Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nonpareil
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Custom Title: An Eidolon Named Night
Location: A Cut Below

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Nonpareil » Mon May 30, 2016 2:22 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Of all the varying theories on the subject, no matter how intricate, we remain utterly clueless as to weather or not any of them are even pointing in the right direction.


No.

Relinquish85 wrote:Even if we arrive at a genuine consensus about a particular theory, the question "how do these processes (that we have PROVEN cause an experience to be had) cause an experience to be had?" will remain.


You may as well ask why gravity works the way it does. Sooner or later, the answer is just going to be "because".

Relinquish85 wrote:Fundamentally conscious means conscious 'of itself' by it's own nature.


That is meaningless.

Relinquish85 wrote:Ever-changelessly conscious means eternally conscious in the same way.


Ditto the above.

Relinquish85 wrote:This REAL Consciousness can not have a non-conscious source or cause. REAL Consciousness is causeless, and therefore eternal and infinite. It isn't an effect.


You have asserted this.

You have utterly failed to back up that assertion.
"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you've got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 4:20 am

Nonpareil wrote:You may as well ask why gravity works the way it does. Sooner or later, the answer is just going to be "because".


Correct, and this is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific one. There is actually NO more evidence to support "because" than there is to support what I have said.

You could say my entire position is really just a very elaborate, word salady way of saying "because".

User avatar
sandisk
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:20 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by sandisk » Mon May 30, 2016 4:42 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Hey guys! :)

You are aware. 


Are "you" aware, or is "you" an object within awareness?



And what the {!#%@} "object within awareness" even means?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon May 30, 2016 5:00 am

An object within awareness is a sensory phenomenon or mental construct which is perceived, that's "what the {!#%@}" it means.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Mon May 30, 2016 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Nonpareil
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Custom Title: An Eidolon Named Night
Location: A Cut Below

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Nonpareil » Mon May 30, 2016 5:16 am

Relinquish85 wrote:There is actually NO more evidence to support "because" than there is to support what I have said.

You could say my entire position is really just a very elaborate, word salady way of saying "because".


What you have said is in no way equivalent to "because". It is an incoherent mess of undefined terms, bare assertions, non sequiturs, and near-farcical levels of complete nonsense. Even the suggestion that "there is no more evidence to support 'because'" is an incoherent mess, as you have not clarified "because what", and because your proposal is so completely incoherent that it doesn't even reach the level of being unverifiable. It is nonsensical, logically incoherent, and must be discarded on its face. It cannot be true.

You have a long way to go before you even reach the point of "there's no evidence for or against it".
"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you've got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon May 30, 2016 6:07 am

Once you take away all the BS, Relinquish85's grand idea can be boiled down to this: the universe effectively experiences itself from and through the tiny perspectives of conscious beings.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 7:50 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Once you take away all the BS, Relinquish85's grand idea can be boiled down to this: the universe effectively experiences itself from and through the tiny perspectives of conscious beings.


Essentially, yes. But I'm ALSO trying to show that the true identity of ALL of those conscious beings (and indeed every single entity in the universe) is in fact none other than the causeless boundlessness that is Reality itself. It's all one, and that one isn't 'something'.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 7:56 am

Nonpareil wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:There is actually NO more evidence to support "because" than there is to support what I have said.

You could say my entire position is really just a very elaborate, word salady way of saying "because".


What you have said is in no way equivalent to "because". It is an incoherent mess of undefined terms, bare assertions, non sequiturs, and near-farcical levels of complete nonsense. Even the suggestion that "there is no more evidence to support 'because'" is an incoherent mess, as you have not clarified "because what", and because your proposal is so completely incoherent that it doesn't even reach the level of being unverifiable. It is nonsensical, logically incoherent, and must be discarded on its face. It cannot be true.

You have a long way to go before you even reach the point of "there's no evidence for or against it".


Because it simply IS. There's no way it could ever NOT be. Take 'it' to mean whatever you want it to mean.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 30, 2016 10:27 am

Best science says "it" the entire Universe did not exist until 15 Billion years ago.

Take it to mean whatever you want it to mean?==>No, it has to be defined, before it can mean anything.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 11:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Best science says "it" the entire Universe did not exist until 15 Billion years ago.

Take it to mean whatever you want it to mean?==>No, it has to be defined, before it can mean anything.


