Light things.

[lifegazer]

I agree with you up to the point that you read "choice" into the creation of these perceptions. Why do you assume that it's a choice made on some level, rather than, for example adapted responses as per evolution?

What does that mean? Where, for example, are you suggesting that the sensation of pain comes from?

 

[riverlethe]

The central nervous system, or thereabouts.
Sorry, I'm not a biologist...

 

[lifegazer]

This is a wonderful notion. But again why do we need to accept that we are a dream of god to acheive it? Is it not possible to lay aside our petty differences and accomplish this type of peace as men? Not saying it would be easy by any stretch, but isn't it possible? Why do we need to be god to do it?

Mankind cannot work for unity unless mankind sees that he is One. It's the reason why communism didn't work - the people are essentially divided and have their own interests foremost in their minds.
What I have just said in my previous post will not work until my philosophy is universally accepted, sometime in the near future. People will always have their own interests foremost in their minds until they know that their own interests actually embrace the whole of mankind. You cannot force divided strangers to love one another.

 

[RandFan]

There is a distinction to be made between the creator and what is perceived.

A meaningless distinction. I'm talking about what ever is perceiving.

I've told you several times that the things perceived are illusions and are not the creator. This, of course, includes the perception of being Atlas, lifegazer, or anyone - we're all illusions held within the Mind of God.

And I have told you that it makes no difference. But I'm sure you will repeat this canard ad nauseam.

The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable.

No one cares. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am trying to tell you. The external world effects some perception.

Unless of course you start by assuming that there is no external reality in which case your argument assumes that which you are trying to prove.

You say that "my" mind cannot choose whether to experience a specific phenomena or not. Well firstly, it's not "my" mind - it is not the mind of lifegazer. Secondly, lifegazer is a perception existing within the Mind which created all of its own sensations. Lifegazer does not exist any more than any-thing else exists within awareness.

Well, let's lock that perception up and see how long it takes to realize that it is much more than just a perception.

Thirdly, it's so obvious that an entity must be the creator of its own abstract experiences that I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining this to you.

Which entity? God or the lifegazer perception? Why is this so obvious? Why can't I be a biological entity that is interpreting stimuli and the abstract experience is the result of processing and interpreting that stimuli much as flight is the result of many complex variables.

Again lifegazer, I have been a dualist for 20 years (my dualism is based on HPC and no evidence to dispute materialism. I accept that materialism is the only mechanism that we have thus far to explain the human mind). I understand the concepts and the arguments. It is NOT obvious. You are interpreting the data the way you want and you are closed minded and dogmatic.

Either you accept it or you carry on pretending that the external universe knows what pain, red, sweet, love, hot, cold, itchy, or any sensation you care to name, is and is created by the external universe.

False dichotomy and straw man. This is not my contention and there are other options.

I don't believe that the universe can know what pain or red is because the universe lacks a system to process such data. Humans do not lack such a system. We have a brain, eyes, ears, nose, etc. An entire system. Furthermore we can replicate to a degree this system. If scientific progression continues its course it is very likely that my notions about dualism will be proven wrong.

I have two choices. Believe that everything that I see is a lie and that I don't exist and that God's perception can change reality or believe that I do exist and that my perception can only alter reality only as much as the laws of physics allow. If locked in a room I can't stop my hunger or thirst pains and I can't stop my bowel movements (at least until my stomach and colon have been completely evacuated and my kidneys shut down)

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

What does that mean? Where, for example, are you suggesting that the sensation of pain comes from?

Where does flight come from?

Edited to add: It's great to be arguing materialism when I am a *dualist.

Just because I cannot point to a single point in the brain and say see, there is where pain comes from does not mean that pain isn't a result of the entire system.

You can't point to any part of a plane and say, see there is flight.

*My dualism isn't based on a paranormal entity but more on a force or property that we do not yet understand. A secular god of the gaps if you will. I accept that materialism as we now understand is the only eplanation for consciousness and that many if not most neuroscientists do not see any relevance of HPC.

 

[riverlethe]

Where does flight come from?

