The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Donn]

is helpful to anyone that directly knows that self awareness is independent of thoughts' process. It is probably not your case.

Directly knowing your self-awareness does not supply evidence for your claim that brains are different in TM vs coma.

I.e. "brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind."

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?

Your answer to all of the above is:

The calm state of mind is only directly known (and therefore can't be imagined).

I will take that as your final answer.

In other words:
1. There is no evidence beyond anecdote for the reality of this deep calm.
2. There is no evidence that one can have awareness without mental activity.

"Invariant deep calm" is a mere statement of hope, an aspiration.

Given all of this, I conclude that TM is not a science and has no data that can establish the reality of what it claims; it can thus make no claims about reality or consciousness that need be taken seriously by anyone who is not an adherent of TM.

I concede that there is some data on the effect of TM on the health of some subjects (in small studies) — remembering that many relaxing things (like watching kitten videos) are also good for health.

Thank you for participating.

 

[bruto]

Stability can't be imagined, only directly known.


The invariant is absolute, the variant is relative, and useful reality is at least Absolute AND Relative.

Either you really don't get it, or you have not figured out a way to use language to express it, because what you're saying is not only nonsensical, but contradictory.

If stability can be only known, and not imagined, you cannot speak of it. You cannot say what it is, and you cannot use it as a factor in your philosophy. If you can even name it, you are imagining it, whether or not direct experience was first required to find it. If you cannot imagine it without experiencing it first, you cannot seek it, you cannot prescribe it, and your mission is hopeless.

Saying the invariant is absolute is not a response to the suggestion that there are no absolutes.

If your higher state of consciousness transcends the brain, then it cannot require the brain.

 

[doronshadmi]

If stability can be only known, and not imagined, you cannot speak of it.

I can speak about it, I can imagine about it, I can think about it. Non of those cases are the actual stability in itself.

It is really known only if one's mind is at the calm state, which is stability's true nature.

This calm state is the natural correlation among unstable phenomena, which enables the harmonious interactions among them, such that they will not destroy each other during interactions.

Life phenomena is actually the history of the development of the interactions among relative phenomena where the degree of their development is in direct proportionality with their abilities to be tuned by stability's absolute true nature.

Without invariant (absolute nature) AND variant (relative nature), no linkage among simplicity and complexity can be developed, and the developed linkage among simplicity and complexity is exactly the development of life phenomena.

If your higher state of consciousness transcends the brain, then it cannot require the brain.

Higher state of consciousness transcends the relative aspect of the brain, but the brain is not less than absolute AND relative.

what you're saying is not only nonsensical, but contradictory.

As long as you get the absolute in terms of the relative, nonsense and contradiction is your results.

 

[Donn]

This calm state is the natural correlation among unstable phenomena, which enables the harmonious interactions among them, such that they will not destroy each other during interactions.

You can't state this as a fact.

 

[doronshadmi]

"Invariant deep calm" is a mere statement of hope, an aspiration.

It is indeed an accurate experience and conclusion of a mind that is only aware of its relative aspect.

The rest of your post is done from this relative-only point of view.

 

[doronshadmi]

You can't state this as a fact.

By relative-only state of mind you indeed can't comprehend it as a fact.

 

[realpaladin]

By relative-only state of mind you indeed can't comprehend it as a fact.

I know I am not allowed to point to the other thread, but *come on!* this is the exact same bickering as the thread which is not to be mentioned.

Now we have to wait for the and the repetition is complete.

Again, this is a thinly veiled insult and will be reported; Doron, you are not to make any assumptions or assertions about the conditions and or mind-states of others.

 

[Donn]

It is indeed an accurate experience and conclusion of a mind that is only aware of its relative aspect.

The rest of your post is done from this relative-only point of view.

No, your experience and conclusions are anecdotes that have nothing behind them but your own bias. Maybe, in decades to come, under the careful winnowing of neuroscience, something more will emerge. Until then, you should be content to practice an art and not falsely advertise it otherwise.

By relative-only state of mind you indeed can't comprehend it as a fact.

I don't. You don't. It's not a fact.

 

[bruto]

I can speak about it, I can imagine about it, I can think about it. Non of those cases are the actual stability in itself.

It is really known only if one's mind is at the calm state, which is stability's true nature.

