical form is like saying a cartoon character knows it is a real somebody.

so again, that which knows the concept physical has no physical form.

A physical thing can't know anything..if it can, then give me an example of some thing physical, name any thing physical that knows it's physical?

.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:28 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:29 pm What do you mean by Life?

Read the article.

That which is reading and knowing the article is not physical ...is all I'm saying.

That which knows the nature of life is not physical...the nature of life is a mental narrative..you then start telling me this thread has more to do with life, and I'm like what do you mean by that concept? what will a concept tell me anything about the nature of life? ..I can read about life all day long from books or forums or blogs or whatever other source the knowledge of life comes from...but language via words aka knowledge is no substitute for the actual direct experience of life or of being alive or of being conscious...no more that the words on a menu card are the actual food.

The point being made here... is that which knows the nature of life is not physical.





.

Beautifully said DAM. I couldn't have expressed it any better.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:36 am The point being made here... is that which knows the nature of life is not physical.

Does it being (or not being) physical detract from its knowing?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:36 am The point being made here... is that which knows the nature of life is not physical.

Does it being (or not being) physical detract from its knowing?

...and if (not being), what is the point in it knowing, since it is immaterial, it cannot affect matter, ergo has no bearing on life.

You're still not getting it. The physical does not know. Being is not physical nor is it a thing. Being has no shape, size, color or any limiting qualities whatsoever. It is infinite and eternal. It can partition itself into an infinite amount of subdivisions yet those subdivisions are the total sum of Being. Because language is of a dualistic nature it is nearly impossible to describe with words. Another term for Being is Consciousness. Consciousness is the only Nothing (No Thing) in existence. Everything (including bodies, "others", and neuroscience), occurs within the No Thing. No Thing is the emptiest of empty containers with Infinite Capacity. It is Limitless. It is Now. It is not future or past. It is Now. It is outside of time and space. The ancient Aztecs and Sages and Gurus have known this for thousands of years. It requires radical open mindedness and a willingness to drop all previous conditioning from your parents, teachers, culture and so called "authority figures". If you can jail break yourself from your limiting materialist/physicalist paradigm you will see that you as Being are the only authority in existence. The end of approval seeking and validation. Nirvana. Freedom.

Ramu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:33 pm You're still not getting it. The physical does not know. Being is not physical nor is it a thing. Being has no shape, size, color or any limiting qualities whatsoever. It is infinite and eternal. It can partition itself into an infinite amount of subdivisions yet those subdivisions are the total sum of Being. Because language is of a dualistic nature it is nearly impossible to describe with words. Another term for Being is Consciousness. Consciousness is the only Nothing (No Thing) in existence. Everything (including bodies, "others", and neuroscience), occurs within the No Thing. No Thing is the emptiest of empty containers with Infinite Capacity. It is Limitless. It is Now. It is not future or past. It is Now. It is outside of time and space. The ancient Aztecs and Sages and Gurus have known this for thousands of years. It requires radical open mindedness and a willingness to drop all previous conditioning from your parents, teachers, culture and so called "authority figures". If you can jail break yourself from your limiting materialist/physicalist paradigm you will see that you as Being are the only authority in existence. The end of approval seeking and validation. Nirvana. Freedom.

Ya, not sure wot there is to get ....to be honest I only replied to skepdick and wot i fort woz a poignant point.

When it comes to under_standing to true metaphysical nature of reality...i'll put a thousand to one bet down that I comprehend it far more thoroughly than U.

LAN_GAUGE is exactly the thing U should be paying attention to my friend. In dead the language of ENGLISH - the common protocol for communication on planet H_EARTH

Don't tell me about Sages and Aztecs - you are pissing into a something you really don't comprehend. REAL_IT_Y?

..PS - atto - apprentice to an actual SAGE.

Why do you need a Sage? For validation? Is he the one who gives you the stamp of approval. Don't think for yourself, make sure you consult with the Sage first! )

Ramu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:59 pm Why do you need a Sage? For validation? Is he the one who gives you the stamp of approval. Don't think for yourself, make sure you consult with the Sage first! )

Understand. You are on a philosophy forum. I never stated 'I need a sage.'

I simply is learnin from one - for the past 21 yrs in fact.

Well, arn't U rather a hypocrite - banging on at the outset re Aztecs n Sages. "The ancient Aztecs and Sages and Gurus have known this for thousands of years" - wtf!

