Light things.

[lifegazer]

The only thing that I know absolutely is that I think. I can't escape that fact. I could pretend that I don't actually think but that would require thought on my part and I'm back to where I started.

The reality of sensation, thought & feeling, is beyond doubt. In fact, existence is only known via these intangible attributes. The only thing to consider is who or what is having the experience.

Is there an objective reality outside of my mind?
Those who don't think so should be willing to be locked in a room without food, water or toilet until they are disabused of any such notions.

Absolutely irrelevant. The death or sickness of "we" is something which is perceived within awareness.

My philosophy does not make your life non-existent Rand. It simply asks you to re-identify yourself and your purposes or goals in life. There's no doubt that perceived reality is important, even for God.

 

[RandFan]

My philosophy does not make your life non-existent Rand. It simply asks you to re-identify yourself and your purposes or goals in life. There's no doubt that perceived reality is important, even for God.

I'm not really arguing whether or not reality or perceived reality is important (I suspect that this is a syntactic problem). My point is that real or not real, it makes no difference since it is impossible for me to live my life as though it were not real. I have no choice to but accept it as real. If I refuse to eat, drink or move my bowels or bladder I will suffer severe consequence.

I could be living the same day over and over and my past is only an illusion. This is the billionth time that I have typed this message to you.

I could be a personality in a schizophrenic's mind who is at this moment receiving large doses of thorazine and I am his way of dealing with reality and the side effects of the drug.

Anything is possible. It is allot of fun to read such stories and to imagine such things. But to what end do they serve beyond entertainment?

"Solidity" is confirmed via sensation also. Our senses of touch, sight and smell, conspire to tell us of the existence of a tree within our awareness. But it's a ghost tree. It's not real. The things we see within ourselves are simply intangible.

Perhaps, but what is the point? I can't verify that fact. It serves me no practical purpose whatsoever beyond stimulating the senses. And I find the story of the Matrix to far more stimulating than the god story.

Could you sex it up a bit? Ad a girl who wears skin tight leather?

Thanks gazer,

RandFan

 

[uruk]

You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

what does the rock not having an experiance have to do with your expariance? The rock does not need to have "feelings" to bash your head in or cause pain.

 

[lifegazer]

Could you sex it up a bit? Ad a girl who wears skin tight leather?

I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living. Amazing.
More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime.

 

[uruk]

I'm sorry but the internal experiance does not negate the external existanance. You've just replaced an external universe that we percieve through our senses with a god that sends us stimulus. Again. no proof or difference for that matter.

One aspect of your philosophy seems comes from the idea that the universe is here for our enjoyment. That seems arrogantly anthropocentric. There is much evidence to support that this universe was here long before our kind kind came into it. It seems curiouse that "god would create this illusion with a history that serves no porpose with relation to us, especially since this universe was made just for us. Also curious, is that we are incapable of detecting the link to the big mind.

The reality of sensation, thought & feeling, is beyond doubt. In fact, existence is only known via these intangible attributes. The only thing to consider is who or what is having the experience.

This says nothing as to wether the an external universe exists or not. It is simply something you chose to accept or not.

 

[RandFan]

I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living(?)

Edit mine

Why should the assertion that I am god have any more relevance than the assertion that I am a figment (or personality) of some scizophrenics imagination?

"If if's and but's were candies and nuts we would all have a merry christmas".

If someone told me that I had died and that my mind had been transfered to a computer where I was awaiting to be reinserted into another body it would have no more relevance or implications.

gazer,

That something might be is no reason to believe that it is.

More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime.

"-sleep! Rest in the arms of the Dragon - dream."
--Merlin

 

[billydkid]

Snore....

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Snore....

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Light things.

How would you go about doing this since you cannot see a world external to your awareness?
You're seeing within. You're seeing abstract land.

How can I see something which exists as an abstract concept? Pi is a concept, happiness is a concept, but they cannot be seen. I'm afraid I dont follow...

So, observing the effects of shining light into your eye is something you do within yourself.
This is my whole point - that the whole universe you observe is within you. So you can only manipulate the inner-universe.

I have no ability to willfully manipulate the universe outside of what my percieved self is immediately within contact with. Therefore, I would assume that what I call "the universe", you call "the unconscious mind".

