• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Metaphysical Consciousness

JaysonR said:
No, I fully understand the gradient, and we don't need that post to talk about a concussion.

Diversifying a solid state system like a raid drive does not make a primary curcuit disconnect impossible, nor does it mean that such is a lack of coordination which would otherwise solve a disparate network.

Our brains are already highly invariant in their DMN cycles which syncronize traffic flow of neurotransmission.
Click to expand...

Is that an automatic neurotransmission or a manual.

A manual gets better millage but an auto is easier to shift your thoughts.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is another example of how you take the knowledge that reality is consciousness, and try to localize it into some person, culture, religion, etc.

By doing it you simply block yourself to the knowledge that reality is consciousness, and a result you actually prevent from yourself the answer to your question, which is:

What is consciousness?

As for DMN please look at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/muom-tma030410.php.
Click to expand...

Doesn't your consciousness wear a bit thin, covering all reality and such?
 
I'd like to see this guy try this routine in a bar some night…. the world might not seem so harmonious after a well-deserved reaction brought forth from his intransigent insistence that "reality is consciousness"… and the consciousness condensed into the fist that delivered the harmony to his nose might teach him something about the nature of the reality of "reality". This spinning dance of his sweet nothings is less enlightening than the whirling dance of a dervish, from what I've seen of this repetitious insistent singularity of mind… the black hole of invariably variant varmints 'n stuff is getting smaller all the time.
 
Anyone who has done something with AI will remember ELIZA.

I bet 1 bitcoin that a thread with ELIZA taking the part of Doron will yield the same 'getting nowhere' but with a lot less confusion.

It is absolutely sad that a real human being can be downgraded by woo like TM and Deepak's ramblings to a level that is below that of a piece of software from the early days of computing.
 
tsig said:
Doesn't your consciousness wear a bit thin, covering all reality and such?
Click to expand...

Reality is consciousness (observer(0 to infinity),observing(0 to infinity),observed(0 to infinity)) so nothing has to be covered.

At the big bang consciousness is (observer(0),observing(0),observed(0)) and evolution is the return of consciousness to (observer( infinity),observing(infinity),observed(infinity)), which is actually unity (the term infinity is not related to multiplicity, as done in the case of traditional mathematics that defines infinity in terms of multiplicity).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Talking about consciousness by using names is still only done at the relative (and therefore variant) aspect of reality.
Click to expand...
_____ invariently ______ variently ______ aspect of ______ therefore ______

Ah, crap...that's still too many names to talk about consciousness...hold on.

____ _ _____ ______ ___ _____ ___________ __ ___ ______.


There you go.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It appears that you still do not grasp that reality is consciousness, and through its linkage among its subjective and objective aspects, harmony is developed, where one of the possible results is that a given person simply and naturally does not stand under a falling brick, because in an harmonious reality things naturally do not harm each other.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't "grasp" that reality is consciousness, because I believe it is not. Your statement "where such developed level of harmony prevents the event of "a brick falling from the ledge above" on some person's head, in the first place." is at best ambiguous in regard to whether or not your developed consciousness would prevent the brick from falling at all. If things cannot in a harmonious universe harm each other, does that mean that no brick can ever fall hard enough to damage anything? How does that work?
 
JaysonR said:
_____ invariently ______ variently ______ aspect of ______ therefore ______

Ah, crap...that's still too many names to talk about consciousness...hold on.

____ _ _____ ______ ___ _____ ___________ __ ___ ______.


There you go.
Click to expand...
Talking about consciousness (its relative and variant aspect) is definitely not directly know (its absolute and invariant aspect) consciousness.

So one actually has to transcend "about consciousness" in order to directly know consciousness, where this knowledge does not need any kind of about-agents like words, text, thoughts, etc.

In terms of mathematics C((observer( infinity_in_terms_unity),observing(infinity_in_terms_unity),observed(infinity_in_terms_unity)) > c((observer(finite or infinity_in_terms_multiplicity),observing(finite or infinity_in_terms_multiplicity),observed(finite or infinity_in_terms_multiplicity)) , and we have naturally non-entropic reality simply because C is not the sum of any amount of c multiverse.
 