Every beginning is also the ending of the time before that beginning, and every ending is also the beginning of the time after that ending. Whatever ends must have begun, and whatever begins will end.

The life cycle of the universe certainly started again 15 billion years ago. It has begun and ended an infinity of times in the past, and will do so an infinity of times in the future. Reality itself had no real first beginning and it will have no real last ending. As Alan Watts said, "There is no such manifestation as half a wave".

Temporal finitism is utterly illogical.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Gord » Mon May 30, 2016 2:13 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:Every beginning is also the ending of the time before that beginning

You're presupposing that time can exist without the universe. But time is a property of the universe. That's why it's come to be called "spacetime", because the two are interwoven. If the universe didn't exist before 15 billion years ago, then there was no time before that and therefore no "before" at all.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 7:27 pm

Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Every beginning is also the ending of the time before that beginning

You're presupposing that time can exist without the universe. But time is a property of the universe. That's why it's come to be called "spacetime", because the two are interwoven. If the universe didn't exist before 15 billion years ago, then there was no time before that and therefore no "before" at all.


Your response indicates to me that you didn't read the entirety of my post.

Time (the life of the universe) is an eternal cycle. Space itself is simply eternal, and so timeless. I don't require empirical evidence to know this. My own intuitive judgment and some basic logic is all I need.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Gord » Mon May 30, 2016 7:44 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Every beginning is also the ending of the time before that beginning

You're presupposing that time can exist without the universe. But time is a property of the universe. That's why it's come to be called "spacetime", because the two are interwoven. If the universe didn't exist before 15 billion years ago, then there was no time before that and therefore no "before" at all.

Your response indicates to me that you didn't read the entirety of my post.

I did read it, but it's inconsequential to my point, which is that we can't talk about a "before the beginning" because there wasn't a "before".

Time (the life of the universe) is an eternal cycle.

No, it's not life and it's not a cycle.

Space itself is simply eternal, and so timeless.

I'm going to say "no" even though the definitions of "eternal" and "timeless" are vague.

I don't require empirical evidence to know this.

You don't actually know it, you believe it without good reason.

My own intuitive judgment and some basic logic is all I need.

There's yer problem. You need more than intuition and a little logic if you seek to know something, otherwise you might believe you're living on a flat Earth or that vaccines will give you autism.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 9:46 pm

Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Every beginning is also the ending of the time before that beginning

You're presupposing that time can exist without the universe. But time is a property of the universe. That's why it's come to be called "spacetime", because the two are interwoven. If the universe didn't exist before 15 billion years ago, then there was no time before that and therefore no "before" at all.

Your response indicates to me that you didn't read the entirety of my post.

I did read it, but it's inconsequential to my point, which is that we can't talk about a "before the beginning" because there wasn't a "before".

Time (the life of the universe) is an eternal cycle.

No, it's not life and it's not a cycle.

Space itself is simply eternal, and so timeless.

I'm going to say "no" even though the definitions of "eternal" and "timeless" are vague.

I don't require empirical evidence to know this.

You don't actually know it, you believe it without good reason.

My own intuitive judgment and some basic logic is all I need.

There's yer problem. You need more than intuition and a little logic if you seek to know something, otherwise you might believe you're living on a flat Earth or that vaccines will give you autism.


Well, you'll be pleased to know that I don't believe I'm living on a flat Earth or that vaccines will give me autism. Or (in case you were wondering) that alien lizards are controlling humanity from behind the scenes.

The idea of cyclic time is actually NOT incompatible with saying that time has a finite past without a 'before'. This is because all there could be 'before' the beginning is the same as what comes 'after' it. All there could be 'after' the ending is the same as what came 'before' it.

I know this idea is unfalsifiable, and therefore not valid as a scientific theory, but it makes so much more sense (to me, at least) than the idea that time happens only once, with a definite beginning and ending. Also, cyclic time is a completely harmless idea that doesn't inform anyones actions the way the beliefs of organized religion can.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Gord » Mon May 30, 2016 10:40 pm

My pleasure is unfathomable.

Cyclic time is a mildly harmful idea to someone who thinks it doesn't matter what they do because they will have another chance to do it differently next time around. I went to high school with someone like that.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Mon May 30, 2016 11:11 pm

Gord wrote:My pleasure is unfathomable.