Edited to add: It's great to be arguing materialism when I am a *dualist.

Just because I cannot point to a single point in the brain and say see, there is where pain comes from does not mean that pain isn't a result of the entire system.

Of course, you could take it one step further and recognize the Oneness of the Universe.

 

[Phil]

Mankind cannot work for unity unless mankind sees that he is One. It's the reason why communism didn't work - the people are essentially divided and have their own interests foremost in their minds.
What I have just said in my previous post will not work until my philosophy is universally accepted, sometime in the near future. People will always have their own interests foremost in their minds until they know that their own interests actually embrace the whole of mankind. You cannot force divided strangers to love one another.

But doesn't this speak more to a dream of yours than provide any solid methods for acheiving it?

I mean, it's a wonderful hope to have the utopia you speak of, and I am all for it. But what indications do you have---I said indications, not assumptions based on what you believe, but indications---that accepting your philosophy will bring that change about.

The only related phenomenon that comes to my mind would be the observed unity inherent in those within certain cults. These people have accepted a philosophy of one-ness in service of some other guy or thing, and they seem to have their own utopias, in a weird, sometimes deadly sort of way. But I'm guessing you're not hoping we all become automatonic drones without an original thought or a speck of creativity.

So the question remains, on what are you basing the contention that, if your philosophy is accepted, there will be such massive changes? What observed phenomonon supports the "we=god=no more dream=utopia" idea?

 

[RandFan]

I have one other major problem with the notion that objective reality does not exist.

Our understanding of what we perceive of objective reality is the result of thousands of years of observing and testing. Of course the vast majority of what we no know and understanding has come relatively recently.

Furthermore our understanding is the result of falsifying our hypothesis and building a foundation of understanding. This foundation has allowed us to accelerate our understanding. We are not smarter than Davinci we simply know more.

According to your thesis gazer,

This is all a lie. A mirage. Which raises the question, to what end? If all things are possible to god why are not all things possible to me and why can't I violate the known laws of physics? What purpose does the known laws of physics serve if they don't really exist? They certainly lead us away from god don't they? Why does he set us up to fail? Why must we have to find a cypher and discount and mistrust our perceptions to find the truth??????

 

[Wudang]

Isn't he saying the same thing in both statements?

Really, what is so difficult about conceiving of yourself as a sensory God-tentacle, with delusions of individuality?

Nothing really, the Diamond Sutra describes it quite well. I am actually tring to understand lifegazers philosophy and where it is for instance different from Zen and/or christianity.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing really, the Diamond Sutra describes it quite well. I am actually tring to understand lifegazers philosophy and where it is for instance different from Zen and/or christianity.

If I wanted to hold onto my Christian world view but recognized the problems inherent in that philosophy, I could devise a belief system that obviates physics. This of course is problematic in that it makes god a liar and the bible a cypher that exists primarily to mislead. There is no flesh and therefore no sins of the flesh. There is no mortality and therefore no murder. Christ was not the physical embodiment of god and therefore was not crucified.

These things were all imagined by god and perceived by individual manifestations of god (aka individual perceptions) living in a collective virtual reality.

I don't know if this is gazer's motivation but it would fit what we know so far of his philosophy. It's important to bear in mind that we are incapable of understanding until we first accept his philosophy and then we will see the truth.

RandFan

 

[riverlethe]

Nothing really, the Diamond Sutra describes it quite well. I am actually tring to understand lifegazers philosophy and where it is for instance different from Zen and/or christianity.

I'm also curious as to why Lifegazer thinks he's original.

 

[riverlethe]

If I wanted to hold onto my Christian world view but recognized the problems inherent in that philosophy, I could devise a belief system that obviates physics. This of course is problematic in that it makes god a liar and the bible a cypher that exists primarily to mislead. There is no flesh and therefore no sins of the flesh. There is no mortality and therefore no murder. Christ was not the physical embodiment of god and therefore was not crucified.

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some kind of Karmic system where "you" will face consequences if you harm another manifestation of God.

But then my question is, what does it matter? Can God harm himself? And what about this Armageddon "choice?" Is God going to self-destruct?