Last edited:
Great, then we both agree.
You typing more words about consciousness will not reveal anything about consciousness.
 
bruto said:
How does that work?
Click to expand...
As it is naturally works among the components of a healthy living organism, and it works independently of any belief, simply because any belief is the signature of the lack of direct knowledge of the naturally healthy living organism.
 
Last edited:
JaysonR said:
Great, then we both agree.
You typing more words about consciousness will not reveal anything about consciousness.
Click to expand...
Yes, only talking, writing (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10227835&postcount=991), thinking, etc. about consciousness does not reveal the direct knowledge of it.

Therefore TM technique is an actual practice to directly know consciousness without any need of about agents like talking, writing, thinking, etc.

Your problem is the you wish to get direct knowledge of consciousness by using only about agents.
 
Last edited:
Mmmm, TM.
And, nope. I do not have a problem.
I did not go looking for something I felt lacking.
Perhaps I am like the dog, no Buddha nature. Darn.
 
Last edited:
JaysonR said:
Mmmm, TM.
And, nope. I do not have a problem.
I did not go looking for something I felt lacking.
Perhaps I am like the dog, no Buddha nature. Darn.
Click to expand...



"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."


That's an old Zen saying (possibly a koan, I don't remember). I think we're finding out why that phrase was born: if you meet someone who claims to be enlightened, or to have special powers or "special" mathematics which are not any kind of actual maths, you know you have met an imposter posturing and cavorting in the clothes of a "teacher", and the first instinct of a student of Zen should be to strip those false clothes away.

Everybody and everything has "Buddha nature". It's not special. It just is.

And it's not consciousness. Consciousness is the game we play with is.

Is is spontaneously unfolding. It's the physical universe, from which miraculously and inevitably arises the emergent ephemeral phenomenon we call "consciousness".

It arrives and is, without secret pockets, available freely to all. Play with it, and work is done.

No Buddha required. No purchase required. Farewell, Doronshadmi. You are not required.
 
JaysonR said:
Mmmm, TM.
And, nope. I do not have a problem.
I did not go looking for something I felt lacking.
Perhaps I am like the dog, no Buddha nature. Darn.
Click to expand...
TM has nothing to do with Buddha or Buddhism, or any other person or religion, so you have no clue what your about_consciousness problem is.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, I was not referring to Buddhism for TM.
I was referring to a Zen Koan, which can be employed to say that a dog seeks not enlightenment because it is quite simply what it is and fine with it.

Thanks for the insult though.

By the way, just to be clear: I was saying I was the dog and you are offering me something beyond my nature of concern, which I did not ask for.

I commented on a concussion definition and you offered me TM and consciousness enhancement.
 
Last edited:
JaysonR said:
Oh no, I was not referring to Buddhism for TM.
I was referring to a Zen Koan, which can be employed to say that a dog seeks not enlightenment because it is quite simply what it is and fine with it.
Click to expand...
Enlightenment is being like that dog, exactly because such a dog is quite simply what it is and fine with it as an harmonious phenomenon of reality.

JaysonR said:
Thanks for the insult though.
Click to expand...
Insult? What is exactly insult with the fact that you are using only about-knowledge of consciousness?

JaysonR said:
By the way, just to be clear: I was saying I was the dog and you are offering me something beyond my nature of concern, which I did not ask for.
Click to expand...
You asked: "What is consciousness?", but you avoid direct-knowledge of it.

Why is that?

JaysonR said:
I commented on a concussion definition and you offered me TM and consciousness enhancement.
Click to expand...
Concussion in its global sense is the result of the lack of harmony among relative phenomena, and the solution is direct-knowledge of consciousness during relative daily life.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Enlightenment is being like that dog, exactly because such a dog is quite simply what it is and fine with it as an harmonious phenomenon of reality.
Insult? What is exactly insult with the fact that you are using only about-knowledge of consciousness?


You asked: "What is consciousness?", but you avoid direct-knowledge of it.

Why is that?


Concussion in its global sense is the result of the lack of harmony among relative phenomena, and the solution is direct-knowledge of consciousness during relative daily life.
Click to expand...

Woof, woof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom