|
Post by goz on Mar 28, 2018 2:53:48 GMT
Nope. Only within. The body including brain is whole and complete. Where is this 'without' thing seated in the without you claim? If the receptor is dead, you are frankly stuffed. Within\without, external\internal, it is all the same thing at the end of the day, one and whole and complete. You are only seeing things from the "self" aspect. There is no "self" and there is NO separateness. I will ask again. Where is the energy that is purportedly the mind inside the brain coming from and what is the mind? Can it be objectified? No, it is not. I will say it again. Whatever you call it, self, mind, consciousness, soul, 'without', chakra blah blah is within the brain. The energy for it comes from the general metabolism of the body and specifically the complex workings of the electrical systems, synapses and chemical interactions and exchanges etc inside the brain. Yes, it can and has been objectified though it is a new science. Drugs can alter it, electrodes can stimulate it and death kills it. We have gone over this and are now in stupid circles unless you can give ME an objectified description, evidence or explanation of any kind of consciousness or any of those other things, which you lump together, outside the brain.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 28, 2018 4:25:51 GMT
No, it is not. I will say it again. Whatever you call it, self, mind, consciousness, soul, 'without', chakra blah blah is within the brain. The energy for it comes from the general metabolism of the body and specifically the complex workings of the electrical systems, synapses and chemical interactions and exchanges etc inside the brain. Yes, it can and has been objectified though it is a new science. Drugs can alter it, electrodes can stimulate it and death kills it. We have gone over this and are now in stupid circles unless you can give ME an objectified description, evidence or explanation of any kind of consciousness or any of those other things, which you lump together, outside the brain. What exactly is it you are attempting to defend or argue for? You have avoided the mind aspect of my question. It CANNOT be objectified. Where is the mind? Show it to me. You can't, because it is all abstract and illusion. Everything is energy and vibration and this is channelled through the subtle body. It has to derive from somewhere. All the chakras contain an element that comprises of the creation of the universe. All of these consist of an action, because it is all action. These are then connected to the intuition\rationale aspect of your inner eye and in turn is then fed by the the ultimate connection to your crown, which is the the divine nature of your consciousness. All you are appearing to endorse, is limitation and the perpetuation of human suffering, by only believing in the notion of self. It's your journey though goz, so all the best for it. ...and yet it HAS been objectified in the brain through medicine and science and you have not evidence of anything outside the brain, because there is nothing. Believe whatever bullshit makes you happy.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2018 7:41:36 GMT
The mind is just what it's like to be a brain. I mean, when you think does it seem like your thoughts are originating from your feet or butt? I would hope not. If you don't think at all and just be still and present and in the moment, what and where is originating from you then when no thought exists? I don't think it's possible to not think at all without being dead. Still, your question doesn't make much sense as written.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 28, 2018 7:57:33 GMT
...and yet it HAS been objectified in the brain through medicine and science and you have not evidence of anything outside the brain, because there is nothing. Believe whatever bullshit makes you happy. Where has the mind been "objectified" in the brain. You and NO scientist have physical evidence of this. Who's mind? Yes, believe whatever bulldust you want to, it's not going to give you the clarity that connects you with your purpose. We are not talking about you or me and our personal opinions, we are talking about recent solid science where doctors and neurophysiologists are mapping the brain and its functions, can artificially stimulate it, isolate special cognitive functions and have objective evidence of the seat of the human brain/mind consciousness, whatever you wish to call it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 28, 2018 9:21:46 GMT
I don't think it's possible to not think at all without being dead. Still, your question doesn't make much sense as written. The question relates to what you feel when you are in the present moment, without words\language\thoughts cluttering up or going through your mind, which as your point stated, is perceived to be from your head. If you have a pain in your body, like the abdomen say, you are not feeling this in your head, but the brain is sending a signal to the area that is affected in your body. Do you then feel the pain, or think about the pain? If you are not thinking about it, what is the mind doing then? It's possible to think in ways other than words/language. I assume all animals think even without knowing language. This isn't saying you can't also feel sensations in other parts of your body as well. You can think about and feel pain simultaneously. Maybe you're trying to distinguish between degrees of conscious thinking? Like how aware you are of thinking about something?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 28, 2018 11:26:22 GMT
Somebody on this thread has a dealer who sells the good shit.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 28, 2018 14:35:34 GMT
Like most people who remember their past lives, I was [insert random super important historical figure] instead of being some pig farmer in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 29, 2018 1:29:06 GMT