The things we know and the things we manipulate, are within our awareness. The whole universe is happening within you.

1. If what you are telling me is true, then nothing that is thought to be in the external world exists.
2. But other minds besides my own are thought to be in the external world (since the external world is anything outside my own mind).
3. Therefore, other minds do not exist.
4. Conclusion, I ought to take up solipsism.

While Solipsism is logically coherent, I think I spot an error in commonsense when I try to tell you (a person who knows they exist) that you are merely something of a figment in my mind.

 

[RussDill]

Take a look around you. Rather, take a look around your awareness. What do you see? - You see light in various shades of colour. It's a bleedin light show!

Perhaps you need to define "look around". Look around means changing the source of your stimuli to get a depiction of you surroundings. So you are not looking around your awareness, you are observing the different stimuli, not "different" awareness, you still have the same sense of awareness when you "look around".

Now, we all know that colours are subjective. I.e., they do not exist objectively, in any external universe.

but they define objective things, ie, is a fruit ripe or not.

The universe doesn't know what colour is.

The universe does not need to know, we use color to know about the universe, not some other way around. In the distant past, it was a very important survival skill, but now, the gene is becoming more and more mutated as it is no longer necessary for survival.

So, what you are seeing ladies & gents is actually a work of art, deliberately created by an entity to be seen WITHIN THAT ENTITY ITSELF.

That would be assuming art is objective, which it is not. Art is very, very objective.

That's right, the universe we see is an abstract piece of art. And just as significantly, the whole show is seen within the entity that creates that show.

If you think it is, again, art is objective. I don't know of any other pieces of art that can bludgeon you on the head and take your money though.

Now, every "thing" we see is seen amongst the colours within/upon our awareness.

More useless adjetives and improper use of other words. We are aware of color and objects. They are not within or upon our awareness. It would be like the novice computer user saying that the internet is in their computer, or that they have the internet version 7.0

I.e., our reason/judgement sees "things" amongst the light of our inner-awareness.
I.e., the universe of "light things" exists inside your mind. Your mind embraces the universe that you see.

there is that compeletly useless "inner-awareness" thing again. And using the word embrace in a place where it could have any definition. You have to define your terms, otherwise, all you have are meaningless words that sound good when you type them.

You are the universe. You are existence.

Depending on how you define existence, but that would be a very narrow and useless definition.

So, it's about time you made a serious effort to find out who you are. Isn't it God?

Isn't it about time you start thinking critically, and waking up to the fact that we are all human, and not even you, the great, all poweverfull, all mightly lifegazer is infallible?

 

[RussDill]

You give yourself identity in relation to the light-things seen within yourself. Relativity.
But in truth, you embrace the light-show, absolutely, within yourself. The universe exists within you. And if you make the effort to discover true self-identity, you find your essence in The Mind or The Creator of this universe. For you, like the light-show of things, are an extension of your maker. Nothing else exists except the creative Mind.

Nice repeat of above, I like how you threw is "Realitivy.", is that just there to remind us all how miserably your ideas about relativity fail to maintain even a shread of credability when questioned?

 

[RussDill]

Which pavement would that be? Let me guess: it's the pavement seen amongst the light-show of your inner-awareness, is it not?

awareness lifegazer, say it with me, awareness. And no, we cannot see anything about our awareness, that is not how awareness works, we do not see our awareness, our awareness makes us able to perceive our stimuli. You are adding a useless layer, assumption, or both.

The very "things" I am talking about, which your reason plucks from the colour/shade (light) within you... and which your sense of touch conspires to enhance the reality of (that pavement).

Wow, so now for your ideas to be correct, there has to be a vast conspiracy. How many points get awarded for this? I can't seem to track down the scale.

Oh that the senses should all conspire to reveal the same things. What a friggin surprise.

But they do not, our sense can be very, very deceiving.

The tapestry of the world we weave is made from the fabric of the senses with a needle constructed of judgement/reason.

useless (attempted) poetic tripe. You need to be subjective with your words, at this point, all you are doing is preaching. Those who have solid facts don't preach, they show their cards.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Light things.

