You can never explain the physical world

a reply to: BlueMule

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I'm bored. Maybe I like a challenge. Maybe I think there's still hope for you, that you can learn to settle for inexact answers, and take a leap of faith. Maybe your baseless assertions and mistakes annoy me. Maybe all of the above.

You can't explain the physical, you can't explain the non-physical, and you can't explain anything in between.

This sounds like an explanation. What is annoying is the consistency with which you run yourself and your readers in little circles. In time—if you have any left—you will likely learn the invalidity of your "explanations", and the self-defeating statements that your produce. It is unreasonable to be so sloppy. Faith to a fault.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

This sounds like an explanation.

I think it's just an observation that any models humanity makes to explain the physical and/or non-physical are limited and subject to change. So, your insistence on exactness is a wild goose chase.

What is annoying is the consistency with which you run yourself and your readers in little circles.

Circle? Nay, a spiral that goes up and up.

In time—if you have any left—you will likely learn the invalidity of your "explanations", and the self-defeating statements that your produce. It is unreasonable to be so sloppy. Faith to a fault.

No one needs exact explanations, rigid definitions in order to reach the non-physical.

But, some people need a narrative of some kind that is not only compatible with their personal psychology, but is conducive to mystical states of consciousness.

The point of such narratives is not to withstand the tender mercies of nitpickers like you. The point is to orient the psychology of the seeker in a certain way. A way that leads to the expansion of consciousness.

👣

P.S. if the non-physical could take physical form and sing to you, LesMis, it might sing you a song like this.

planet Earth... orbits a yellow dwarf star (G V Star) a Sun which is in the middle of Its expected life

the rocky planet Earth at Its size, tilt, orbit angle will have all areas of physics/physical science operate at what we people call natural or normal....
our 'normal' reactions between chemicals or elements or energies would be very different on say Jupiter

Our physical world is pretty rare... a 3rd generation yellow dwarf star itself is uncommon... note that in space the yellow dwarf Sun actually generates White light so, being Earth Centric is the explanation to our physical reality

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BlueMule

How do you experience it if it is non-physical?

The following is subjective to how I perceived my experiences: But I have had things happening to me that is utterly weird and one of those things is leaving my body on several occasions. To have my mind function outside my physical body is what I would describe as experiencing the non-physical world.

And I believe that us in that non-physical world are the creators of this physical world.

But I will not talk about that in this thread, I will admit that it is very far fetched for people who hasn't had similar experiences.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

The following is subjective to how I perceived my experiences: But I have had things happening to me that is utterly weird and one of those things is leaving my body on several occasions. To have my mind function outside my physical body is what I would describe as experiencing the non-physical world.

And I believe that us in that non-physical world are the creators of this physical world.

But I will not talk about that in this thread, I will admit that it is very far fetched for people who hasn't had similar experiences.

Do you refute physical explanations of your experience because they are wrong? or because you do not like their conclusions? I'm curious about your choice here, mainly because people are prone to believe what they want as opposed what they do not want.

a reply to: BlueMule

I think it's just an observation that any models humanity makes to explain the physical and/or non-physical are limited and subject to change. So, your insistence on exactness is a wild goose chase.

I do not insist on exactness; I only insist on clarity.

No one needs exact explanations, rigid definitions in order to reach the non-physical.

That's because explanations and rigid definitions are impossible when it comes to the non-existent. You have nothing but your own imagination to work with, so it is no surprise that clarity and precision of ideas is lacking.

But, some people need a narrative of some kind that is not only compatible with their personal psychology, but is conducive to mystical states of consciousness.

And some people don't.

The point of such narratives is not to withstand the tender mercies of nitpickers like you. The point is to orient the psychology of the seeker in a certain way. A way that leads to the expansion of consciousness.

It's because they are unable to withstand the tender mercies. Houses of sticks and straw, they are, so any wolf can blow them down. In other words, a blueprint of inexactness—flimsy, poorly constructed, and only haphazardly conceived.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ParanormalGuy
Do you refute physical explanations of your experience because they are wrong? or because you do not like their conclusions? I'm curious about your choice here, mainly because people are prone to believe what they want as opposed what they do not want.

You are just atoms bouncing around, yet you can think. No matter the configuration of the atoms, I find it not logical for them to be the explanation for yours or my consciousness. Neither is there any science to prove it.

But you have science explaining some parts of the computer that is your brain, yet a computer without a user is just that, a dead computer.

Yeah, I answer in riddles.

a reply to: ParanormalGuy

You are just atoms bouncing around, yet you can think. No matter the configuration of the atoms, I find it not logical for them to be the explanation for your or mine consciousness. Neither is the any science to prove it.