Cyclic time is a mildly harmful idea to someone who thinks it doesn't matter what they do because they will have another chance to do it differently next time around. I went to high school with someone like that.


If one doesn't comprehend the implications of the idea and operates from their own flawed version of it, the idea MAY prove to be somewhat harmful.

There are no second chances, because it always happens in the same fundamentally seamless and completely deterministic way. At any rate, any particular round of the cycle only happens once, EVER. We weren't in the last one, and we won't come back in the next one, yet every round always involves identical circumstances which include all the same apparent individuals. But they won't US, because we live in THIS round only.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Mon May 30, 2016 11:16 pm

Relinquish85 wrote: You are aware.

You perceive 'ever-changing form'.

You seem to be (or have) a particular body/mind. However, isn't this body/mind that you seem to be (or have) just another part of the 'ever-changing form' that is 'perceived' by what You are?

Because 'ever-changing form' is 'the perceived', NO part of it at all (such as ANY body/mind, ANY subpart or 'owner' thereof, or ANYTHING else) can actually BE what You are (that is, a 'perceiver').

That is to say, in truth, to be able to perceive is to be unable to be perceived, because to be able to be perceived is to be unable to perceive.

Therefore, AS a 'perceiver', You are absolutely changeless and formless.

If your argument is true, and it’s impossible for something to be simultaneously the perceiver and the perceived (if I’m reading you correctly), then we cannot even be Pure Awareness, as you suggest, because Pure Awareness is perceiving itself — which can’t happen, by your argument.

That is, best as I can tell, you’ve just proven that we don’t exist.

In reality, I don’t know of any reason an object (e.g., a brain) capable of perception couldn’t also perceive itself. If that’s true, the crux of your argument — that the ‘ever-changing form’ is the ‘perceived’ and cannot therefore be what you ‘are’ — is false. Of course they can be the same thing, and in fact the evidence of our existence and our awareness together prove that they must be the same, whether you believe it’s “Pure Awareness” or a brain.

Relinquish85 wrote: Has this 'something' not always been doing the perceiving of all this change in exactly the same way at all 'points' thoughout?

Again, what I think your driving at here – that the way in which you experience things, whether in the past or present has remained essentially constant through time — can be explained both by pointing to “Pure Awareness” or a relatively constant brain throughout most of your life.

That “relatively constant” is crucial here, because in fact you don’t experience every moment in precisely the same way at all times — as any drug user might tell you. The malleability of awareness is actually pretty decent evidence that awareness is in the brain, not outside it.

Relinquish85 wrote: For this reason, it remains a complete mystery as to how the brain can ever be in a conscious state, being able to actually experience phenomena of many different kinds.

My basic solution to this mystery is the suggestion that only that which is always fundamentally conscious is ever truly conscious.

It’s not really a big mystery, actually. The individual components of a computer cannot reproduce any of the properties of a computer unless properly arranged, yet there’s no “computer” property of the universe. The brain can work in a very similar manner, albeit on a more complex scale. Regardless, you don’t need to assume consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe for a very specific and complex arrangement of non-conscious matter to become conscious when organized in the form of a functioning brain inside a living body.

Relinquish85 wrote: You are suggesting that consciousness is a sum of parts. Well, if this is the case, it is the only sum of parts in the universe that can actually EXPERIENCE other sums of parts.

If ALL of the parts are ultimately the same stuff, and as such all the sums of parts are the same stuff too, how is this possible?

Change “consciousness” to “a computer” and “experience other sums of parts” to “do computer stuff” and I think you’ll appreciate the logic here. There’s no contradiction with a sum of parts being capable of doing what the individual parts cannot — even a simple pulley system has greater functionality than the individual sticks and ropes that compose it. That's kind of what the "sum of parts" means -- taking on new functionality that the individual components themselves aren't capable of.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon May 30, 2016 11:58 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Once you take away all the BS, Relinquish85's grand idea can be boiled down to this: the universe effectively experiences itself from and through the tiny perspectives of conscious beings.


Essentially, yes. But I'm ALSO trying to show that the true identity of ALL of those conscious beings (and indeed every single entity in the universe) is in fact none other than the causeless boundlessness that is Reality itself. It's all one, and that one isn't 'something'.


Saying that a being's identity is "causeless boundlessness" effectively renders the term identity meaningless. You might as well say that a being's identity is nothingness, because "causeless boundlessness" is exactly what nothingness is.