This calm state is the natural correlation among unstable phenomena, which enables the harmonious interactions among them, such that they will not destroy each other during interactions.

Life phenomena is actually the history of the development of the interactions among relative phenomena where the degree of their development is in direct proportionality with their abilities to be tuned by stability's absolute true nature.

Without invariant (absolute nature) AND variant (relative nature), no linkage among simplicity and complexity can be developed, and the developed linkage among simplicity and complexity is exactly the development of life phenomena.


Higher state of consciousness transcends the relative aspect of the brain, but the brain is not less than absolute AND relative.


As long as you get the absolute in terms of the relative, nonsense and contradiction is your results.

Language appears to be your enemy here. Whenever you wriggle out of something, you contradict what you originally said. So you can imagine it without imagining it, and know it without knowing it, and transcend the brain without transcending the brain, because as soon as the contradiction appears, you just change the terms.

What is absolute about a brain? Don't just keep saying it. Explain it if you can. What is it about that piece of meat between your ears that makes it absolute, and what is even meant by the word?

 

[Slowvehicle]

is helpful to anyone that directly knows that self awareness is independent of thoughts' process. It is probably not your case.

Given that awareness is a function of consciousness, this is not in line with the current understanding of neuroscience. Consciousness is an emergent function of a neurosystem. Ever been in a coma?

The calm state of mind is only directly known (and therefore can't be imagined). Furthermore, also be aware that you try to get a satisfied answer at the level of your thoughts' process, which is simply impossible as long as you were not directly aware of yourself without thoughts.

If it can be "known", it can be imagined; it can be described; it can be indicated. If you are without thought, you are without awareness; if you are without awareness, you are without thought. You are, of course, welcome to provide evidence (not just assertions) to support your claims.

This is not only my personal interpretation of science.

I encourage you to provide evidence that any scientific analysis of consciousness agrees with you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Directly knowing your self-awareness does not supply evidence for your claim that brains are different in TM vs coma.

I.e. "brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind."

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?

Your answer to all of the above is:

I will take that as your final answer.

In other words:
1. There is no evidence beyond anecdote for the reality of this deep calm.
2. There is no evidence that one can have awareness without mental activity.

"Invariant deep calm" is a mere statement of hope, an aspiration.

Given all of this, I conclude that TM is not a science and has no data that can establish the reality of what it claims; it can thus make no claims about reality or consciousness that need be taken seriously by anyone who is not an adherent of TM.

I concede that there is some data on the effect of TM on the health of some subjects (in small studies) — remembering that many relaxing things (like watching kitten videos) are also good for health.

Thank you for participating.

Thank you for a beautifully reasoned, and reasonable, set of posts. Good work!

 

[Donn]

TY!

 

[doronshadmi]

Language appears to be your enemy here. Whenever you wriggle out of something, you contradict what you originally said. So you can imagine it without imagining it, and know it without knowing it, and transcend the brain without transcending the brain, because as soon as the contradiction appears, you just change the terms.

All what you wrote above is based on your attempt to address the absolute in terms of the relative.

What is absolute about a brain?

Anything in our universe (mantel, physical or whatever) exists as a result of the linkage among the absolute AND the relative.

Take for example the linkage among the constant (absolute) AND the variable (relative) in natural sciences like Physics, Biology, Chemistry etc. , that use mathematical tools like equations, where equations are actually based invariant AND variant Linkage.

No matter how you look at it invariant AND variant Linkage appears again and again in any possible framework.

What is it about that piece of meat between your ears that makes it absolute, and what is even meant by the word?

The piece of meat between your ears is the relative aspect, which is functionality is correlated by the absolute aspect of the invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

Bruto, since you insist to comprehend everything only in terms of the relative, you have no clue of what I am talking about.

 

[doronshadmi]

Consciousness is an emergent function of a neurosystem.

Both mental and physical phenomena are an emergent function of invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

Ever been in a coma?

No. Did you?

The closest state of awareness of a person that never been in coma, is sleep without dreams, or fainting for short time.

During TM body's rest is deeper than deep sleep, yet the person is fully aware without any thoughts' process.

If it can be "known", it can be imagined; it can be described; it can be indicated.

The imagination, description, indication is only about it, which is not the same as directly being it, simply because directly being it is the absolute aspect, where about it is the relative aspect.