But you have science explaining some parts of the computer that is your brain, yet a computer without a user is just that, a dead computer.

Yeah, I answer in riddles.

But we are not computers nor collections of atoms. I also do not like this description. If we are collections of atoms, we are no different than a rock or a bag of dust. If we are computers, then we must drag around a keyboard and monitor when we walk. Of course, when we look at the physical, this isn't the case. Can we be broken down to atoms? Sure. Can a computer be used as an analogy for the human mind? Sure. But upon examination of the being in question, the human being, we can see that consciousness can be explained by simple biology, just like the consciousness of a bat, with its echo-location and flight, can be explained by its biology. It is our biology that allows the consciousness we have.

If illogic is what your prefer to avoid, it is illogical to hold on to the circular regressive argument and assumption that something non-physical leaves the body upon loss of consciousness or death or out of body experience, for such an assertion requires the faith that something non-physical, something you cannot detect and thus have never had contact with, can be constrained by and interact with something physical and vice versa. It is a patch-work of illogical assumptions, and if your standard of refutation is how illogical something sounds, I hope you apply it to all ideas.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
If consciousness is strictly a result of biology, why is there no sense that consciousness ages? Consciousness or awareness is self-evidently the same now as when it was when I was 18 years old. Not a shred of difference in terms of awareness itself. And there are a lot of years between now and when I was 18.

I have noticed this throughout all the years - awareness never ages, never changes. No way it is simply the product of biology. Yes, awareness is associated with biology (the body-mind) via the mechanism of attention, but NOT the product of biology.

There is nothing inherently physical about awareness - it is what is non-physical.

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
You can never explain the physical world, it's like explaining a magnet. You can explain what it does, but no scientist on Earth will ever be able to explain how it attracts other magnetic matter. But you can probably come to a point where every physical behavior is written down. Still the big question will be unanswered, the question of why it all exists? Only when the non-physical world is acknowledged we can begin to answer those questions.

Thoughts?

You might have something, I was recently thinking that if all the internal combustion engines CC's were averaged, to say 2000cc and assuming for the point of this exercise they were all four strokes. Then average, their RPM. to say 2000.Then in one minute they consume approximately 250 cc of atmospheric oxygen times 2000cc which is. 500000 cc per minute, which is 5 thousand litres ,. of air, say oxygen is a fifth of air then its a thousand litres of oxygen per minute. Which is a cubic metre, which is about a cubic yard, at sea level. You can see where I'm going with this, if their are a billion vehicles, using a billion cubic metres of air per minute. How come theirs any oxygen left? By rights at this rate of usage, we all should be asphyxiated by now. But obviously we don't seem to be. It takes five hundred years for the earths biology to replace the oxygen. Since this example is just one of the oxygen guzzlers. Something strange must be going on. Either way even if my math is wrong, or the oxygen is getting replaced in some strange quantum way.

a reply to: bb23108

If consciousness is strictly a result of biology, why is there no sense that consciousness ages? Consciousness or awareness is self-evidently the same now as when it was when I was 18 years old. Not a shred of difference in terms of awareness itself. And there are a lot of years between now and when I was 18.

The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings obviously ages with the one who is awake. Eyesight get's bad, hearing get's worse, we forget more often, chronic pain, arthritis, dementia, etc.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I do not insist on exactness; I only insist on clarity.

You say that as if exactness and clarity are two different things. But they are synonymous.

That's because explanations and rigid definitions are impossible when it comes to the non-existent. You have nothing but your own imagination to work with, so it is no surprise that clarity and precision of ideas is lacking.

Explanations and rigid definitions are impossible when it comes to anything, Clark. There will always be a gap between signifier and signified, which can be picked at like a scab until language falls apart.

And some people don't.

But you do. That's part of the reason you traveled so extensively. You looked for God in the streets, under trees, on mountains, in ritual. Now, frustrated, you travel the net looking. If you just admit it to yourself and open up, it will go much easier for you.

It's because they are unable to withstand the tender mercies. Houses of sticks and straw, they are, so any wolf can blow them down. In other words, a blueprint of inexactness—flimsy, poorly constructed, and only haphazardly conceived.

They have a life-cycle, just like cultures, scientific theories, people. When a mystical narrative is outgrown by its culture, it is no longer transparent to the transcendent. It becomes opaque. It dies and is reborn in terms more applicable to the new milieu. Again and again and again.