I would actually like to see that.

 

[lifegazer]

The external world effects some perception.

What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things". These things exist within our mind, like the sensations from which they rise.
The behaviour of the internal world affects how things are perceived. This is all we know. This is all that affects us. The external world - even if it exists - has no bearing upon the creation (and hence observation) of abstract reality. Again, I repeat that the Mind itself is the primal-cause of sensory experience, thoughts & feelings.

Unless of course you start by assuming that there is no external reality in which case your argument assumes that which you are trying to prove.

My argument begins with what we know. Human existence occurs within the self (awareness) so that the universe exists within the
self.
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness.

Well, let's lock that perception up and see how long it takes to realize that it is much more than just a perception.

You don't listen. Death and sickness are what happens within awareness. They are perceptions, like everything else. They are no more real than anything else. And please remember that only lifegazer can die - not God. And let us not forget that in my philosophy, lifegazer doesn't really live anyway.

Which entity? God or the lifegazer perception?

Only God exists... so God.

Why is this so obvious? Why can't I be a biological entity that is interpreting stimuli and the abstract experience is the result of processing and interpreting that stimuli

Even if there were an external universe giving information/data to our brains via the sensory-organs, the brain would still be the primal cause of sensation. The brain would still have to choose to impose any specific sensation to mirror the data and would then have to create that sensation without any input from the universe itself- which doesn't know what pain, red, hot, cold, etc., is.
In other words, the experience of abstract sensation requires:-
(1) Choice.
(2) The ability to create a new phenomena within existence.

Interestingly, any entity choosing to create a sensory-awareness of existence must comprehend what existence is about before it begins to represent it, subjectively.
So, the brain/mind understands the universe without sensing it!!
After all, the brain/mind creates the senses upon what it already knows. And the senses do mirror the order apparent within our laws of physics.

The brain/mind doesn't sense anything. It's "we" who are having the senses - given to us by the brain/mind.

much as flight is the result of many complex variables.

Flight isn't an abstract concept such as 'pain'. The comparison isn't credible.

I accept that materialism is the only mechanism that we have thus far to explain the human mind).

Well that's a crock since there is no physical explanation for the human experience of existence.

I understand the concepts and the arguments. It is NOT obvious. You are interpreting the data the way you want and you are closed minded and dogmatic.

Nonsense. I used to be a mug like you and believed anything science told me.

I don't believe that the universe can know what pain or red is because the universe lacks a system to process such data. Humans do not lack such a system. We have a brain, eyes, ears, nose, etc. An entire system.

Processing information is one thing. Deciding to create an internal awareness of abstract sensations, is something entirely different, requiring will, artistry, and intelligence of divine proportions.

 

[riverlethe]

What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things". These things exist within our mind, like the sensations from which they rise.
The behaviour of the internal world affects how things are perceived. This is all we know. This is all that affects us. The external world - even if it exists - has no bearing upon the creation (and hence observation) of abstract reality. Again, I repeat that the Mind itself is the primal-cause of sensory experience, thoughts & feelings.

How do you know that sensory experiences are not the cause of "Mind?"

My argument begins with what we know. Human existence occurs within the self (awareness) so that the universe exists within the
self.
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness.

It exists within my awareness of existence. Which is to say, existence exists as a whole.

Even if there were an external universe giving information/data to our brains via the sensory-organs, the brain would still be the primal cause of sensation. The brain would still have to choose to impose any specific sensation to mirror the data and would then have to create that sensation without any input from the universe itself- which doesn't know what pain, red, hot, cold, etc., is.
In other words, the experience of abstract sensation requires:-
(1) Choice.
(2) The ability to create a new phenomena within existence.

Again with the word "choice." On what basis do you call it choice?

I would agree that sensation is "a new phenomena within existence," but it exists as part of a continuum of causal factors, most of which external to what we delineate as an "individual."

I don't think I could really prove this, but it is a simpler solution than a Being who creates sensory faculties in order to produce sensations of a non-existent reality, and then forgets what He has done, billions of times for countless millenia.

