The problem of consciousness solved!

Materialism. When you start with the priori that YOU MUST HAVE a material explanation for consciousness, you're left with a convoluted fantasy.

What's the source of consciousness? Can you show us the structure responsible for producing "awareness"?

You have to separate consciousness from awareness of experience and the awareness of self.

You have to separate awareness... From self awareness... Without acknowledging the self... Except it's the self that's aware, and without the self there's no awareness.

None of this makes sense.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Does what is occuring need awareness?

Seeing is occuring.

The assumption that there is something doing seeing, is duality.

Is there anything, any thing at all?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No, and yes.

a reply to: andy06shake

let the fate of consciousness be guided by the destiny of the soul.

Dog dentures

All I can say is that when I got to the "source" as it is called; I couldn't tell who was clinging to whom... the physical clinging to the material or the material clinging to the physical.

In a conscious decision the "I" disappeared as there was no difference no discernment that could know...like a drop of spit on a rock and both "conscious" of the other with the same issue of not know whom is clinging and whom is letting go.

Impermanence; Although, unalterable and the word permanent extraneous? The truth of direct experience remains the same...however suffering of and for the "not-self" is the same as a variable in mathematics or the weather... and unpredictable when it arrives to see or solve.

Wisdom prepares for the wind the rain the cold the heat needing or not needing is a variable a storehouse that either loads or unloads.

Experience of the not self without clinging yet clinging letting go but yet not letting go... futile or not it will occur down to every grain of physical in contact with the material and vs versa.

Maybe others have experienced such but did not have the words; no way to express but it is a mutual exchange in the physical and material... practice increases both tolerance and lack of concern at the same time but however not at the same rate. Intention is the same... to hold or to let go to keep or to give, on the microcosm light heating a drop of water on the macrocosm a spiral galaxy to discrimination or a consciousness without name a fight of expansion and contraction...a dog tugging rope til it's teeth fall out.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No, and yes.

Happening is happening.

Naming is the origin of all particular things.

Water flows......
Ocean is waving......there is no wave.

Dont pick on the dogs!

a tree, dog, human and a advanced alien.
each have knowledge and understanding on different levels.
even different dogs have different levels of intelligence.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hydrogen atoms always had one proton and one electron before we gave names to their particles. UV radiation was always here before we measured it. Microbiology was causing disease and decay long before the first bacteria was even imagined. Names don't invent physics.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Science of the mind will never have the answer until they admit that the soul exists.

Without the Soul, the brain dies.

P

I see the soul as religious consept.
we have no idea what soul realy is.
one day a computer will pass the turin test.
will that mean it has a soul?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hydrogen atoms always had one proton and one electron before we gave names to their particles. UV radiation was always here before we measured it. Microbiology was causing disease and decay long before the first bacteria was even imagined. Names don't invent physics.

What he means is that there is two ways to see the world: as a whole or as a multiplicity of little things. The world is presented to us as a whole, but only the mind thinks that every little thing is its own thing, only the mind can give different names to things and see them a separate from all other things.

It's like your body, it's made of many little things, but don't you consider that your body forms a coherent unit? Yes, I can remove your liver and take it into my hand and say "this is your liver, it's its own thing, don't you see?", but it's part of your body nonetheless.

When you start dividing everything, there is no end to that process. Who is to say when it should end? What can be considered a "unit"? It's arbitrary. Who is to decide when the division should take place? Where does the tail of the dog really start?

a reply to: gosseyn

I don't think that's what he meant to say. Consciousness begets existence, matter is hinged on the fulcrum of perception. It's a fallacy.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't think that's what he meant to say.

Actually, Gosseyn did a really good job at interpreting my post.

It's a fallacy.

What is?
Can you say more please?

a reply to: Randyvine2

Destiny and/or freewill don't exactly go hand in hand with infallible plans.

There may be no fixed natural order to the universe.

Geography and social circumstance obviously play their part.

But our fate may very well be our own to make.

a reply to: andy06shake

But our fate may very well be our own to make.

I just thought it sounded philosophical so I had to try it on.


Thanks for responding amigo

a reply to: Randyvine2

LoL

Does a wee bit i suppose, think it may be from "The Terminator" all the same.

"There is no fate but what we make for ourselves." John Connor.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's a fallacy to say perception, awareness, cognizance instructs or manifests fundamental physics. If that's not your message then I misunderstood.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Attachment of either self or other to the inexhaustible amount of names and forms... here desiring there desiring trying to control ones one and all others desire.

Is sickness
It's old
attachment or not desirous or not "death" doesn't seem to deter the other two.

If you eat nothing but vegetables grain and water all will eat you... those that only eat you just the same if you only ate meat. Moderation means getting eaten and eating both and not concerned about it.

I avoid chicken because it is enslaved and bred specifically for meat... free range hahha where's the wild chickens? Most likely delusional not knowing they are eating and breeding more of themselves in the unawareness of it.

free range hahha where's the wild chickens?

a reply to: Crowfoot

Yuba city Ca. has a number of free roamers. And they are well fed by the many
peoples of India. I drive truck out of there and in the morning some of the Sikhs
sprinkle corn around their mat. They sit and meditate with chickens. It strikes me
that they celebrate consciousness in all life. Rather than trying to explain it.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Then what's the alternative? If you believe matter gives birth to the mental, then you have to explain it. Good luck.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Seeing an entire cycle of a life form?

Birth, Sickness, Death,

Isn't difficult.

Attempting to not be the cause of any of those three; in all life forms?

Very difficult.

Any life trying or wanting to depend on oneself as their origin extremely difficult; nearly impossible to escape, other than attempting to be harmless like those you mentioned to "chickens".

However their 'intention' is kamma, perceiving kamma with a chicken? Or a whole group or flock of chickens? Is more like desiring to be reborn as that life. Egg born, moisture born, womb born, and kamma born all three of those are not without cause... what are those trying to escape and later plague chickens with if born unto them? Who knows, who knows?