The external universe - even if it existed - neither knows nor cares nor has the power to impose such experience upon said entity.
You can bash a rock on the head for eternity, but if that rock does not choose to feel and so create ~inner-pain~ as a response to your actions, the rock will feel nothing.

I've already shown the above to be completely baseless. You choose to ignore the argument and go on your merry way. Fine, I suppose since after you absolutely know for a fact that you are right, countering difficult arguments is simply a waste of your time, you might as well just repeat what you already have, and make up some useless preachy poetry.

All sensation is the same as pain in this respect. It is experienced by choice and it is created by that entity alone.
There is nothing in any [supposedly external] reality contributing to the abstract existence of the world which we all share.

More useless repeated of arguments that have been counterd many times before...

And let's be sure about something here: Human experience is completely subjective/abstract/intangible in that it is founded upon sensation, thought & emotion. Nothing else.
No man has ever escaped his boundless mind. No man has any experience of an external (to subjective-awareness) world.

Completely useless and makes no point at all unless you can accurately define any of the words in the above sentance.

 

[RussDill]

Remember that any living experience of God (as lifegazer, Atlas, my hamster, or whatever) is the experiencer of pain. I contend that "we" are the experience which God has imposed upon itself, pain and all. So, "we" do not see or know how the creation of pain occurs - "we" just are the pain. Or "we" are whatever sensations and thoughts/feelings that constitute "we".

Contend all you want, but it remains a baseless contention.

Interesting studies on the placebo-effect show that conscious belief can control or even alleviate the sensation of pain.

Placebo is well understood, nothing special about it. However, no matter how well trained someone is, they can never choose not to experience pain, nor can they ever choose to experience some new sensation. And someone born without the ability to see color, or even see at all, can ever choose to have that sensation.

"You" still believe you are Atlas. You haven't understood that Atlas is an experience relative to every light-thing else seen within your awareness. I.e., Atlas, like everything else, is a perception or experience had within your awareness. You are actually distinct from the experience of being Atlas. You are not really Atlas - that is your perceived state of being.
Yet don't despair - for you still have life and are much greater than you think.

So boring, all you are doing is regurgitating the concepts of collective consciousness, art bell, "the quickening", silvia brown, and others. Come up with something new, something interesting, not the old, "there is impending doom, and only the realization of collective conciousness can save us" bit.

The choice to feel pain comes deep from within yourself - a self distinct from the experience of being Atlas. Any entity experiencing abstract sensations, does so by choice and by itself.

Again a statement that has been shown time and time again to be a baseless assumption. All you are doing here is preaching and assuming those listening believe that you have some authority from god.

The rock has nothing of itself and is nothing in itself. God has the experience of being aware of rocks.

God can work through any perceived medium - including rocks, no doubt. But do not try to imbue rocks themselves with the capacity to choose. Rocks have no life. God is the life of all things.

Yes, and no matter how many times you hit a piece of sandstone, it will not become an arrowhead. Thus, arrowheads do not exist. What a completely childish way of attempting to prove something. Horses have 4 legs, this animal has 4 legs, it is a horse. I would ask how old you are, but I already know. Please please please lifegazer, take a class in logic, it would at least make the discussion a little more bearable.

Such things are not aware. Please understand that they only have existence within awareness of entities that are.

Right, we'll just keep listening to you preach.

"Things" exist amongst the sensations of awareness. This is the whole point of my philosophy.

One clearly full of axioms, which you insist do not exist. But then, why do you preach so much?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be suggesting that I (lifegazer) think that I am the only vessel of God's experience. That squire, is a complete misunderstanding on your part.

No, you just seem to be making it clear that you have some sort of divine communication.

The senses conspire to speak of a world of things. But these sensations are happening within you - to you - and the things you see within them are not really there. Only you exist, dreaming of things that are not there, for a purpose yet to be discussed.

More divinely communicated information. I suppose with your philosophy though, saying that you talk to god makes you sound even crazier. "I talk to god, I am god"

"Solidity" is confirmed via sensation also. Our senses of touch, sight and smell, conspire to tell us of the existence of a tree within our awareness. But it's a ghost tree. It's not real. The things we see within ourselves are simply intangible.

Which is one of the central *axioms* of your phisolophy, nothing more.