👣

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

If consciousness is strictly a result of biology, why is there no sense that consciousness ages? Consciousness or awareness is self-evidently the same now as when it was when I was 18 years old. Not a shred of difference in terms of awareness itself. And there are a lot of years between now and when I was 18.

The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings obviously ages with the one who is awake. Eyesight get's bad, hearing get's worse, we forget more often, chronic pain, arthritis, dementia, etc.

What is it that is 'aware' that the eyesight diminishes? Are you 'aware' that the body is changing and moving?
The surroundings change but that which is aware of the changes does not.

Speak to an old person and they will say that it is not fair, they still feel 18 but the body is falling apart around them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108
The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings obviously ages with the one who is awake. Eyesight get's bad, hearing get's worse, we forget more often, chronic pain, arthritis, dementia, etc.

Itisnowagain said it well. There is no doubt that one's body-mind ages and eventually dies. But everything we actually experience occurs in awareness, whether that be recognition of the failing body-mind, or the beauty of the female form, or *substitute what you consider beautiful*.

How else could I even be self-aware as awareness itself, if awareness is the result of biology? This is self-evidently the case.

When you fall out of your separative illusion of an apparent knower knowing separate objects via pov, and just be who you are, you will see that your are awareness itself, prior to but not separate from anything.

originally posted by: bb23108


When you fall out of your separative illusion of an apparent knower knowing separate objects via pov, and just be who you are, you will see that your are awareness itself, prior to but not separate from anything.

Awareness isn't a 'who' though. There isn't really any 'who's'.
Awareness is the screen on which the movie plays but the play is just playing and is witnessed by the screen. The witness just witnesses and can do nothing. The movie is just light moving.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Awareness isn't a 'who' though. There isn't really any 'who's'.
Awareness is the screen on which the movie plays but the play is just playing and is witnessed by the screen. The witness just witnesses and can do nothing. The movie is just light moving.

Awareness is Being-consciousness-love-energy not just some infinite witnessing/observing flat panel. Witnessing implies separation - a witness witnessing something.

The Witness does not do any witnessing - it is not separate from what is arising, so no witnessing occurs. What you are implying when you say "witnessing" is what the observer function of the discriminative intellect does - which observes and abstracts from the observed.

We are awareness, so I referred to that as "who" we really are. It's semantics.

a reply to: bb23108
Do you think you have any control of the movie which is playing? Or are you just witnessing what is happening in the apparent movie?

I am trying to understand how you separate the witness from awareness? If the witness is not witnessing then what is it?

What you are implying when you say "witnessing" is what the observer function of the discriminative intellect does - which observes and abstracts from the observed.

I an not speaking about abstraction - the witness/awareness is what is aware of abstraction occurring. It is a clear open space with nothing in it - and thoughts (abstraction) arise and are seen to be appearing.

When you sit and watch your favourite tv show and are really into it, you see and hear and can follow the story. However, have you noticed that when the mind is concerned about something other than the show you can't follow the story. How many times have you been reading a book and then have to go back a few pages because you lost the thread?

a reply to: bb23108
It is like the ocean is looking up from below seeing the waves moving - the waves appear to make a 3d movie that is just happening. The ocean cannot control the movie but the movie is created by the ocean.
The ocean might pop up and be a wave, at that point it appears to be a character in the movie and might believe it can control it's waving and also control some, if not all, other waves. It can't but it tries and suffers until it gets tired and drops back down and then it realizes - the movie is just waving.

Next time he goes up for a wave he realizes that it is the ocean that is moving all the waves and he can just enjoy the ride. When the wave stops being a wave it will always be the ocean.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
I am trying to understand how you separate the witness from awareness? If the witness is not witnessing then what is it?

I am not separating the Witness from Awareness. They both refer to absolute acausal Consciousness-Being-Light-Energy-Love-Bliss.

As such, there is NO separation from what is appearing as modifications of unqualified consciousness. Thus no witnessing is necessary - everything arises in and as Consciousness which absolutely and perfectly "Knows" what all IS directly and non-separately.

Of course, our language makes this difficult to communicate because language is inherently based around an "I" that is separate and knowing of "objects".

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
I an not speaking about abstraction - the witness/awareness is what is aware of abstraction occurring. It is a clear open space with nothing in it - and thoughts (abstraction) arise and are seen to be appearing.

What you are describing is the observer function of mind when you speak of witnessing, perceiving, and space.

Unqualified consciousness is not of space and of course not of time.

Nor does consciousness do any "...ing-ing".

a reply to: bb23108
Do you think you have any control of the movie which appears to be playing? Or are you just witnessing what is happening in the apparent movie? I ask again because I want to clarify where you think you are in all this?