Not only that, but what you're proposing here is a fallacy of division.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 1:02 am

I suppose I'm saying that ANYTHING that can be described as an 'emergent property' (including the consciousness that emerges from brain activity) doesn't fundamentally exist in Reality, and therefore it's appearance is an illusion.

As I said before, there can be no illusion outside of the apparentness of that illusion. There can be no apparentness outside of the experiencing of that apparentness. There can be no experiencing outside of consciousness, and THIS consciousness CAN NOT be an illusion, and so, can not be an emergent property.

It exists in the most fundamental way.
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue May 31, 2016 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Gord » Tue May 31, 2016 1:05 am

Illusions exist in reality. They're just not what they appear to be.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 1:27 am

Gord wrote:Illusions exist in reality. They're just not what they appear to be.


See edit of my last post.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Tue May 31, 2016 1:35 am

Relinquish85 wrote:I suppose I'm saying that ANYTHING that can be described as an 'emergent property' (including the consciousness that emerges from brain activity) doesn't fundamentally exist in Reality


Then where does it exist?

As I said before, there can be no illusion outside of the apparentness of that illusion.There can be no apparentness outside of the experiencing of that apparentness.


The best thing that can be said about these statements is that they are blatantly tautological.

There can be no experiencing outside of consciousness, and THIS consciousness CAN NOT be an illusion, and so, can not be an emergent property.


None of this follows. Why can't consciousness be an illusion? How are illusions the same as emergent properties?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 1:59 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I suppose I'm saying that ANYTHING that can be described as an 'emergent property' (including the consciousness that emerges from brain activity) doesn't fundamentally exist in Reality


Then where does it exist?

As I said before, there can be no illusion outside of the apparentness of that illusion.There can be no apparentness outside of the experiencing of that apparentness.


The best thing that can be said about these statements is that they are blatantly tautological.

There can be no experiencing outside of consciousness, and THIS consciousness CAN NOT be an illusion, and so, can not be an emergent property.


None of this follows. Why can't consciousness be an illusion? How are illusions the same as emergent properties?


Can you name a SINGLE illusion that is not emergent?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

This is a terrible thing to say when the subject is "emergent properties" but what is illusion, what is emergent, what is reality, what is perception: all must be DEFINED specifically enough so that one term is not confused with another. Overlap always in mind.

To that goal, depending on how you define emergent, ALL ILLUSIONS can be emergent or not emergent. And then, there is the overlap.

Ha, ha. Just ............. THINK...... or read up on the subject(s). Good luck finding anything that continues to make sense after the first paragraph.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Tue May 31, 2016 3:52 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Can you name a SINGLE illusion that is not emergent?


You are making a category error here. An emergent phenomenon is a structure or process which arises when a set of underlying components interact in a particular way. An illusion is a false perception of how something is. All illusions are emergent phenomena, but not all emergent phenomena are illusions. Therefore, if something is not an illusion, that does not ipso facto mean that it is not an emergent phenomenon.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 5:10 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Can you name a SINGLE illusion that is not emergent?


You are making a category error here. An emergent phenomenon is a structure or process which arises when a set of underlying components interact in a particular way. An illusion is a false perception of how something is. All illusions are emergent phenomena, but not all emergent phenomena are illusions. Therefore, if something is not an illusion, that does not ipso facto mean that it is not an emergent phenomenon.


When we are talking about Ultimate Reality (which I have been aiming at all along with this thread), we are talking about what MOST fundamentally IS. No emergent phenomenon can possibly be as real as 'that' which is not emergent. If X is not absolutely fundamental, but it is appearing, then it is entirely illusory.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 31, 2016 5:36 am

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Fab Yolis » Tue May 31, 2016 6:05 am

Relinquish85 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Can you name a SINGLE illusion that is not emergent?


You are making a category error here. An emergent phenomenon is a structure or process which arises when a set of underlying components interact in a particular way. An illusion is a false perception of how something is. All illusions are emergent phenomena, but not all emergent phenomena are illusions. Therefore, if something is not an illusion, that does not ipso facto mean that it is not an emergent phenomenon.


When we are talking about Ultimate Reality (which I have been aiming at all along with this thread), we are talking about what MOST fundamentally IS.