Interestingly, any entity choosing to create a sensory-awareness of existence must comprehend what existence is about before it begins to represent it, subjectively.
So, the brain/mind understands the universe without sensing it!!
After all, the brain/mind creates the senses upon what it already knows. And the senses do mirror the order apparent within our laws of physics.

Yes, assuming that there's an entity that chooses to create a sensory awareness of existence. What is the basis for this assumption?

The brain/mind doesn't sense anything. It's "we" who are having the senses - given to us by the brain/mind.

Again, how do you know it's not the other way around? Perhaps "we" are simply the sum total of our senses.

Processing information is one thing. Deciding to create an internal awareness of abstract sensations, is something entirely different, requiring will, artistry, and intelligence of divine proportions.

Indeed, and supreme egotism. But that doesn't make it so.

 

[Atlas]

What external world? If you're like me, you only know of an internal world comprised of sensations which are fragmented (by reason/judgement) into "things".

Lifegazer,

It's answers like this one that make it so hard to comprehend your meaning. In it you seek to deny the external world but do so by implicitly agreeing that things exist outside of you... If you're like me...

Why would you even talk to us otherwise. Are you choosing to talk to your Godself in us. Why, when we deny that we are the God you say we are? Are you trapped in a nightmare that you didn't choose? Why can't you choose to experience more acceptable answers from the other expressions of God? What does God gain from fighting the truth within himself?

My argument begins with what we know... ~snip 1 line~...
Everything you know has been discovered within your awareness. Everything you see exists within your awareness.

From there, you posit an invisible underlying reality that we do not sense. Everybody else believes that the senses internally reflect the external real world that they seem to be sensing.

Death and sickness are what happens within awareness. They are perceptions, like everything else. They are no more real than anything else. And please remember that only lifegazer can die - not God. And let us not forget that in my philosophy, lifegazer doesn't really live anyway. [/B]

Right, only God exists. But then, as riverlethe and others have asked what does it matter? Why seek harmony? Why do you think Armageddon is coming? If only God exists surely he can choose not to experience it. I suppose just as we can choose not to experience death because we are not really alive.

You seem to think it's important to God that we avert Armageddon but if you trust your awareness you have to admit that God enjoys the crashings and the smashing and the big booms of creation. Of course we can choose not to look at meteors cratering our moon or novas in the night sky. But how can we be sure some butthead, somewhere, sometime isn't going to choose to look up, at the violence of it all, and by looking bring Armageddon down on our heads?

You have denied any reincarnation or even that heaven is a reward for those who are given the experience of life. You seem to suggest that it's a good thing to deny the reality before us in favor of a reality that isn't doing a damn thing for us other than deluding us into thinking that it is there. The end will still come, and no reward or penalty can be earned. The end will come sooner if we don't believe you, a little later if we do.

I usually end up with a lot more of these same kinds of thoughts. I'll stop though. You have yet to provide something coherent and satisfying for even these. I think it's because you are not being as exacting in your wording as you need to be.

We don't exist, never die, unless we choose to, because we are not alive, but we can experience life and death because we are God - who doesn't die and wants us to live in harmony even though we do not really live.

It's a confusing tangle and you really should acknowledge that "we" are either the devil pestering you or "you" have been unable to articulate the wonderful truth the God has given you for the nonexistent masses.

 

[Phil]

Lifegazer,

It's answers like this one that make it so hard to comprehend your meaning. In it you seek to deny the external world but do so by implicitly agreeing that things exist outside of you... If you're like me...

Why would you even talk to us otherwise. Are you choosing to talk to your Godself in us. Why, when we deny that we are the God you say we are? Are you trapped in a nightmare that you didn't choose? Why can't you choose to experience more acceptable answers from the other expressions of God? What does God gain from fighting the truth within himself?

From there, you posit an invisible underlying reality that we do not sense. Everybody else believes that the senses internally reflect the external real world that they seem to be sensing.

Right, only God exists. But then, as riverlethe and others have asked what does it matter? Why seek harmony? Why do you think Armageddon is coming? If only God exists surely he can choose not to experience it. I suppose just as we can choose not to experience death because we are not really alive.