It's possible to think in ways other than words/language. I assume all animals think even without knowing language. This isn't saying you can't also feel sensations in other parts of your body as well. You can think about and feel pain simultaneously. Maybe you're trying to distinguish between degrees of conscious thinking? Like how aware you are of thinking about something? Not thinking, is being present. Beyond conscious thinking, is just total and complete fullness and self-awareness. That is in fact letting go of the notion of self. Getting beyond the thinking stage can be a challenge though. The thinking mind, is for the most part, the ego dominated mind. I see "thought" as something that is perhaps beyond "thinking" and this is when something just streams in without any effort away from the thinking\processing mind. These are usually more fully developed and aware moments of clarity. Animals are pure instinct. They can't articulate in the manner that humans do, but I would say if any animal has human interaction, any sound\language that it hears from humans would be processed by it's own mind, but they wouldn't be "judging" what is going on with whatever thought, or feeling of sensation may pass through their minds. This is only reserved for us arrogant humans, due to our intellectual reasoning\rationale abilities of the mind and what purportedly makes us superior. We can at times, be more animal and savage than an animal with each other, yet our thinking is what is supposed to make us smarter. This all seems way too fuzzy for me. I might could understand how some forms of thinking, such as deep reflection where one is lost in thoughts, is antithetical to "being present," but not that "being present" is antithetical to all thinking. Not thinking, to me, just describes a state of not having a brain. Of not being alive. While alive, I just see different levels of thinking. The rest just seems mostly like new age woo. I don't think instincts are antithetical to thinking either.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 1:56:47 GMT
This all seems way too fuzzy for me. I might could understand how some forms of thinking, such as deep reflection where one is lost in thoughts, is antithetical to "being present," but not that "being present" is antithetical to all thinking. Not thinking, to me, just describes a state of not having a brain. Of not being alive. While alive, I just see different levels of thinking. The rest just seems mostly like new age woo. I don't think instincts are antithetical to thinking either. Thinking is still thinking, regardless of whatever philosophical rhetoric or slant one cares to put onto it, or what level it is placed on. The thinking mind, is perhaps a vengeful mind, as it takes us out of the present moment. When one has absolute clarity, are thoughts then perhaps over-rated and unnecessary? We need to communicate, but how many times is our thinking just conversations with ourselves? What I'm getting at is that I don't know how you're defining "thinking" so that any human who's alive and awake wouldn't be thinking. To me, if you're alive and awake, you're always thinking, even when you're not conscious about it, and even when it's not thinking in language.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 30, 2018 21:50:28 GMT
This all seems way too fuzzy for me. I might could understand how some forms of thinking, such as deep reflection where one is lost in thoughts, is antithetical to "being present," but not that "being present" is antithetical to all thinking. Not thinking, to me, just describes a state of not having a brain. Of not being alive. While alive, I just see different levels of thinking. The rest just seems mostly like new age woo. I don't think instincts are antithetical to thinking either. Thinking is still thinking, regardless of whatever philosophical rhetoric or slant one cares to put onto it, or what level it is placed on. The thinking mind, is perhaps a vengeful mind, as it takes us out of the present moment. When one has absolute clarity, are thoughts then perhaps over-rated and unnecessary? We need to communicate, but how many times is our thinking just conversations with ourselves? You are contradicting yourself here. Yes, precisely. The irony is that you need to think to be aware that it is the present moment. There is no such thing as absolute clarity let alone without thought. This is meaningless new age jargon. It is true that through mindfulness and meditation one can modify the depth and level of thought however there is and can never be absolute clarity as it is such a subjective opinion. Nearly always and totally normally and functionally.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 17:24:15 GMT
Yes, precisely. The irony is that you need to think to be aware that it is the present moment. There is no such thing as absolute clarity let alone without thought. This is meaningless new age jargon. It is true that through mindfulness and meditation one can modify the depth and level of thought however there is and can never be absolute clarity as it is such a subjective opinion. Nearly always and totally normally and functionally. If you are present in the presence little gozling, there is no thinking mind. What there is is just the moment and this is the moment that bursts forth with clarity and truth about your being. The thinking mind, is the ego dominated mind and wants domination control. Perhaps we need to ask then, where are we operating from, if it is from the ego aspect of our thinking mind? From my vast collection. I think he is recommending review there. I would certainly agree, review is good. Review can have benefits. Yet he was exceptionally even minded and followed that with ...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 21:21:38 GMT
