Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?

a reply to: bb23108

Wow..

I was just thinking yesterday how I would enjoy hearing your perspectives on this thread. I even thought about sending you a u2u. I guess you didn't need one!

I have been quietly reading and following all your posts. Maybe electrons/typing/ATS has created its own morphogenic field.

After all we all come from Source and I know we chose to incarnate to learn certain lessons. I'm not being combative in questioning "Radiance = god"..but reading many of your posts I suspect you "know" god/source/Reality but dont want to limit "source" into words. After all we are all on the path to remembering/forgetting. It is there at the edges but eludes analysis. Only by contemplating and stopping the "ego-words" from chattering constantly in the mind can I reach closer and with humbleness give thanks and reopen my heart. I always find your posts resonating.

The beginning teaser of your post - "can we ever...limited point of view" keeps me yearning to receive and learn. Its all good. The veil gets lifted and like an onion peeling we get closer to the "heart".

I thought of this just now that I haven't visited for a while.
www.meru.org... - gemmatria and hebrew language

Past personal ritual work has validated for me the power of words in "touching/piercing the veil" between us and the gods - or our higher self/god/god-source.

You, itsnowagain and LesMiserables keep me coming back to ATS daily.

a reply to: bb23108

I often think many of the modern non-dualists are stuck in a mental insight and constantly talk about simply being the perceiving, etc., but never speak of Love

I must always have love in the back of mind when on ATS. Too often I think/type in the ego, as if I will lose a position of one upmanship, or a sense of self if I stop using the mind or read between the lines of a members post.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: AllIsOne

The table is always a table

and yet you say..

It remains to be seen what kind of AIs the AIs will create.

Is this a new religion? The cult of the AI

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or what your question is. No cult, just facts. The internet is already some sort of AI and it "knows" a lot more than any single human brain can contain. The future of knowledge is not human.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: AllIsOne

This is your statement

"Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you."

My point being ... The brain and nervous system is stuff of the body
The nervous system and brain activity can be viewed BUT ... all that is occurring as such is viewing affect and not cause

In order to conclude something you must have the full picture ... which science does not have ... and as such is inconclusive of what the underlying cause is ... Measuring brain activity does not describe what is causing the activity … or the signalling along the nervous system / brain

I'm still waiting for you to show me consciousness without a biological platform. Until then I'd posit that biology / the body / the brain, IS consciousness. And I have pretty good evidence when we look at brain lessons that limit or alter its function. It's absurd to say that science doesn't have the answers, but then you proceed to show no evidence at all of your own theory.

I.e. the flow of electrons in a battery is well understood. The flow of electrons in a computer is well understood because of QM. The brain may be a biological self-programming quantum computer. Cause and effect are the same … ;-)

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: AllIsOne


Again, show me feeling without a nervous system/brain. Your thinking is highly circular. New Age mumbo jumbo doesn't add any substance to a discussion.

Consciousness IS unlimited Feeling is Love is Light. It is unqualified by any conditions.

You assume you are the body-mind as a priori knowledge, so my arguments appear circular to you. Drop that assumption and be who you are most fundamentally, then perhaps you will understand your true condition as self-Aware Consciousness, prior to but not separate from conditions.

I've decided a long time ago to forgo superstition and stick to empirical knowledge. I don't say it's wrong what you're saying, but it's on the same level as me saying consciousness is beamed down to earth from Alpha Centauri with undetectable beams. What can be said about that, what can be discussed about that?

Do you believe that there has to be a ghost in the machine for that machine to work? I think it boils down to that simple question.

A form is an abstract property or quality. Take any property of an object; separate it from that object and consider it by itself, and you are contemplating a form. For example, if you separate the roundness of a basketball from its color, its weight, etc. and consider just roundness by itself, you are thinking of the from of roundness. Plato held that this property existed apart from the basketball, in a different mode of existence than the basketball. The form is not just the idea of roundness you have in your mind. It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.

In order to see exactly what a form is and how it differs from a material object, we need to look at the first two of the properties that characterize the forms. The forms are transcendent. This means that they do not exist in space and time. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms exist, or subsist, in a different way. This is especially important because it explains why the forms are unchanging. A form such as roundness will never change; it does not even exist in time. It is the same at all times or places in which it might be instantiated. A form does not exist in space in that it can be instantiated in many places at once and need not be instantiated anywhere in order for the form to exist. The form of roundness can be found in many particular spatial locations, and even if all round objects were destroyed, the property of roundness would still exist.

The forms are also pure. This means that they are pure properties separated from all other properties. A material object, such as a basketball, has many properties: roundness, ballness, orangeness, elasticity, etc. These are all put together to make up this individual basketball. A form is just one of these properties, existing by itself apart from space and time. Roundness is just pure roundness, without any other properties mixed in. The forms differ from material objects, then, in that they are transcendent and pure, while material objects are complex conglomerations of properties located in space and time.

