Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:31 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:13 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:24 pmI have thought that there is a certain amount of reasonableness to the Oneness proposition. I just don't have a way to Understand Oneness as being true for my Reality of the Universe.
The one trying to understand oneness is what's obscuring the oneness that is already being you...the (other one) the one who wants to know, is a conceptual overlay upon what is already knowing one with itself.

Reality / life / beingness /oneness or what ever you want to call this... has no concept of itself, it's totally unidentified..Concepts come from the demand to be identified as a naturally occuring artistic function of the illusory conjuring mind, all knowledge is a mind trick, the trick is apparent when there is a demand to become knowledgable of it's own existence. The mind doesn't know it doesn't actually exist...that's why it is able to believe it does...it doesn't know that it's imagined knowledge is nothing but a fictional overlay, an appearance already within the oneness that is already being..fundamentally without knowing how it knows.

Knowledge therefore, informs the illusory nature of life in that it has no knowledge of itself. It is the knowing that cannot be known... By trying to understand oneness you already are is to want to be knowledgable about yourself on demand....there is no such entity that can do that, or be in search of knowledge of itself existing...except in the artificial conception no thing aka oneness makes via it's own mental mind trick, tricking itself into believing it exists... while the real state of being oneness has no requirement for any knowledge on demand to know itself, it's already being itself, it already knows without knowing.

This startling and profound realisation will dawn when life evloves it to be realised, and it will not happen one second before it's meant to happen because there is nothing in control of life making anything happen, life is simply living itself all alone, one without a second, and it's the only knowing and happening there is, one with itself.

.

It is not logical that a Self cannot understand what it is just because it is what it is.

Posted: **Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:30 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:31 amIt is not logical that a Self cannot understand what it is just because it is what it is.

Silent seeing is awareness without a 'thought'. Silent seeing is nothing being everything.

'Thoughts' arise in this nothingness.

'Thought' changes what is into what isn't...'thoughts' become 'things', and yet 'thoughts' are also this nothingness in which they arise, 'thought' becomes an imagined knowledge upon the silent seeing awareness becoming interactive with itself on contact with the recognition of it's own 'thoughts' aka knowledge.

However, Knowledge is only within the imaginary dream of separation, it is the sense of 'knowing' I exist. Truth is.. I already existed before I became aware that I was already known. Because for anything to be KNOWN...there has to be first and primary a 'Knower'...I Am that knower as awareness that cannot be known...for the known is the knower in the same instant, it's always one with itself, the only knowing there is..Awareness is not split into two of knower here and known there.

This 'other' knowing the (sense of I exist) is the awareness of itself as a character, aka as a 'thought' ..that is a superimposed knowledge, it's a fictional overlay upon what already is without knowledge...so this 'other' knowing is an imagined character (what isn't) upon (what is) .....which is this immediate characterless silent seeing awareness.

For the fictional character life is very real for it and that's the whole idea of this magic show. It's convincingly real, else the show wouldn't work.

There is already a ''knowingness'' that has nothing to do with knowledge and which is not personal. That is auspicious silent seeing, knowing without knowing.

Known Knowledge only serves to inform the illusory nature of existence in that there is no one that knows anything.

In the end, you can't even know that you're nobody.

Life is already complete, as it is, and everything is already included.

There is nothing higher than human sentient awareness that can be known...so in a sense humans are literally making the world they live in up as they go along for there is no other known knower of anything.

It's the play of consciousness using the human body as it's vehicle of self expression...for without the mechanics, nothing works, there is no play...nothing to animate.

.

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:24 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:24 pm I have thought that there is a certain amount of reasonableness to the Oneness proposition. I just don't have a way to Understand Oneness as being true for my Reality of the Universe.

Of course nondualism is the resolution to the hard problem of consciousness, however don't try to learn it from DAM, she's nuts. Nondualism isn't quite "Oneness", instead it's the absence of all division. Projecting the idea of "Oneness" onto reality creates a subtle division.

Physical stuff IS qualia.

You seem like an honest, intelligent guy so I kinda feel sorry for bashing your "Inter Mind" idea as nonsense, you've been probably working on it for a long time. But you see it's just a variation on Western dualistic thinking; they usually divide reality into two, like physical stuff and experience. Sometimes they devide it into three, like you do by adding a third in-between something.