And as I pointed out to you earlier, you have effectively equated this Ultimate Reality with nothingness.

No emergent phenomenon can possibly be as real as 'that' which is not emergent.


What do you mean by "real"? An emergent phenomenon can be even more "real" than a non-emergent phenomenon if you are assessing realness based on the practical relevance of those phenomena to your life. Even if you are not assessing realness in this way, you cannot claim that emergent phenomena are less real unless you assess the presence and influence of emergent phenomena on level of activity at which they are not present or influential. You could do that if you really wanted to, but it would make about as much sense as saying that there are no such things as water molecules because they've never been found inside hydrogen atoms.


If X is not absolutely fundamental, but it is appearing, then it is entirely illusory.


Again you are conflating "emergent" with "illusory". They are not the same thing. X is illusory if it only appears to be present because of the erroneous perception of an observer.

For example, the array of colored light that we (mis)identify as a "rainbow" is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of photons by water droplets. The "rainbow" in turn is an erroneous perception that the array of colored light is a tangible object with a particular location in space. The "rainbow" is therefore both illusory and emergent from the interaction between an observer's (mistaken) perception and the array of colored light. The array of colored light itself is emergent, but it is not illusory - there really is an interaction between the photons and the water droplets, regardless of how an observer may (mis)interpret the resulting array of colors.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 31, 2016 4:05 pm

If time is cyclical, can someone check where I dropped my keys next time this moment comes around?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 31, 2016 4:43 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:If time is cyclical, can someone check where I dropped my keys next time this moment comes around?

In the multi-verse, you have lost your keys and everything else you own....everywhere. Ha, ha. Talk about your infinity: doesn't make good common sense does it? I should reserve some time to think about the subject and logically resolve all the open issues.

You know?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nonpareil
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Custom Title: An Eidolon Named Night
Location: A Cut Below

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Nonpareil » Tue May 31, 2016 6:58 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:Because it simply IS. There's no way it could ever NOT be. Take 'it' to mean whatever you want it to mean.


Asserting that demonstrable nonsense is true does not make it so.
"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you've got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Monster » Tue May 31, 2016 7:29 pm

Gord wrote:Cyclic time is a mildly harmful idea to someone who thinks it doesn't matter what they do because they will have another chance to do it differently next time around. I went to high school with someone like that.

Thank you for saying that. Dr. Laura (a self-help conservative on talk radio in the US) sometimes uses phrases like "in another life you'll get your chance to do better". I absolutely hate that. It tells the listener that they don't need to repair their lives as they are now, but rather, they can wait for a future self to have a better life.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 9:17 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:If time is cyclical, can someone check where I dropped my keys next time this moment comes around?


No, because the next 'us' won't be THIS 'us', and as such will have no memory of having ever existed before, just like we don't. THIS 'us' has never existed before, and will never exist again. There are an infinity of identical OTHER 'uses' in identical situations before and after the current ones, but they are not the current ones.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 9:25 pm

Monster wrote:
Gord wrote:Cyclic time is a mildly harmful idea to someone who thinks it doesn't matter what they do because they will have another chance to do it differently next time around. I went to high school with someone like that.

Thank you for saying that. Dr. Laura (a self-help conservative on talk radio in the US) sometimes uses phrases like "in another life you'll get your chance to do better". I absolutely hate that. It tells the listener that they don't need to repair their lives as they are now, but rather, they can wait for a future self to have a better life.


I completely agree. That just isn't the way cyclic time works. WE only live once.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 10:02 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Can you name a SINGLE illusion that is not emergent?


You are making a category error here. An emergent phenomenon is a structure or process which arises when a set of underlying components interact in a particular way. An illusion is a false perception of how something is. All illusions are emergent phenomena, but not all emergent phenomena are illusions. Therefore, if something is not an illusion, that does not ipso facto mean that it is not an emergent phenomenon.


When we are talking about Ultimate Reality (which I have been aiming at all along with this thread), we are talking about what MOST fundamentally IS.


And as I pointed out to you earlier, you have effectively equated this Ultimate Reality with nothingness.

No emergent phenomenon can possibly be as real as 'that' which is not emergent.