To see how forms are related to material objects, we need to look at the other four properties that characterized the forms. The forms are the archetypes or perfect models for all of the properties that are present in material objects. The forms are the perfect examples of the properties they instantiate. The material world is really similar to the more real world of forms. The form of roundness, for example, is the perfect model of roundness. All round material objects are merely copies or imitations of this most real form. Thus it is the forms that are ultimately real. Material objects are images or copies of these more real objects. The cave metaphor illustrates these properties of the forms well. The shadows on the wall represent material objects, while the real objects passing before the fire are the forms.

In virtue of the fact that all objects in this world are copies of the forms, the forms are the causes of all that exists in this world. In general, whenever you want to explain why something is the way that it is, you point to some properties that the object has. That is, you explain what forms the object is a copy of. The forms are causes in two closely related ways: (1) The forms are the causes of all our knowledge of all objects. The forms contribute all order and intelligibility to objects. Since we can only know something insofar as it has some order or form, the forms are the source of the intelligibility of all material objects. (2) The forms are also the cause of the existence of all objects. Things are only said to exist insofar as they have order or structure or form. Hence, the forms are the causes of the existence of all objects as well as of their intelligibility. Plato uses the sun metaphor to explain how the forms in general, and the form of the Good in particular, are causes in these two ways. Just as the sun gives light which allows us to see objects, the form of the Good provides order and intelligibility to allow us to know objects. Just as the sun provides the energy for the nourishment and growth of all living things, so the form of the Good provides the order and structure which is the source of the existence of all things.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: AllIsOne
Could it be possible that evolution has given us the right amount of senses to experience reality as it is?

Consider all experiences - you just said they are internal. They are all re-presentations that our nervous system and brain-mind create to survive in this apparent world of objects. But are those re-presentations actually what these objects are? Of course not. They are images, etc. of those apparent objects.

And we are not even experiencing those objects in the present as they appear currently. Everything we experience (perceive) takes time for the brain-mind to re-present - so the image of an object, for example, is quite possibly different from how the object NOW looks given the elapsed time. So we are actually only ever experiencing memories of such objects. An image of a distant star is a much older re-presentation of the star, as it currently exists. It may have even already disappeared by the time we perceive it!

Clearly none of these experiences are what these objects are in reality.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
... what is reality if there is no consciousness to experience it?

Reality is not dependent on conditions whatsoever. All conditions arise in Consciousness-Light (Reality), not the other way around. Consciousness is never separate from what arises, but is prior to what arises.

Is this all your own philosophy, or did somebody teach you this stuff?

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: preludefanguy
a reply to: intrptr

our senses do manipulate the world as we perceive it

take our eyes for example, we cannot see all the spectrum of light, so our perception of reality is altered by our limitations, same with the ears, the nose and so on. Ultimate reality may not be affected, but conventional reality is definitely affected by our senses. They are what paint the picture for us and give us this sense of separate self, feedback, however limited or broad in our ability to sense. It is quite extraordinary!

Exactly, and well said. You example hit home for me as I just had cataract surgery in one eye (the other one to be done in a few days), and the difference in my vision is enormous. Closing the fixed eye, the old eye sees all light colors, especially white, as a light shade of yellow.

If I close the unfixed eye, and open the fixed one, it is so very different! The color white is white now, not yellow. The only downside is I see much more detail in my older friends' faces, their wrinkles, etc., whereas before everyone looked beautiful, like an airbrushed 1930s sepia-toned movie.

Inspite of me not understanding your "philosophy" I wish you a speedy recovery and successful second surgery :-)

a reply to: AllIsOne

Either way, the question has been asked many times before.

The modern relativist/subjectivist "philosophers" of today would have us believe that there is no inherent value in anything and that any value something may posses, is only what we ascribe to it. Which in my mind, is poisonous thinking and gravely wrong.

C.S. Lewis elaborates on the hypocrisy of this thinking. He says that these same relativists always fall back on abstract moral concepts and assumptions of value, even though that's the very same thing they claim to be opposed to. Very good essay, this video should be easy enough to understand:

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: AllIsOne

This is your statement

"Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you."

My point being ... The brain and nervous system is stuff of the body
The nervous system and brain activity can be viewed BUT ... all that is occurring as such is viewing affect and not cause

In order to conclude something you must have the full picture ... which science does not have ... and as such is inconclusive of what the underlying cause is ... Measuring brain activity does not describe what is causing the activity … or the signalling along the nervous system / brain

I'm still waiting for you to show me consciousness without a biological platform. Until then I'd posit that biology / the body / the brain, IS consciousness. And I have pretty good evidence when we look at brain lessons that limit or alter its function. It's absurd to say that science doesn't have the answers, but then you proceed to show no evidence at all of your own theory.

I.e. the flow of electrons in a battery is well understood. The flow of electrons in a computer is well understood because of QM. The brain may be a biological self-programming quantum computer. Cause and effect are the same … ;-)

Lol dude..... If you really think science has all the answers, then it's simply a religion to you. The very idea that science "has all the answers" is anti-scientific.

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: AllIsOne

The table is always a table

and yet you say..

It remains to be seen what kind of AIs the AIs will create.

Is this a new religion? The cult of the AI

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or what your question is. No cult, just facts. The internet is already some sort of AI and it "knows" a lot more than any single human brain can contain. The future of knowledge is not human.

