Philosophy Now Forum

What is going on here is not religion in the sense that it asks you to verify it within your own experience, it is scientific in that way, however, it is the science of the subjective, and, of the subject in this case, and it’s true nature.

But, it may be actually what religion was based on, inspired by, etc. so in that sense, if you get a religious connotation here that could be why. You will find hints to these discoveries throughout even Christian religious texts. But really it has no relevance other than to say that it is something which is shared with all humans, and can be uncovered no matter the culture, religion etc, it even applies to atheists.

But be clear, this work is of a “spiritual nature”, in that you are inquiring into your true essence as a subject. You could say it’s the science of the spirit. Sounds oxymoronic, but honestly, science should be applicable to all realms of reality, including and not limited to one’s own self.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:38 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:57 pm
I have no clue how your head works and I never said I did (goin' by your descriptions, though, it seems to be a nightmare)

Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

don't need any...thanks anyway

Henry Quirk the salient point in your post is not your text it's that you showed a pic of a poor little helpless animal .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:52 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:38 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm

Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

don't need any...thanks anyway

Henry Quirk the salient point in your post is not your text it's that you showed a pic of a poor little helpless animal .

you need to pay attention: the turtle is DAM's, not mine

I need to pay attention, Henry.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:03 pm

Observer What Observer?

Turtles all the way..............................................................................................................................

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. The illusion of a known knower.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:13 am You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

For me the word observe connotes a Visual activity. I suppose you can Observe a Sound, a Taste, a Smell or a Touch. However, I prefer to say that I Experience a Sound, a Taste, a Smell, a Touch , or a Color. So let's say it a little differently: The Experiencer cannot be Experienced. For me if I say it this way it is easier to recognize that the "Experiencer is not an Experience" so why would anyone even think the Experiencer can Experience the Experiencer. The Experiencer is a whole different Category of Conscious Mind Phenomena than any of the Experiences.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:59 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:13 am You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

For me the word observe connotes a Visual activity. I suppose you can Observe a Sound, a Taste, a Smell or a Touch. However, I prefer to say that I Experience a Sound, a Taste, a Smell, a Touch , or a Color. So let's say it a little differently: The Experiencer cannot be Experienced. For me if I say it this way it is easier to recognize that the "Experiencer is not an Experience" so why would anyone even think the Experiencer can Experience the Experiencer. The Experiencer is a whole different Category of Conscious Mind Phenomena than any of the Experiences.

Thanks Steve for your thoughts.

If you want to swap the word ''Observer'' for ''Experiencer'' then that's fine.

And you are correct the "Experiencer is not an Experience" but this is all knowledge, in the sense that there is a knowledge of an Experiencer.

So all this thread is pointing to is the illusory nature of knowledge. There's nothing more to it than that.

You go on to say ... '' so why would anyone even think '' ?

So in response to that question... (why would anyone think) implies ''a thinker'' so now we are back to the dilemma of the ONE that cannot be seen, thought about, observed or experienced.

So that's why there can be no hard problem of consciousness, because to whom would that problem apply? (why would anyone think there was a problem?)

This thread is pointing to the obvious non-problem of consciousness.


.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. The illusion of a known knower.

fertilizer

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

I've been watching this poor turtle for 3 days now. I mean, credit to whoever was filming him, but that turtle just doesn't give up...how many days does he go for? Surely turtles are destined to remain all the way down.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:09 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

I've been watching this poor turtle for 3 days now. I mean, credit to whoever was filming him, but that turtle just doesn't give up...how many days does he go for? Surely turtles are destined to remain all the way down.

it's the god turtle: as long as he strives, reality remains intact

go, god turtle, go!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:12 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:09 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

I've been watching this poor turtle for 3 days now. I mean, credit to whoever was filming him, but that turtle just doesn't give up...how many days does he go for? Surely turtles are destined to remain all the way down.

it's the god turtle: as long as he strives, reality remains intact

go, god turtle, go!

I think you could be right there Henry...I'm gonna give another few days, if he's still going I'm just going to have to eventually turn my computer off, electricity is too expensive.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:12 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:09 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:19 pm Yeah, I agree, it really is a nighmare trying to make headways...mebbe don't bother even trying might help you.

I've been watching this poor turtle for 3 days now. I mean, credit to whoever was filming him, but that turtle just doesn't give up...how many days does he go for? Surely turtles are destined to remain all the way down.

it's the god turtle: as long as he strives, reality remains intact

go, god turtle, go!

I think him and Sisyphus would work well together.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:19 am

I think him and Sisyphus would work well together.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:17 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:59 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:13 am You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

For me the word observe connotes a Visual activity. I suppose you can Observe a Sound, a Taste, a Smell or a Touch. However, I prefer to say that I Experience a Sound, a Taste, a Smell, a Touch , or a Color. So let's say it a little differently: The Experiencer cannot be Experienced. For me if I say it this way it is easier to recognize that the "Experiencer is not an Experience" so why would anyone even think the Experiencer can Experience the Experiencer. The Experiencer is a whole different Category of Conscious Mind Phenomena than any of the Experiences.

Thanks Steve for your thoughts.

If you want to swap the word ''Observer'' for ''Experiencer'' then that's fine.

And you are correct the "Experiencer is not an Experience" but this is all knowledge, in the sense that there is a knowledge of an Experiencer.

So all this thread is pointing to is the illusory nature of knowledge. There's nothing more to it than that.

You go on to say ... '' so why would anyone even think '' ?

So in response to that question... (why would anyone think) implies ''a thinker'' so now we are back to the dilemma of the ONE that cannot be seen, thought about, observed or experienced.

So that's why there can be no hard problem of consciousness, because to whom would that problem apply? (why would anyone think there was a problem?)

This thread is pointing to the obvious non-problem of consciousness.


.

I still don't understand how your philosophy has solved the Hard Problem.