And you're right, dividing into physical stuff and experience, and then denying experience, is insane. Unfortunately most materialists do not realize that they are doing this.

This is extremely speculative btw, because neuroscience is still very far from a definite answer on this one, but I wondered what "Red" actually is too. I think the current most likely explanation is that most human experiences are (mostly) parts of the electromagnetic field (or best approached from the "direction" of the EM field, so to speak). So my eyes take in ~650-700nm light, which triggers signals that are sent to the back of my head into the visual cortex, and from there, re-processed signals are sent back into many areas of my brain. These final ~1-100 Hz waves in the electromagnetic field, sweeping through my head, and the subtle potential differences in the EM field held in place by neural activity in general, are what I think most human experiences are, and Red must be in there too somewhere in that portion of the EM field.

If someone asks what evidence do I have that for example a certain standing wave of the EM field could be the Red, I could point out that their concept of the EM field is also a different form of direct experience, probably some other standing wave in the EM field.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:59 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:30 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:31 amIt is not logical that a Self cannot understand what it is just because it is what it is.
Silent seeing is awareness without a 'thought'. Silent seeing is nothing being everything.

'Thoughts' arise in this nothingness.

'Thought' changes what is into what isn't...'thoughts' become 'things', and yet 'thoughts' are also this nothingness in which they arise, 'thought' becomes an imagined knowledge upon the silent seeing awareness becoming interactive with itself on contact with the recognition of it's own 'thoughts' aka knowledge.

However, Knowledge is only within the imaginary dream of separation, it is the sense of 'knowing' I exist. Truth is.. I already existed before I became aware that I was already known. Because for anything to be KNOWN...there has to be first and primary a 'Knower'...I Am that knower as awareness that cannot be known...for the known is the knower in the same instant, it's always one with itself, the only knowing there is..Awareness is not split into two of knower here and known there.

This 'other' knowing the (sense of I exist) is the awareness of itself as a character, aka as a 'thought' ..that is a superimposed knowledge, it's a fictional overlay upon what already is without knowledge...so this 'other' knowing is an imagined character (what isn't) upon (what is) .....which is this immediate characterless silent seeing awareness.

For the fictional character life is very real for it and that's the whole idea of this magic show. It's convincingly real, else the show wouldn't work.

There is already a ''knowingness'' that has nothing to do with knowledge and which is not personal. That is auspicious silent seeing, knowing without knowing.

Known Knowledge only serves to inform the illusory nature of existence in that there is no one that knows anything.

In the end, you can't even know that you're nobody.

Life is already complete, as it is, and everything is already included.

There is nothing higher than human sentient awareness that can be known...so in a sense humans are literally making the world they live in up as they go along for there is no other known knower of anything.

It's the play of consciousness using the human body as it's vehicle of self expression...for without the mechanics, nothing works, there is no play...nothing to animate.

.

But having said all that the question remains: What is the Experience of Redness?

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:23 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:24 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:24 pm I have thought that there is a certain amount of reasonableness to the Oneness proposition. I just don't have a way to Understand Oneness as being true for my Reality of the Universe.
Of course nondualism is the resolution to the hard problem of consciousness, however don't try to learn it from DAM, she's nuts. Nondualism isn't quite "Oneness", instead it's the absence of all division. Projecting the idea of "Oneness" onto reality creates a subtle division.

Physical stuff IS qualia.

You seem like an honest, intelligent guy so I kinda feel sorry for bashing your "Inter Mind" idea as nonsense, you've been probably working on it for a long time. But you see it's just a variation on Western dualistic thinking; they usually divide reality into two, like physical stuff and experience. Sometimes they devide it into three, like you do by adding a third in-between something.

And you're right, dividing into physical stuff and experience, and then denying experience, is insane. Unfortunately most materialists do not realize that they are doing this.

This is extremely speculative btw, because neuroscience is still very far from a definite answer on this one, but I wondered what "Red" actually is too. I think the current most likely explanation is that most human experiences are (mostly) parts of the electromagnetic field (or best approached from the "direction" of the EM field, so to speak). So my eyes take in ~650-700nm light, which triggers signals that are sent to the back of my head into the visual cortex, and from there, re-processed signals are sent back into many areas of my brain. These final ~1-100 Hz waves in the electromagnetic field, sweeping through my head, and the subtle potential differences in the EM field held in place by neural activity in general, are what I think most human experiences are, and Red must be in there too somewhere in that portion of the EM field.

