Page 3 of 4
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:25 pm
by philosopher
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:16 pm
Simply, directly: Reality exists and it does so independent of 'mind'.
Absolutely. That's why it's called objective reality.
Randy
Thanks, and I agree with you. It's just that I happen to talk about such topics with lay people, and they all claim that
reality is subjective, that reality is like opinions: They are dependent on the observer.
I have always disagreed on subjective reality. Reality exists objectively wether or not we are measuring it.
Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:58 pm
by Impenitent
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:16 pm
"All you are doing is using concepts to describe what is actually being pointed to here, which is ...no one is watching, no thing is happening."
No, I'm using language to tell you and anyone else who cares to read: if lightning, for example, strikes a tree deep in the woods where no mind is present to perceive it, that tree will still burn, cuz the lightning strike and the fire it causes doesn't need you or me or him or her to 'see' it happen, to observe it.
To claim -- as it seems you and Imp do -- the fire 'isn't' if no one observes it is -- to me -- insane.
Simply, directly: Reality exists and it does so independent of 'mind'.
As an aside: Schrodinger's cat is dead
or alive, not both.
'nuff said.
As I said before, "Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived) - Berkeley
this was (roughly) the Bishop's second "proof" for god - that being god's constant observations...
if there is no observer, the unseen fire, lightning strike, and tree, do not exist...
the purple wombats on Jupiter are controlling the universe - independent of mind of course
nonsense? show me otherwise
-Imp
(p.s. - if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it- not only does the tree not make a sound- the tree does not exist.)
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:11 pm
by henry quirk
"Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived) - Berkeley
George was and is wrong.
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:31 pm
by uwot
Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:58 pmAs I said before, "Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived) - Berkeley
...
nonsense? show me otherwise
Well yeah. The only things you can be certain exist are perceptions, as Descartes argued. It does not follow that nothing else exists. By far the most plausible cause of perceptions are perceptible objects, but pretty much any other consistent hypothesis could be true.
Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:44 pm
by Dontaskme
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:11 pm
"Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived) - Berkeley
George was and is
wrong.
Is that
right?
The seer (observer) and the seen appear only when there is seeing. They are attributes of seeing. When you say ‘I am seeing this’. ‘I am’ and ‘this’ come with seeing, not before. You cannot have an unseen ‘this’ nor an unseeing ‘I’ am’.
If there is no observer, the unseen fire, lightning strike, and tree, do not exist. ~Imp.
Do you get it now?
.
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:45 pm
by RCSaunders
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:21 am
No thing is calling an objective reality.
That should tell you all you need to know about the reality of an object.
.
Can you restate this? I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, or what your point is.
Thanks!
Randy
Re: Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:48 pm
by henry quirk
Imp, Dontaskme: I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. You two have a perspective I don't share. We could go 'round and 'round for a few pages but I'm thinkin' none of us will be moved, so... *shrug*
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:50 pm
by Dontaskme
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:21 am
No thing is calling an objective reality.
That should tell you all you need to know about the reality of an object.
.
Can you restate this? I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, or what your point is.
Thanks!
Randy
The knower and the known are added by the mind. It is in the nature of the mind to create a subject-object duality, where there is none.
.
Re: Objective Reality
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:19 pm
by Dontaskme
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:48 pm
Imp, Dontaskme: I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. You two have a perspective I don't share. We could go 'round and 'round for a few pages but I'm thinkin' none of us will be moved, so... *shrug*
Only the seeing exists (observer) Seer and seen are ONE in the same moment, inseparable.
What on earth do you think / believe is separating the seer from the seen into two separate realities ?
Everything is One,so there cannot be 'me' seeing AND a Thing to be seen.
It is so difficult to grasp this ...when the 'me' is claiming to be the seer.
Unless the 'mind' adopts FORMLESS SPIRITUALITY..it won't be seen.
Nonduality is the final truth, the end of knowledge.
Take it or leave it henry, it's you're prerogative, ain't going to make no difference to the seer that knows all, sees all, and is all.
.
"Take it or leave it henry"
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:27 pm
by henry quirk
Already left it.
Re: "Take it or leave it henry"
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:28 pm
by Dontaskme
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:27 pm
Already left it.
You never entered it to leave.
.
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:51 pm
by RCSaunders
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:50 pm
The knower and the known are added by the mind. It is in the nature of the mind to create a subject-object duality, where there is none.
How do you know this? What evidence do you have for it and by what reasoning did you come to this conclusion?
I have no idea what you think the human mind is (some ineffable mystic thing, perhaps), but the human mind is incapable of any such operation as you describe.
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:54 pm
by Dontaskme
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:51 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:50 pm
The knower and the known are added by the mind. It is in the nature of the mind to create a subject-object duality, where there is none.
How do you know this? What evidence do you have for it and by what reasoning did you come to this conclusion?
I have no idea what you think the human mind is (some ineffable mystic thing, perhaps), but the human mind is incapable of any such operation as you describe.
By realising the mind is not human.
.
Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:06 pm
by Dontaskme
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:11 pm
"Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived) - Berkeley
George was and is
wrong.
In reality there is only perception. The perceiver and the perceived are conceptual, the fact of perceiving is actual. The Absolute is the birthplace of perceiving. It makes perception possible.
.
Re: Re:
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:17 pm
by RCSaunders
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:54 pm
By realising the mind is not human.
The question was about the, "human mind." There is no such thing as, "the mind," there are only human minds. Minds do not exist independently of the living conscious beings they are the minds of.
If you do not believe in human minds, you do not believe in human beings. The human mind is what differentiates human beings from all other organisms.
You do not have to believe that, of course, but you cannot claim to be a human being and deny you have a mind. I know many people would like to deny they have a mind. They think it relieves them of responsibility for what they think, choose, and do. They can think that, but reality won't let them get away with it.
Randy