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:36 am That which is reading and knowing the article is not physical ...is all I'm saying.

If you believe the physical and consciousness are different separate things fine. I do not buy into that kind of dualism.

Consciousness, and life, are attributes of physical living organisms. You don't have to have that view, but if you regard the physical and consciousness as separate incompatible things you are left with a supernatural view of reality--the physical natural existence as one thing and some ineffable, intangible, ethereal thing you call consciousness or mind as another.

In the monist's view, (mine), it is the physical, living, conscious organism itself that perceives and knows. Life, consciousness, and mind are not separate things from the physical and do not exist independently of the physical, they are aspects or attributes of the physical organism itself.

In your dualist view, the physical organisms is one thing, life and consciousness is another. I'm not interested in changing your view, but if you are going to ask questions about mine it most be in terms of my view. Otherwise my answer to all your questions will be the same: I am not a dualist. I cannot explain my view in terms of your view which I regard as mistaken.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:20 am A physical thing can't know anything..if it can, then give me an example of some thing physical, name any thing physical that knows it's physical?

Every human being.

Of course, being a dualist believing consciousness and mind are supernatural (not material), separate form the physical beings they are the consciousness and mind of, you will not agree with that. Which is fine.

The word consciousness has two entirely different meanings here

For the physicalist / materialist it is an emergent property of brains
For the non dualist it is the totality of all that exists - it is awareness

The physicalist / materialist sees it as mind dependent and internal
The non dualist sees it as mind independent and external - although they dont think the mind actually exists

I have no direct experience of consciousness as non dual only as my own existence as a mind within a body
But because it could conceptually be true I cannot reject it so the default position is to keep an open mind

But if I did become convinced of non dual consciousness I do not think that it would affect me either philosophically or psychologically
As through detachment I realise that this existence is temporary and life and death are merely different points on the same spectrum

But observable reality is in one sense non dual because everything is either directly or indirectly connected to everything else

Human beings split reality up in into its constituent parts in order to understand it better but this is the map not the territory
Sometimes they just want to focus on one tree in the forest rather than the whole forest itself but that is conceptual not real

Therefore the most famous dichotomy of all the one between mind and matter is simply one of language not of reality
The other famous dichotomy between quantum mechanics and general relativity is also one of language not of reality

These are the most fundamental ones but all dichotomies are equally conceptual as they only exist within the human mind and nowhere else
Of course we need the conceptual map to understand the actual territory but we must never make the mistake of thinking they are the same

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:40 pm The word consciousness has two entirely different meanings here

For the physicalist / materialist it is an emergent property of brains
For the non dualist it is the totality of all that exists - it is awareness

You begin with what I regard as a false dichotomy (though I believe unintentionally).

Both physicalism and dualism are wrong. Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness, it is what it is and is not contingent on any other thing. Material existence includes all physical entities: non-living entities, living entities, conscious entites, and human beings. Life, consciousness, and mind are attributes of those physical entities that are living, conscious, and have minds. Life, consciousness, and mind are natural attributes, just as the physical attributes are. A physical entity with the attribute life is an organism. A living physical entity with consciousness is a conscious organism. A living, conscious, physical entity with mind is a human being. Life, consciousness, and mind do not exist independently of the physical entities they are the life, consciousness, or minds of; they are not things or substances, they are not something added to an entity, they are simply natural attributes like all the physical attributes, but not themselves physical, caused by the physical, or capable of being described in physical terms. There is nothing supernatural or mysterious about them.

By the way consciousness has only one meaning. Consciousness is the direct perception of the physical, that is, seeing, hearing feeling, smelling, tasting, and interoception by which we are aware of our internal physical states and the emotions. There is no other consciousness.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:40 pm These are the most fundamental ones but all dichotomies are equally conceptual as they only exist within the human mind and nowhere else

There is one dichotomy that we know conceptually because it correctly identifies the nature of reality. That dichotomy is the material, which I've just described, and the man made, (psychological, epistemological) which is everything else that exists and includes language, mathematics, logic, knowledge, the sciences, philosophy, history, fiction, art (the ideas not the artifacts) and love. None of these exist independently of the human mind that creates them. They do not exist materially (ontologically).

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:40 pm Of course we need the conceptual map to understand the actual territory but we must never make the mistake of thinking they are the same

I do not know of a single individual who has ever made that mistake. I do know most people's maps are wrong, which is why they are always lost.