If someone asks what evidence do I have that for example a certain standing wave of the EM field could be the Red, I could point out that their concept of the EM field is also a different form of direct experience, probably some other standing wave in the EM field.

Thank You for taking the time to read the website. I guess you are saying that Brain Waves are related to Conscious Experience. Could be. I like to disassociate the Redness Experience from any kind of Physical, Material, or Electromagnetic cause and just think about the Redness itself. The Redness is a thing in itself apart from anything else. The Redness must be Explained as a Phenomenon that exists in the Universe without connecting it to other Physical, Material, or electromagnetic Phenomena. The only thing we can say is that it is a Phenomenon that Exists in the Mind. We are stymied as to what it could actually be. But there it is embedded in the front of our faces as we look at Red things in any particular Visual Scene.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:02 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:59 pmBut having said all that the question remains: What is the Experience of Redness?

And that is what all my long winded posts are trying to answer for you.

You've already admitted to me that you are still working on the ONENESS concept...and is why you will continue to ask questions like ''What is the Experience of Redness?''

I've already explained millions of times in millions of different ways that ''questions'' can only arise to the sense of there being a ''separate self''
aka a concept of a self that demands knowledge of how that self happens to experience all that it senses. But this ''sensing'' phenomena that is arising here has no more exact known location to it than does a ''thought'' ..So any so called ''experience'' of any shape or form cannot be pinned down to an exact location to be analysed, simply because there is no such EXPERIENCE as being an OBJECT ..Consciousness cannot experience itself as an object, because objects are concepts known to consciousness that cannot be known.

My argument is that there is no such thing as a ''separate self'' that exists'' ...and that the whole idea of ''separate self'' is just an idea, all ideas about concepts are known in no self, and by no known self..because the SELF cannot be pinned down to any particular thing without that thing becoming another known conceptual idea within what is already trying to pin itself down to an exact location that can be known. It's like a shadow trying to learn of it's existence apart from the light that is casting it...the shadow can't know anything because it doesn't exist apart from the light which is the only knower knowing itself as and through the contrast of shadow, it's same one light appearing to itself only...A light that cannot see or know itself except as a believed projection of it's own unseen unknowingness...as seen and known via the shadow, aka the looked upon by the light alone. ALL ONE

The mind has difficulty trying to grasp this idea. The believing brain can't grasp the idea that there is no known concept seeing and knowing itself.

Have you read this book yet...?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/975 ... ving-brain

So what you are doing, aka no one is doing is they repeatedly ask questions because they don't know the answer... We ask questions to ourselves because we believe there is a self here that can answer the question, we look for answers to our questions we ourselves can't answer expecting others to have the answer without realising that the other person can't know the answer either simply because ''separate selves'' don't exist except as belief and concept known in no self by no known self...in this inconceivable conception.

My answer to the question ''What is the Experience of Redness?'' would go something alongs the lines of...( I don't know) because if I did then I would have to be RED ..and yet I cannot experience what it is to be RED

For me, RED is a concept known, RED is not my experience. I cannot experience RED..rather RED is a concept I know...I have no idea what this knowing is.

We have to break this down to baseline roots.

Ask and answer to yourself the following 3 questions, and then see if you are any nearer in reaching your final answer?

1: Is it the actual RED that knows it's RED?

2: Is it the knower of RED that knows it's knowing RED? or is it RED that knows RED?

3: It is the experiencer that experiences the RED experience? or is it RED itself that experiences itself as RED?

These may seem like silly questions to ask, but the questioneer must be able to answer all that it questions or else what is the point in a questioneer? ..which begs another silly question.

.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:47 am**

RED does not know it is RED because it has no mind but the knower of RED knows it is knowing RED because it has a mind
The experiencer experiences RED because it has a mind but RED cannot knowingly experience RED because it has no mind
So then only minds can be conscious of what they are experiencing while phenomena [ non minds ] are not conscious at all

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:02 am
For me, RED is a concept known, RED is not my experience. I cannot experience RED..rather RED is a concept I know...I have no idea what this knowing is.

We have to break this down to baseline roots.

Ask and answer to yourself the following 3 questions, and then see if you are any nearer in reaching your final answer?

1: Is it the actual RED that knows it's RED?