If you are without thought, you are without awareness;

No true. The absolute is independent of the relative for its existence.

if you are without awareness, you are without thought.

True. The relative depends on the absolute for its existence.

You are, of course, welcome to provide evidence (not just assertions) to support your claims.

You are of course, welcome to provide for yourself the needed evidence by practicing TM.

I encourage you to provide evidence that any scientific analysis of consciousness agrees with you.

Any scientific analysis of consciousness (which probably uses equations) is based on invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

 

[doronshadmi]

As for TM, maybe http://skepticsontm.blogspot.co.il/ can help.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Both mental and physical phenomena are an emergent function of invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.]/quote]

You keep saying that, without a shade of support or evidence.

No. Did you?

Yes.

The closest state of awareness of a person that never been in coma, is sleep without dreams, or fainting for short time.

During TM body's rest is deeper than deep sleep, yet the person is fully aware without any thoughts' process. {/quote]

No. Merely stating contradictions does not constitute deepity. Consciousness is nothing more, and nothing less, than an emergent property of the neurosystem. You have utterly failed,in any way, to indicate any sense in which there might be a "higher" consciousness.

The imagination, description, indication is only about it, which is not the same as directly being it, simply because directly being it is the absolute aspect, where about it is the relative aspect.

You keep saying this, and things like this. You have yet to demonstrate, or support, that what you are saying is meaningful in any way whatsoever.

No true. The absolute is independent of the relative for its existence.

Which has nothing to do, in any way, with awareness. Consciousness is an emergent function of the neurosystem. Awareness is a property of consciousness.

True. The relative depends on the absolute for its existence.

You have yet to take even the slightest step in demonstrating that your concept of "the" relative and "the" absolute have any significance in any way, or any manifestation in reality.

You are of course, welcome to provide for yourself the needed evidence by practicing TM.

Ah. I see. You cannot, then, in fact, provide the slightest scintilla of any support for your claims.

Any scientific analysis of consciousness (which probably uses equations) is based on invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

You have yet to even begin the process of preparing to address supporting your assertions.

 

[Donn]

Using more words has proven fruitless. I am taking a leaf from Pixy's book.

Both mental and physical phenomena are an emergent function of invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

No.

During TM body's rest is deeper than deep sleep, yet the person is fully aware without any thoughts' process.

No.

The imagination, description, indication is only about it, which is not the same as directly being it, simply because directly being it is the absolute aspect, where about it is the relative aspect.

No.

The absolute is independent of the relative for its existence.

No.

The relative depends on the absolute for its existence

.
No.

You are of course, welcome to provide for yourself the needed evidence by practicing TM.

Thanks, but no.

Any scientific analysis of consciousness (which probably uses equations) is based on invariant (absolute) AND variant (relative) linkage.

No.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah. I see. You cannot, then, in fact, provide the slightest scintilla of any support for your claims.

No you don't see. All you have at this stage is your relative-only "Consciousness is nothing more, and nothing less, than an emergent property of the neurosystem" view.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No you don't see. All you have at this stage is your relative-only "Consciousness is nothing more, and nothing less, than an emergent property of the neurosystem" view.

Right.

Not the slightest scintilla of support for your assertions.

Just assertions, all the way down.

 

[Donn]

As for TM, maybe http://skepticsontm.blogspot.co.il/ can help.

How does that site help?

A few examples:
I follow the link saying:
FACTS:
• 360 scientists in 30 countries have conducted research on the TM technique.

It gets me this:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Truth About TM Error Condition[/FONT]

Sorry... we have a problem
The layout required for this page

• /peace/includes/layouts/.cfm

cannot be located. This is probably caused by the page name being renamed.
​

Now, while I appreciate that peace includes layouts, I am less than sure about why.

(I must add that I enjoy the frank honesty of the title, "The Truth About TM Error Condition" which rather places the dart in the centre of the board.)

Another example:
FACTS:
• Neuroscience shows unique brain patterns

Following said link takes you to the main TM site with narry a mention of brain patterns on the page. Guess you have to keep trying the emergent function of invariant AND variant hyper-linkage.


After these illuminating links, I decided to press the variant "X" button on the tab and enjoy the invariant absence of that site.

Much better.