So you are some kind of transhumanist then? Do you even understand exactly what you're saying?

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
a reply to: AllIsOne

Either way, the question has been asked many times before.

The modern relativist/subjectivist "philosophers" of today would have us believe that there is no inherent value in anything and that any value something may posses, is only what we ascribe to it. Which in my mind, is poisonous thinking and gravely wrong.

C.S. Lewis elaborates on the hypocrisy of this thinking. He says that these same relativists always fall back on abstract moral concepts and assumptions of value, even though that's the very same thing they claim to be opposed to. Very good essay, this video should be easy enough to understand:

m.youtube.com...

Sorry, but I had to turn off that garbage when at 11:00 they compared modern scientists to fascists.

I feel sorry for people who are desperately ignoring the fact that the only constant in life is change. Value systems do change and "morals" are always ambiguous and in flux. I never trust people who are preaching absolute truths. CS Lewis was a Christian Apologist. If the man was born in Dubai you think he'd have the same feelings towards Christianity … ;-)

a reply to: AllIsOne

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Saying that "the future of knowledge is not human" is possibly one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Nothing that we create can supersede our own inherent capability.

We can build catapults to fling stones that are too heavy for us to throw ourselves, but catapults can never build themselves. We can build a computer that functions using complex algorithms, and is infinitely more precise than our brains could ever be, but a computer will never have the capacity for abstract reason.

It's similar to the idea that when God created people, he imbued them with some of his essence. Take it as an allegory for a very real truth. What we create, can never become truly "independent" of us.

Really man, this is basic philosophy.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
Reality is not dependent on conditions whatsoever. All conditions arise in Consciousness-Light (Reality), not the other way around. Consciousness is never separate from what arises, but is prior to what arises.

Is this all your own philosophy, or did somebody teach you this stuff?

What you bolded is basically non-dualism. This is something I have recognized as Truth for many years, and certainly with the great help of others. I have lived on the basis of this simple and most essential recognition most of my life.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
I've decided a long time ago to forgo superstition and stick to empirical knowledge. I don't say it's wrong what you're saying, but it's on the same level as me saying consciousness is beamed down to earth from Alpha Centauri with undetectable beams. What can be said about that, what can be discussed about that?

Do you believe that there has to be a ghost in the machine for that machine to work? I think it boils down to that simple question.

It isn't some entity in the machine. The machine (all conditionality) arises as a modification of Consciousness-Light. All of this is Light (Energy) and varies in terms of its vibratory frequency, etc., so forms appear differently. Isn't this what Einstein taught us?

This can be recognized as the way it is simply because your inherent nature is of the same Consciousness. Until you get in touch with your inherent nature (Awareness), it will all seem like superstition, belief structures, etc. and you will resort to empirical knowledge - which certainly has its usefulness. But in terms of who we are, such conditional knowing can never deal with what is unconditional self-Aware Consciousness.

My only other thread is linked in my sig, if you want to read more "down-to-earth" details about noticing what condition we actually exist in - at least the way I see it.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
Inspite of me not understanding your "philosophy" I wish you a speedy recovery and successful second surgery :-)

Thank you! It's kind of trippy being able to see like I was in my 20s again (at least with the one eye at this point) - literally the very next day.

P.S. I am surprised that with a name such as "AllIsOne" that you are not recognizing non-dualism. I am curious - what is the meaning of your name?

a reply to: DiggerDogg
Thanks for posting this. Did you have any comments about it?

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
a reply to: AllIsOne

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Saying that "the future of knowledge is not human" is possibly one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Nothing that we create can supersede our own inherent capability.

We can build catapults to fling stones that are too heavy for us to throw ourselves, but catapults can never build themselves. We can build a computer that functions using complex algorithms, and is infinitely more precise than our brains could ever be, but a computer will never have the capacity for abstract reason.

It's similar to the idea that when God created people, he imbued them with some of his essence. Take it as an allegory for a very real truth. What we create, can never become truly "independent" of us.

Really man, this is basic philosophy.

I don't know how old you are, but you might be in for a very big surprise in your lifetime re AI.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

en.wikipedia.org...(chess_computer)

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
The beginning teaser of your post - "can we ever...limited point of view" keeps me yearning to receive and learn. Its all good. The veil gets lifted and like an onion peeling we get closer to the "heart".

Yes, to recognize Reality in any given moment necessarily requires release of the limited position of the "knower" looking to know things. That knower is the sense of separate self, and is therefore already apparently divorced from the indivisible Reality we are all modifications of.

So yes, the heart is key because its intelligence (feeling-awareness) is not different from Reality, and it is the non-separate Witness of all arising. We can glimpse this Truth in any moment, and also change our lives to allow for the whole bodily equanimity necessary to always notice this and live on its basis. And that very Reality will reveal itself to you one way or another with whatever is necessary.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
I thought of this just now that I haven't visited for a while.
www.meru.org... - gemmatria and hebrew language

The link appears to be broken.

a reply to: AllIsOne

Theres a potentially large difference between 'artificial intelligence' and 'artificial consciousness'.

a reply to: bb23108

I've realized that you are set in your ways. Be well my friend.