Yes, precisely. The irony is that you need to think to be aware that it is the present moment. There is no such thing as absolute clarity let alone without thought. This is meaningless new age jargon. It is true that through mindfulness and meditation one can modify the depth and level of thought however there is and can never be absolute clarity as it is such a subjective opinion. Nearly always and totally normally and functionally. If you are present in the presence little gozling, there is no thinking mind. What there is is just the moment and this is the moment that bursts forth with clarity and truth about your being. The thinking mind, is the ego dominated mind and wants domination control. Perhaps we need to ask then, where are we operating from, if it is from the ego aspect of our thinking mind? What does that even mean? What is the presence?...more to the point what does any of this have to do with the fact that whatever thoughts you have or don't think that you have, cease after death, because they are seated within the brain? I repeat
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:58:12 GMT
What I'm getting at is that I don't know how you're defining "thinking" so that any human who's alive and awake wouldn't be thinking. To me, if you're alive and awake, you're always thinking, even when you're not conscious about it, and even when it's not thinking in language. Thinking is still thinking though and if it's not words or language, what is it then? You can think in terms of images, sounds, smells, feelings, emotions, memories, actions etc. Even when you’re “in the moment” you can think about what you’re doing/going to do, what someone is saying, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 2:38:37 GMT
You can think in terms of images, sounds, smells, feelings, emotions, memories, actions etc. Even when you’re “in the moment” you can think about what you’re doing/going to do, what someone is saying, etc. I suppose I am differentiating in thinking with words\language, which appears more forced within our minds, over what you have commented on, which has more to do with senses. The senses may then create a thought, and even if we have memories, this is still not being present and in the moment. The past, is over and done with gone. Then in that case I'd probably agree with you. I just don't limit thinking to words/language. To me, anything that's going through your mind are just different forms of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2018 2:44:29 GMT
Six pages of this. See how a thread about past lives was hijacked and morphed into another Goz "the soul doesn't exist" thread? How depressingly predictable. As soon as she posted I saw it coming.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Apr 1, 2018 2:47:01 GMT
THE
Yes, another thread derailed by the gozzy.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2018 3:12:58 GMT
What does that even mean? What is the presence?...more to the point what does any of this have to do with the fact that whatever thoughts you have or don't think that you have, cease after death, because they are seated within the brain? I repeat The presence is what I have already commented on and what my discussion is about: the absolute sense of clarity and rationale about your "eternal" conscious being. Isn't it ironic then, that you are perhaps not perceiving the brain for what it really is? You aren't looking beyond that physical, organic limitation as what you see as the human body. Without the subtle body coursing through you, you wouldn't have your human one. No scientist has "ever" pinpointed or found the mind in the brain, as you have absurdly claimed. She should go to YouTube and listen to David Wilcock talk about an interesting experiment that was done with regard to the pineal gland....but of course it would just be "bollocks" to her.
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Apr 1, 2018 4:00:59 GMT
Yes!
I was actually a massive bellend in my past life too!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2018 7:57:22 GMT
What does that even mean? What is the presence?...more to the point what does any of this have to do with the fact that whatever thoughts you have or don't think that you have, cease after death, because they are seated within the brain? I repeat The presence is what I have already commented on and what my discussion is about: the absolute sense of clarity and rationale about your "eternal" conscious being. Isn't it ironic then, that you are perhaps not perceiving the brain for what it really is? You aren't looking beyond that physical, organic limitation as what you see as the human body. Without the subtle body coursing through you, you wouldn't have your human one. No scientist has "ever" pinpointed or found the mind in the brain, as you have absurdly claimed. Yes. They have. How can you have an eternal consciousness without a vehicle for knowing it?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 13:01:24 GMT
The presence is what I have already commented on and what my discussion is about: the absolute sense of clarity and rationale about your "eternal" conscious being. Isn't it ironic then, that you are perhaps not perceiving the brain for what it really is? You aren't looking beyond that physical, organic limitation as what you see as the human body. Without the subtle body coursing through you, you wouldn't have your human one. No scientist has "ever" pinpointed or found the mind in the brain, as you have absurdly claimed. Yes. They have. How can you have an eternal consciousness without a vehicle for knowing it? I have a theory that the people who think they have no soul really don't have one. It goes on to say that the people who think they have a soul do so because they perceive it (Okay, that part is in the books already). It is just a theory though. Quite much literature deals with "robots" (cyborgs, androids et cetera) and how such things might behave in various situations. It's possible some of those writers were exploring a type similar to people they have met. I also think that if you don't have soul you might be able to get one or actuate some pre-soul or something. Have you tried snow boarding?
|
|