What do you mean by "real"? An emergent phenomenon can be even more "real" than a non-emergent phenomenon if you are assessing realness based on the practical relevance of those phenomena to your life. Even if you are not assessing realness in this way, you cannot claim that emergent phenomena are less real unless you assess the presence and influence of emergent phenomena on level of activity at which they are not present or influential. You could do that if you really wanted to, but it would make about as much sense as saying that there are no such things as water molecules because they've never been found inside hydrogen atoms.


If X is not absolutely fundamental, but it is appearing, then it is entirely illusory.


Again you are conflating "emergent" with "illusory". They are not the same thing. X is illusory if it only appears to be present because of the erroneous perception of an observer.

For example, the array of colored light that we (mis)identify as a "rainbow" is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of photons by water droplets. The "rainbow" in turn is an erroneous perception that the array of colored light is a tangible object with a particular location in space. The "rainbow" is therefore both illusory and emergent from the interaction between an observer's (mistaken) perception and the array of colored light. The array of colored light itself is emergent, but it is not illusory - there really is an interaction between the photons and the water droplets, regardless of how an observer may (mis)interpret the resulting array of colors.


Nothingness is certainly a name we can give to the Ultimate Reality. Strictly speaking, It doesn't have a name, because whatever we do call It seems to exclude whatever we don't call It. We CAN say what It ISN'T, and that's 'something'.

All 'things' in the universe (all of which are emergent) 'ONLY appear to be present because of the erroneous perception of an observer'. They are ALL illusory.

I would say that the correct definition of a 'thing' would be a 'solely self-inclusive form'. That is to say, a form that doesn't include in itself any other forms that lie beyond it's physical boundaries.

Certain 'external' forms directly contribute to the existence of (and so, are included by) a particular form which would not exist AT ALL without their contribution, and all of those external contributer forms require their own external contributor forms in order to exist, which in turn contribute to the existence of and are included by the particular form in question. And so it goes, ad infinitum.

So there are no real 'solely self-inclusive forms' (a.k.a. things) in Reality. As Alan Watts said, "A thing is a think". The fact is that any given form in the universe mutually includes ALL other forms in the universe. This fact is effectively hidden from view by thought.

In truth, it's all one, and that one isn't 'something'.
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue May 31, 2016 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nonpareil
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Custom Title: An Eidolon Named Night
Location: A Cut Below

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Nonpareil » Tue May 31, 2016 11:01 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:Nothingness is certainly a name we can give to the Ultimate Reality.


It is at this point that a sane person stops reading your gibberish.
"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you've got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Tue May 31, 2016 11:19 pm

Nonpareil wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Nothingness is certainly a name we can give to the Ultimate Reality.


It is at this point that a sane person stops reading your gibberish.


So your definition of 'sane' is 'not interested in absolute truth'?

It was a really good post. You should read the rest of it.

:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:43 am

Pointless word salad....or worse. Interesting only for a short while when such gibberish has not been encountered for a number of years. My "Gibberish Low Level Light" is now off, and I'm ready for the next few years now of PRODUCTIVE inquiry.

I'll (try to) leave this topic with the same question I posed on another thread: So What? What is the functional difference one gets if we Call the Universe EVERYTHING THAT IS, or we call it the ULTIMATE TRUTH OF NOTHINGNESS? What changes one way or the other?? Does gravity stop working?? Do Rainbows cry?

"Reality is what hits your nose when you think nothing is there." /// All your "reality is nothing" is a puerile nonsense. The proof: hit your thumb with a hammer. There's your means nothing subjective nothingness. Hurts don't it????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Relinquish85 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So What? What is the functional difference one gets if we Call the Universe EVERYTHING THAT IS, or we call it the ULTIMATE TRUTH OF NOTHINGNESS? What changes one way or the other?? Does gravity stop working?? Do Rainbows cry?


As I said right at the end of my thread starter, in this resting, there can be no suffering.

When it is seen that the universe is not actually a confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation, and that you are therefore not just a fragment, but the totality, you are relieved of fundamental restlessness.

:)

User avatar
Nonpareil
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:40 pm
Custom Title: An Eidolon Named Night
Location: A Cut Below

Re: Pure Awareness and the Universal Organism

Post by Nonpareil » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:39 am

Relinquish85 wrote:So your definition of 'sane' is 'not interested in absolute truth'?


I would ask you to define "absolute truth", but we both know you can't.

Relinquish85 wrote:It was a really good post.


It really wasn't.
"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you've got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad