|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 4, 2017 14:34:13 GMT
Consciousness is all that there is, the rest is illusionary. In which case here you are talking to yourself, since only the awareness of this exchange is real, not any supposed interlocutor..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2017 9:17:21 GMT
In which case here you are talking to yourself, since only the awareness of this exchange is real, not any supposed interlocutor.. The illusion is me talking to you online and expressing my thoughts through words. I only know of your existence through cyber space at this present at the present moment I am typing this. You are not real to me and neither is the illusion of what I perceive to be doing. This is only action and a creation of my present mindset, the consequence of which you will either respond to me and tell me your own thoughts, or you could ignore this message all together. No point in me pre-empting your response or even expecting one. Whatever your action will be, is also illusion. When we don't think about something or somebody, is it existing?
You can't know of my existence through cyberspace as cyberspace is not your consciousness. You said "Consciousness is all that there is, the rest is illusionary." Hence, for the only perceiving mind (yours) you know exists for certain, this reply is illusionary, or at least "not real to you" in so far it purports to represent anything further more than yourself and your consciousness. (I know you didn't say "My consciousness is all there is", but the standing implication is that you consider others a likely illusion and so this is what is meant) You ought to know either way, since you admit that this is, in effect, only you reminding yourself this.
Also, if I (i.e. my consciousness) am 'not real to you', then why are you continuing to speak to the acknowledged unreal which is always an illusion? Haven't you better things to be doing with 'your' reality instead?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2017 10:19:53 GMT
Who's reality, yours or mine? What either of us ... You have already told me (as just your illusion if other than your consciousness) than I am "not real" so there can be no real 'either of us'. What you are telling (yourself) is that yours is the only reality that can be vouched for so point in considering otherwise. I can only ask again: why you are spending so much time in disputing with something you already acknowledge to yourself as unreal? As apparently the only consciousness in the room., only you can say.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2017 11:40:25 GMT
You have already told me (as just your illusion if other than your consciousness) than I am "not real" so there can be no real 'either of us'. What you are telling (yourself) is that yours is the only reality that can be vouched for so point in considering otherwise. I can only ask again: why you are spending so much time in disputing with something you already acknowledge to yourself as unreal? As apparently the only consciousness in the room., only you can say. My reality IS THE only reality I can vouch for, as it is not yours. You may think of me as real, if that is the perception of your own reality. I can and will treat all within my reality as real, but ultimately, every moment I am experiencing is all an illusion\projection of what my mind only believes to be real. If I am "disputing" here, it is because I am communicating on a chat thread about consciousness being an illusion, so I am giving my spin on it. That is my purpose for being here. It doesn't even matter why and need not be judged.
Yes, that's right; you said that the 'only thing is real to me is my consciousness', which is without hedging at all (as in the latest insight, above: ".. what my mind only believes to be real" etc), so on your own acknowledgement, what would be any other is just an illusion, as far as you know. Hence as presumably you, I am here to remind myself that, in this case, talking about, and with an illusion, is just a waste of time since one can assume that you already know what I know. To show otherwise you need to persuade yourself that other consciousnesses are real. Meanwhile despite what you just told yourself, as necessarily 'you' and not really anything else real, I remain free to judge yourself. I hope that helps me.
Also, you mention communicating on a chat thread, but in your own words this just perpetuates unreality, since "You are not real to me and neither is the illusion of what I perceive to be doing".
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 6, 2017 14:23:09 GMT
The person who wrote that article is wrong. Consciousness is not created by the brain.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 6, 2017 14:58:18 GMT
Your mind is not your conscious awareness. This goes way beyond the ego mind. The brain functions the motor responses in our "physical" body and caches the experiences and memories within that physical experience. But what are these experiences and memories? When you don't think of something or someone, does it or do they even exist? Yes, facts and knowledge provide us with the ego ability to achieve and move forward, but this is all just an impermanent transition phase. You are forever, our bodies and memories aren't. "Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. I know you wrote this ages ago but what's wrong with Freud?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 6, 2017 15:27:35 GMT
"Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. I know you wrote this ages ago but what's wrong with Freud? He failed to perform scientific experiments to validate his theories and most of his theories have since been disproven.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 6, 2017 16:37:09 GMT
I know you wrote this ages ago but what's wrong with Freud? He failed to perform scientific experiments to validate his theories and most of his theories have since been disproven. Only some if his theories have been disproven. He has still made valuable contributions to psychology such as the superego-ego-id model, the conscious, preconscious and unconscious model, defence mechanisms, transference, cathexis, free association etc
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 6, 2017 16:49:01 GMT
The person who wrote that article is wrong. Consciousness is not created by the brain.
I'm afraid it is, as all available evidence indicates. I know you're partial to that scientifically and philosophically illiterate "radio receiver" idea, but all that does is show the depths of your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 6, 2017 17:15:02 GMT
The person who wrote that article is wrong. Consciousness is not created by the brain.
I'm afraid it is, as all available evidence indicates. I know you're partial to that scientifically and philosophically illiterate "radio receiver" idea, but all that does is show the depths of your ignorance. No, I'm afraid you are the one who is ignorant and can't explain for a fact what consciousness is. There are cases where people function very consciously with some parts of their brain missing:
www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain
As long as YOU don't have a full understanding of how the brain works, then you are full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 6, 2017 17:55:52 GMT
He failed to perform scientific experiments to validate his theories and most of his theories have since been disproven. Only some if his theories have been disproven. He has still made valuable contributions to psychology such as the superego-ego-id model, the conscious, preconscious and unconscious model, defence mechanisms, transference, cathexis, free association etc Yeah, I agree. The current view on Freud is probably only partly justified, but exaggerated as a result of infighting among the schools of psychology.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2017 9:00:45 GMT
Yes, that's right; you said that the 'only thing is real to me is my consciousness', which is without hedging at all (as in the latest insight, above: ".. what my mind only believes to be real" etc), so on your own acknowledgement, what would be any other is just an illusion, as far as you know. Hence as presumably you, I am here to remind myself that, in this case, talking about, and with an illusion, is just a waste of time since one can assume that you already know what I know. To show otherwise you need to persuade yourself that other consciousnesses are real. Meanwhile despite what you just told yourself, as necessarily 'you' and not really anything else real, I remain free to judge yourself. I hope that helps me.
Also, you mention communicating on a chat thread, but in your own words this just perpetuates unreality, since "You are not real to me and neither is the illusion of what I perceive to be doing".
And the point you are attempting to make is? Whatever it is you are presently telling yourself, everything else being an illusion and so not being real, as you assert, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2017 9:06:46 GMT
I'm afraid it is, as all available evidence indicates. I know you're partial to that scientifically and philosophically illiterate "radio receiver" idea, but all that does is show the depths of your ignorance. No, I'm afraid you are the one who is ignorant and can't explain for a fact what consciousness is. There are cases where people function very consciously with some parts of their brain missing:
www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain
As long as YOU don't have a full understanding of how the brain works, then you are full of shit.
Show someone conscious with their brain entirely missing and then you will have a point.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 7, 2017 10:32:21 GMT
No, I'm afraid you are the one who is ignorant and can't explain for a fact what consciousness is.
We already have a successful working model of consciousness in cognitive neuroscience, moron. It's called the global neuronal workspace. There are no reasonable alternatives currently being explored by mainstream science. Meanwhile, why don't you explain to us what particles consciousness is carried on and show what parts of the brain receive them, and how. You can't. Because your idiotic ideas have no basis in reality. This is well known and unremarkable. The brain has amazing properties of what scientists call plasticity, where areas that are damaged or missing have their functions taken over by other areas. But the fact remains that someone with damage to large portions of their brains, particularly if the damage occurs late in life, will lose some cognitive capacities, and this is all because consciousness is produced by the brain. You don't have any understanding whatsoever, so you are beyond full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 7, 2017 10:35:00 GMT
For all your presumed intelligence and purported knowledge, you are only scraping the surface and refuse to go deep enough. Says the idiot loser who is proud for never having done the hard work of actually studying the subject and learning what the best and brightest minds have to say about it. You are all surface and nothing else, a walking joke.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2017 13:35:53 GMT
Why should he when, just earlier, you have insisted that "Consciousness is all that there is, the rest is illusionary.". The Vedas are not 'consciousness' and so must be illusionary. Recommending what you must perforce acknowledge is not real is not good advice. Again, you cannot make claims about the existence of intelligence (or not) of any one else, since only recently you have insisted that " My reality IS THE only reality I can vouch for, as it is not yours." I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2017 14:06:09 GMT
You will just have to come into your own self-awareness about the intelligence of conciousness awareness, beyond the notion of the ego mind and what you perceive as physical matter being the be all end all. You are creating your own reality, or what you think of as reality. It is all a mirror image/reflection, therefore illusion. The proof is right there before your very eyes and in your life. I hope that helps.
I can only repeat what I said above, which applies to your last observation too, that you cannot make claims about the existence of intelligence (or not) of any one else, or its purported working, or potential for self-awareness by which means another reality would be vouched for, since only recently you have insisted that "My reality IS THE only reality I can vouch for, as it is not yours."
In fact I am still confused why you feel you can consider me at all in such a concrete way since apparently everything beyond your consciousness is an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 7, 2017 16:46:24 GMT
Many of these best minds were full of there own pompous ass arrogance and confused complicated mindsets, just so they could impress upon their peers for validation of how great they thought they were. Give a specific example where one of the most respected, mainstream experts on consciousness, either from a neurological perspective or a philosophical perspective, has been wrong and then prove they were wrong. Oh, wait--that would require that you actually knew enough about the subject to think of a name, cite something they've said, then articulate why what they said is wrong. But since you dedicated your life to remaining a complete ignoramus, this task is literally impossible, even though examples do exist. What does not exist is any evidence that the greatest minds on the subject did so just to impress others for egotistical reasons. That's just your batshit know-nothing lunacy talking. Name a single result from the Vedas which has helped somebody with a neurological illness. Name a single claim made there that can be falsified or verified by controlled scientific observation. You can't. I won't bother to waste my time reading a mess of babbling fairy tales written by people who were as ignorant as you are about a subject only Western science has made advances in. You see, unlike you, I have standards.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 8, 2017 11:09:58 GMT
The Vedas ARE pure science and take into account all aspects of the Universal order of things. If any more evidence were needed that you don't even possess a three year old's understanding of what science is, this post was a slam-dunk.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2017 8:45:49 GMT
You are attempting to refute or debunk what I have commented on and just talking around in circles. No, I am simply viewing what you say in the light of your own just previous assertions. This seems a perfectly reasonably reference to make. Er ... how can there be 'no I' if, just earlier, you have assured me that it is only 'you' that you know is real? Have you thought this through? Incidentally, it is still not sure how you can vouch for me, or anything other than you, since earlier you have assured me that " ("My reality is THE only reality I can vouch for, as it is not yours.") i.e. you cannot say what I perceive or not. This is the same issue as I raised just before. Is there a problem?
In which case, as already asked: why are you talking to an illusion? Don't you have better things to do, like contemplating your navel?
|
|