 

[RussDill]

I tell you that you are God and you see no relevance or implications for that info to the life that you are living. Amazing.
More tomorrow, perhaps. My bedtime.

The only implication you have given is that "unification" can make god choose one thing or another, which is compeletly nonsensical with your definition of god as already pointed out.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry but the internal experiance does not negate the external existanance.

The universe we participate in is internal to our awareness. Exactly like a dream. Our physical laws relate to the order within our awareness.
Relativity and base quantum-indeterminism are to be expected in my philosophy, as discussed quite recently in another thread. Indeed, I even remember saying that Quantum-indeterminism of fundamental energy/matter could have been predicted thousands of years ago, as long as one assumed the existence of a primal-cause (God).

You've just replaced an external universe that we percieve through our senses with a god that sends us stimulus. Again. no proof or difference for that matter.

I gave you proof earlier. Any entity which experiences abstract existence is the primal-cause of that existence. I.e., that entity chose to create sensations, thoughts & feelings, for itself and by itself.

One aspect of your philosophy seems comes from the idea that the universe is here for our enjoyment.

What?? You just made that up. I've been plugging for world unity.

Also curious, is that we are incapable of detecting the link to the big mind.

Even science recognises the workings of the subconscious.

This says nothing as to wether the an external universe exists or not. It is simply something you chose to accept or not.

There can be nothing external to an intangible realm of existence. By default.

 

[lifegazer]

Why should the assertion that I am god have any more relevance than the assertion that I am a figment (or personality) of some scizophrenics imagination?

You saw no meaning in my philosophy. You saw no meaning in the fact that you - according to my philosophy - are God. It was my meaning you attacked.
Now if you cannot see the significance of being God - to you and to all mankind - then you are stupid. Really, you are.

 

[Phil]

You saw no meaning in my philosophy. You saw no meaning in the fact that you - according to my philosophy - are God. It was my meaning you attacked.
Now if you cannot see the significance of being God - to you and to all mankind - then you are stupid. Really, you are.

Sorry to butt in, (and to be so stupid) but what is the significance?

Supposing your "philosophy" is spot on, how does it affect anything we perceive, anything we don't perceive, anything we do? Don't do? What difference does or should it make to anyone? Why should we even care? Is knowing that we are god or part of a collective consciousness, going to improve our lives? Is it going to change our lives in any way? If so, how? What's knowing or admitting it going to change? Will we have powers? Acheive more happiness? Reverse male pattern baldness? Are we going to suddenly want to praise your name at the coffee house, or freshmen philosophy study group, or the head shop, or wherever you normally hold court for enlightening us?

You seem to always be pushing for some grand paradigm shift with your "philosophy", at least where this forum is concerned, but aside from the incense I smell burning every time I read one of your posts, I don't find anything worthwhile, or find that a call to shift is warranted in the least. I'm not reading anything in your posts save pseudo-poetical nonsense.

So tell this poor stupid individual: What is it about what you're saying that should have me fall to knees and cry, "Yes. Yes. I see now. How could I have been so blind?"

Please tell me why I should care.

 

[lifegazer]

Please tell me why I should care.

Have you watched the news recently? Have you read your history books?
We've screwed each other - man against man, nation against nation, church against church. All divided. Result: inequality, war, terror, poverty, injustice, greed, indifference.
Where are our values? With money and comfort for the self and our immediate family first and foremost. We perpetuate the inequality and division passed onto us by previous generations. But guess what, it's not obligatory that this generation should make the same mistake as all previous generations.

You ask what difference it would make to know yourself as God... to know yourself in all people... to know all people in yourself. Those that know embrace humanity as their family... seek unity for mankind. One nation, no borders, an end to war and inequality. No more poverty.
One God, one people, all working for each other. Not through cohersion, but through realisation and desire.

You should care because your egotistical/selfish purposes are at odds with the truth of your identity and with unity for mankind.
Only unity will save mankind from self-oblivion. Division means death.

 

[Wudang]

Well again why should we care? We don't exist and after all if someone is in pain then, you say, they have chosen this experience for themselves. Personally that seems like a bad choice but......
And like I said elsewhere, the idea of infinite life is a drag. I was once asked if I thought an embodied or disembodied afterlife would be worse and I decided that after the first few billion years it wouldn't make a difference.