2: Is it the knower of RED that knows it's knowing RED? or is it RED that knows RED?

3: It is the experiencer that experiences the RED experience? or is it RED itself that experiences itself as RED?

These may seem like silly questions to ask, but the questioneer must be able to answer all that it questions or else what is the point in a questioneer? ..which begs another silly question.

You are saying Redness is something you Know and not something you Experience. But then you say you don't Know what that Redness you Know is. Pondering this ...

Answers to questions:

1) No
2) The Knower.
3) The Experiencer.

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:03 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 pm You are saying Redness is something you Know and not something you Experience. But then you say you don't Know what that Redness you Know is. Pondering this ...

I'm saying..There is no 'you' that knows the concept RED. There is no 'you' to experience anything. A concept RED is known by 'no known you'

There is a knowing of every concept, which itself is not a concept, the knowing/knower is not a ''concept known'' but knows every concept as and when it arises.

''concepts known'' don't know, concepts are not the knower...they are the known. But it's not known ''what?'' knows or experiences because (knower knowing and known) is the ONLY ''experience'' here...it's ever ONE in the same instantaneous moment ( ONE with the knowing)

This is the immediate knowing that cannot be known. This is so obvious Steve, else the infinite regress problem comes to mind. There has to come a time when the mind must accept that it has no known beginning nor ending and that it has no exact location that can be pinned down to one single particular place to be looked at individually. For how can a mind that has no known location, no known beginning nor end look at itself? ..it would have to split in two. The mind is not two, but it is ONE evidently...else there would be no reading of these words right now...there is a reader of these words right now. The reader is one, although words are many. But the mind that is you there and the mind that is me here is the same one reader, reading the exact same words here. We're all seeing the exact same images because we are all the one mind seeing itself in the form of an image which is made purely of itself. The knower and experiencer can only associate with what is SEEN as it appears to the seer inseparable from the seer... the seeing,seen and seer are always and ever one in the exact same instantaneous moment.

The mind is a strange mystery that can never be solved for how can that which doesn't even know it exists except as an ''imagined conceptual thing'' know anything about it's maker? the mind can't look directly at itself, it can only look at a mirror image of itself in the form of a concept known which is a mirage. The mind identified with itself as a mirage is emptiness looking at it's own emptiness..and this is just about all that's going on here.

The mind is like a mirror...can a mirror look at itself? ...not really, why? ..because when what is looking, aka the mirror is looking for what is looking aka the mirror, inside what it's looking at aka the mirror's conceptual image of itself, aka the same one mirror looking at it's empty self...it's in big trouble, because there is no ''other'' thing there except the same one empty mirror reflecting it's own emptiness back to itself...in the form of an imagined 'thing' aka a 'concept known'

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 pmAnswers to questions:

1) No
2) The Knower.
3) The Experiencer.

Great, so now you've answered you're own question ''What is the Experience of Redness?'' with the 'Knower/Experiencer' is the experience of Redness.

So does that answer the 'WHAT' question for you?

.

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:46 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:23 pm I like to disassociate the Redness Experience from any kind of Physical, Material, or Electromagnetic cause and just think about the Redness itself.

You can do that, but then you will never be able to solve the problem, just like Materialists and Idealists can never solve it. The hard problem of consciousness is created by the axioms of Western philosophy.
(Conscious redness doesn't have a physical "cause" as the two are the same thing.)

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:25 am**

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:46 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:23 pm I like to disassociate the Redness Experience from any kind of Physical, Material, or Electromagnetic cause and just think about the Redness itself.
You can do that, but then you will never be able to solve the problem, just like Materialists and Idealists can never solve it. The hard problem of consciousness is created by the axioms of Western philosophy.
(Conscious redness doesn't have a physical "cause" as the two are the same thing.)

To say that the Neural Activity Phenomenon , that causes a Red Experience Phenomenon , and the Redness Experience Phenomenon itself are the same thing may in some way be true but this is just a Speculation without an Explanation. The complete and total disparate nature of these two Phenomena screams out for an Explanation. To say that they are the same thing only makes the Explanatory Gap more obvious.

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:39 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:03 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:05 pmAnswers to questions:

1) No
2) The Knower.
3) The Experiencer.
Great, so now you've answered you're own question ''What is the Experience of Redness?'' with the 'Knower/Experiencer' is the experience of Redness.