You seem to think it's important to God that we avert Armageddon but if you trust your awareness you have to admit that God enjoys the crashings and the smashing and the big booms of creation. Of course we can choose not to look at meteors cratering our moon or novas in the night sky. But how can we be sure some butthead, somewhere, sometime isn't going to choose to look up, at the violence of it all, and by looking bring Armageddon down on our heads?

You have denied any reincarnation or even that heaven is a reward for those who are given the experience of life. You seem to suggest that it's a good thing to deny the reality before us in favor of a reality that isn't doing a damn thing for us other than deluding us into thinking that it is there. The end will still come, and no reward or penalty can be earned. The end will come sooner if we don't believe you, a little later if we do.

I usually end up with a lot more of these same kinds of thoughts. I'll stop though. You have yet to provide something coherent and satisfying for even these. I think it's because you are not being as exacting in your wording as you need to be.

We don't exist, never die, unless we choose to, because we are not alive, but we can experience life and death because we are God - who doesn't die and wants us to live in harmony even though we do not really live.

It's a confusing tangle and you really should acknowledge that "we" are either the devil pestering you or "you" have been unable to articulate the wonderful truth the God has given you for the nonexistent masses.

Very well said, Atlas. You illustrate perfectly the trouble with some of lifegazer's posts.

I don't adhere to his philosophy at all, but he's an interesting fellow, and I'm glad he's around. But I think some members of this board slam him due to the often vague or contradictory nature of the language he uses in his posts. You have done us all a service by pointing it out in a gentlemanly manner.

 

[riverlethe]

But in fairness, we don't really have a linguistic framework for expressing Oneness with God.

And language does not necessarily express anything other than the conceptual prejudices of our ancestors.

 

[Atlas]

Thanks Phil.

I enjoy much of the give and take with Lifegazer. I have to drop away when he seems to just want to be fustrating. But I always come back.

I have never met anyone who is so adamantly solipsistic. It is a fascinating idea that he presents and I have expressed similar thoughts myself... Life is an illusion, etc. But to take it all to this extreme is interesting when it's not being offensive. RussDill is an articulate nemesis. It seems to roll over the rim of the absurd.

But lifegazer seems committed to his philosophy even when it seems absurd to others. I wish he would contrast more what the questioner asks from a naturalism perspective to point out how the questioner's viewpoint is flawed compared to his philosophy.

Lifegazer is being hit often with very similar sounding questions. Perhaps, he should have his own FAQ answer list to draw on.

But in fairness, we don't really have a linguistic framework for expressing Oneness with God.

And language does not necessarily express anything other than the conceptual prejudices of our ancestors.

Riverlethe, I agree. I've asked lifegazer in the past to bring a more flowery or poetic fullness to the description of his vision. I think that only a poet will be able to convey the mystery he perceives.

That is, I don't really think people are swayed much by rational descriptions of God. If they feel the truth in your words it doesn't much matter what you are saying. Lifegazer's words don't have a "feel" of the deep truth he is trying to convey. He is aiming at the brain to me and he should be aiming at the heart.

 

[Phil]

Thanks Phil.

I enjoy much of the give and take with Lifegazer. I have to drop away when he seems to just want to be fustrating. But I always come back.

Likewise, though I mostly read, and only post replies and questions sporadically.

I have never met anyone who is so adamantly solipsistic . . . lifegazer seems committed to his philosophy even when it seems absurd to others. I wish he would contrast more what the questioner asks from a naturalism perspective to point out how the questioner's viewpoint is flawed compared to his philosophy.

Agreed.

 

[RandFan]

I don't adhere to his philosophy at all, but he's an interesting fellow, and I'm glad he's around. But I think some members of this board slam him due to the often vague or contradictory nature of the language he uses in his posts. You have done us all a service by pointing it out in a gentlemanly manner.

I agree, while I find his philosophy to logically inconsistent I believe he deserves to be treated appropriately.

Hey, it's what we all want right?