So does that answer the 'WHAT' question for you?

.
I do understand that the Redness is part of what I am. It has to be because it happens somewhere in the Brain/Mind process. I can say I am the Redness. I am all Colors. I am Light (Conscious Light not Electromagnetic Light) in general. I have understood that for a long time. But realizing that does not Explain Redness. It just offloads the question to: What am I if I am that Redness.

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:06 pm**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:25 am
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:46 am
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:23 pm I like to disassociate the Redness Experience from any kind of Physical, Material, or Electromagnetic cause and just think about the Redness itself.
You can do that, but then you will never be able to solve the problem, just like Materialists and Idealists can never solve it. The hard problem of consciousness is created by the axioms of Western philosophy.
(Conscious redness doesn't have a physical "cause" as the two are the same thing.)
To say that the Neural Activity Phenomenon , that causes a Red Experience Phenomenon , and the Redness Experience Phenomenon itself are the same thing may in some way be true but this is just a Speculation without an Explanation. The complete and total disparate nature of these two Phenomena screams out for an Explanation. To say that they are the same thing only makes the Explanatory Gap more obvious.

What I write is probably true unless proven otherwise, because it's only assuming one thing instead of two; probably everything else is speculation.

The "Neural Activity Phenomenon" you talk about is a concept. A concept is another direct experience elsewhere in the head (and/or on different wavelength(s) or whatever). As such what you write makes no sense, you seem to be confusing the "contect" of a concept with what a concept "physically" is.

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:07 am**

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:39 am I do understand that the Redness is part of what I am. It has to be because it happens somewhere in the Brain/Mind process. I can say I am the Redness. I am all Colors. I am Light (Conscious Light not Electromagnetic Light) in general. I have understood that for a long time. But realizing that does not Explain Redness. It just offloads the question to: What am I if I am that Redness.

The experience of Red is just like every other experience. All experiences are concepts known. The problem is, it's not known what knows a concept, for to know the knower of a concept, you'd have to conceptualise the knower.. turning the knower into an object known..thus creating another problem because known concepts (objects ) don't know anything.

To know anything is to conceptualise the idea into existence, it is to make an idea known,and so the only thing known about existence is, as, and through a conceptual word that doesn't know anything. Knowledge doesn't know anything about the KNOWER... in the same context a machine can know nothing of it's maker...therefore, knowledge is nothing but a string of construed fictional concepts arising from the nothingness of the silent void of consciousness itself...and it is those words that magically convert the pure not-knowingness of I AM into knowing I AM as concieved.

Do you see the dilemma? and that is why you will continue to keep asking yourself the same question right up until the day you die. In other words the answer will continue to evade you forever because there is no beginning nor end to you that you can possibly know.

The only 'YOU' in existence is the 'you' that you concieve yourself to be, via a word, aka a concept known, as you conceive yourself to be as and through the word itself.. You can only know yourself as a concept known...and never as the actual knower....for to know yourself as the knower you would have to split yourself in two..into the knower and the known.

There is no split there, there is no gap there, for this is just more concepts...aka dreamscape upon the nothingness that is the screen of conscious awareness.

.

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:25 am
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:46 am
You can do that, but then you will never be able to solve the problem, just like Materialists and Idealists can never solve it. The hard problem of consciousness is created by the axioms of Western philosophy.
(Conscious redness doesn't have a physical "cause" as the two are the same thing.)
To say that the Neural Activity Phenomenon , that causes a Red Experience Phenomenon , and the Redness Experience Phenomenon itself are the same thing may in some way be true but this is just a Speculation without an Explanation. The complete and total disparate nature of these two Phenomena screams out for an Explanation. To say that they are the same thing only makes the Explanatory Gap more obvious.
What I write is probably true unless proven otherwise, because it's only assuming one thing instead of two; probably everything else is speculation.

The "Neural Activity Phenomenon" you talk about is a concept. A concept is another direct experience elsewhere in the head (and/or on different wavelength(s) or whatever). As such what you write makes no sense, you seem to be confusing the "contect" of a concept with what a concept "physically" is.

Is "Contect" a typo? Do you mean Context? Googled around and the best I can find In "The Dictionary of Obscure Words" is that it means To Cover or Overlay. In any case I'm not sure what you are saying.

Philosophy Now Forum

Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience