Light things.

[lifegazer]

Those perceptions are built in responses to stimuli.

Assertion!

Our experiance is our mind processing those responses.

Assertion!

And again, those "internal abstract sensation of our mind" have no bearing what so ever on the existance or non-existance of an external reality

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm. Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

Our mind does not create those experiance.

Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

our mind responds to and processes stimuli.

Oh go away, I've had enough of this parroted nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

Don't be a mug. Concepts such as death and sickness and pain have no meaning beyond that existing within our own awareness. Show me, for example, any part of the universe (outside of "life") that can be considered as dead, sick, or in pain.

Irelevant. I only claim that it is very likely that you and I exist and that we will die.

Big deal. The whole scenario occurs within awareness, played out upon my sensations. I.e., everything will happen within the reality of Mind. Fact.

But your "mind" cannot choose whether to experience or not experience. Nor can your mind control the external. The external can and does effect your mind. And if there is a test between the two, the external will always win.

That is a pretty damn big deal. Kinda makes your philosophy redundant (moot, unnecassary).

 

[RandFan]

I proclaim nothing of myself that I do not proclaim for all others. Spare me the boring sarcasm.

Spoken like all the others. Please note, I have not called you stupid or attacked you. I have stated my honest opinion. If that makes me stupid and justifies your calling me stupid then fine. I see you better now for who you really are.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Kopji]

If every person suddenly vanished, would 'god' still exist? The answer seems to be no. After all, if 'yes' it would not matter what we thought. God would just be, no matter what we thought, error or truth.

God exists as an idea. Perhaps this is self evident, if only because I can type the word 'God' and each person finds meaning.

But the idea of God has been abused and confusing to so many for so long. We are asked to consider ourselves god, and then accused of being stupid if we do not share the same idea or meaning.

Where is the justice in this concept?

I am convinced that whatever we are, the label "god" is a barrier to understanding and not a channel.

 

[uruk]

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm.

And you've ignored my rebuttal to your answer. Your reasoning has led you to the conclusion that we are the source of our own perceptions. Or rather, god, in the guise of being us is the source of our perceptions. But this poses some problems. If we are the source of own perceptions, why can't we alter those perceptions or change our condition? Why do things happen to us beyond our control?

It is not nonsensical if an external realm is the source for the stimuli from which we develop our perceptions.

Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

Assertion! You have no proof that it does not exist. In fact you have no way at all to prove either way. If you have proof that an
external reality does not exist then please give it. Your past posts have not provided one shred of evidence. You state that all perceptions are internal then illogicaly jump to the conclusion that an external reality does not exist. Please show how one follows the other.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uruk
Those perceptions are built in responses to stimuli.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Assertion!

How is this an assertion? We respond to "the light show" by "seeing " an image. Do we hear purple? Do we taste yellow?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our experiance is our mind processing those responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Assertion!

Again, How is this an assertion? We recieve the light show, we "see" an image. From it we derive our experiance.
How is this not a process?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our mind does not create those experiance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

Those "abstract" qualities are what we apply or give to describe our sensations, or to our reactions to the experiance. The experiance is our response to external stimuli. The experiance is internal but the stimuli is from outside the mind. Even if "god" is the source of the stimuli, it is still from outside "our" mind. Even if we are god. That part of god which is "us" still has to get stimulus from that part of god which is not "us".

Oh go away, I've had enough of this parroted nonsense.

Are you giving up so soon?

 

[Wudang]

lifegazer, take a grip on your temper. Your current language does not reflect well on you or your philosophy.

Once again, your distinction between inner-awareness and the outer-awareness you deny is yet to be proven. Until you have demonstrated that our experiences of so-called inner states is to be taken any more at face value than our posited "external" states (I am hot) then you lack the foundation to attack the materialist assumption.

And for hammegk's benefit, I am aware of my assumption, thank you.

 

[lifegazer]

But your "mind" cannot choose whether to experience or not experience. Nor can your mind control the external. The external can and does effect your mind. And if there is a test between the two, the external will always win.

That is a pretty damn big deal. Kinda makes your philosophy redundant (moot, unnecassary).

There is a distinction to be made between the creator and what is perceived.
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.
The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable.

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. 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. 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.

 

[lifegazer]

It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness. Even if one existed - and there is not one jot of reason to show it - "we" have no dealings with it whatsoever!! This is hugely significant and I want you to think about it. Your universe is the realm of your own sensations and your mental/emotional responses to those sensations. You live within your own Mind. But when I say that it is your mind, I do not mean that it belongs to you uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever else reads these words. I mean that it belongs to you God and that you are having the perception of being uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever.

The Mind belongs to God. The perception of being a man is the illusion, in my philosophy. Even now, after several months here, people still think that there is a distinction to be made between the man and the God. The only distinction to be made is that the latter is existence and the former is what the latter thinks it is.

There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream. We cannot remember how the dream was created because "we" are the dream. The actual dreamer is the essence of our being. We regain contact with our true selves firstly by recognition, as I have for example, and then through spiritual endeavours such as meditation and inner prayer.
Remember that philosophical recognition of God's reality is only the beginning of the odyssey. It's not the end.

 

[riverlethe]

Lifegazer, I'm curious as to how you realized your philosophy.

Did you have some sort of mystical experience?

 

[Wudang]

lifegazer, I would ask you to bear in mind that I consider accusation of telling lies a profound insult. I care deeply about the truth and if you recall I have apologised to you on occasions when I have misremembered facts.

Now where is this lie you claim I have told?

In the meantime
"We have existence, but do not know who we really are. "
"There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream"

I have trouble reconciling these statements. I realise both are out of context but the full text should be available on this same page.

 

[riverlethe]

lifegazer, I would ask you to bear in mind that I consider accusation of telling lies a profound insult. I care deeply about the truth and if you recall I have apologised to you on occasions when I have misremembered facts.

Now where is this lie you claim I have told?

In the meantime
"We have existence, but do not know who we really are. "
"There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream"

I have trouble reconciling these statements. I realise both are out of context but the full text should be available on this same page.

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?

 

[lifegazer]

lifegazer, I would ask you to bear in mind that I consider accusation of telling lies a profound insult. I care deeply about the truth and if you recall I have apologised to you on occasions when I have misremembered facts.

Now where is this lie you claim I have told?

What? Are you talking about my previous post, when I made this general statement to everyone here: "It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness."?
Do you finally accept that human existence is a completely internal affair and that the [perceived] universe exists inside of the self (awareness)?
Or do you continue to uphold the lie that the universe we know exists outside of our awareness?

In the meantime
"We have existence, but do not know who we really are. "
"There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream"

I have trouble reconciling these statements. I realise both are out of context but the full text should be available on this same page.

There is only God. But God has the ability to lose itself within the dreams it can create. You have lost awareness of your Godness as you live the dream of being Wudang.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, I'm curious as to how you realized your philosophy.

Did you have some sort of mystical experience?

I have no idea, other than I did earnestly seek to know the truth. I was tired of the religious and scientific garbage on offer, so I worked it all out for myself, using experience and reason.

 

[uruk]

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.

Your making a baseless assumption that an external reality has to "know" what those abstract terms for sensations are in order for it to have an effect on us. It does not. Those are only labels that we use to describe the effect of the stimuli.

Also, you write:

The perception of being a man is the illusion

Then you write:

There is no man. Yet whilst perceiving ourselves as men, we lose ourselves to that dream.

Is it "we" or is it god. You yourself continue to make the distinction then later say there is no distinction.

at any rate it does not matter. If the illusion seems real to us, even if we are an illusion. Then it IS REAL. Because we can only deal with this reality within relation us. We can not deal with it in relation it to god because we can not percive the god part of us.
And said it yourself "No soul has ever glimpsed a thing beyond his own awareness or self!" or what we can not percieve is not real to us"
So I chose to accept this reality as "real" because I can not percieve it as anything else. I have no choice. You have no choice either.

 

[Phil]

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?

There is nothing difficult about conceiving it. The difficulty comes in believing it, or holding it as the true nature of reality.

I asked lifegazer earlier in the thread what difference it would make if everyone bought into the idea, and he seems to be implying that the "dream" would end, that we would all cease to be men and just be god again, sans any dream.

But again, I must ask what would be different if we all accepted his philosophy. Why should we care if he is right or wrong? Would we indeed no longer exist? And if things would be different, how does he know? How has he come by this knowledge? Can he share anything with us other than strings of "this is what I think" that would support his notion?

I'm trying real hard not to use the word "evidence" but if we are dream-men, we are are dream-men of the skeptical variety, (hey, it's god's dream, full of skeptics and the gullible alike) and as such, we require evidence to be swayed.

In my view, lifegazer's philosophy amounts to good imaginitive concepts, but until he offers any evidence that it's real, it remains just a game. Albeit a fun one.

 

[lifegazer]

Your making a baseless assumption that an external reality has to "know" what those abstract terms for sensations are in order for it to have an effect on us. It does not. Those are only labels that we use to describe the effect of the stimuli.

Nonsense. External reality does not force an entity to feel pain, for example, as it meets fire or is hit by a large object. The entity in question must choose, fundamentally, to impose a [abstract] sensation upon itself and must then proceed to create that sensation, by itself and for itself. The same principle applies for all sensory experiences.
Remember that the mind is not you or yours (uruk). When I say that the Mind creates its own sensory experience, I don't mean that you consciously create these things. As I keep trying to point out, you (uruk) are actually part of the perception seen within the sensations.

at any rate it does not matter. If the illusion seems real to us, even if we are an illusion. Then it IS REAL. Because we can only deal with this reality within relation us.

The sensation of an inner universe is real. That you are really God embracing that universe within you is also real. Hence, deal with this reality. "Love thy neighbour as thyself.". Etc..
Or just continue to pretend that you are uruk and that you're going to get everything you want at whatever the cost to whomever else. You're either for unity or division... life or armageddon. A world without division or a world that crumbles. You cannot hide from the choices you make. You cannot pretend that there is no difference to behaving like God or behaving like the man.

 

[riverlethe]

This debate is bringing up some interesting linguistic limitations...

 

[riverlethe]

Nonsense. External reality does not force an entity to feel pain, for example, as it meets fire or is hit by a large object. The entity in question must choose, fundamentally, to impose a [abstract] sensation upon itself and must then proceed to create that sensation, by itself and for itself. The same principle applies for all sensory experiences.

Remember that the mind is not you or yours (uruk). When I say that the Mind creates its own sensory experience, I don't mean that you consciously create these things. As I keep trying to point out, you (uruk) are actually part of the perception seen within the sensations.

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?

 

[lifegazer]

But again, I must ask what would be different if we all accepted his philosophy. Why should we care if he is right or wrong? Would we indeed no longer exist? And if things would be different, how does he know? How has he come by this knowledge? Can he share anything with us other than strings of "this is what I think" that would support his notion?

When my philosophy is finally accepted by humanity as a whole, which it will, then the world shall become as one nation where "the first shall come last and the last shall come first.". Heard that before? It simply means that those who govern shall do so primarily for the people, who will come first before those that do govern.
No more wars. No more inequality or injustice. No more crime. No more poverty. Everybody genuinely working towards the betterment of everyone else - because they love their neighbour as themselves. A deeply spiritual and cultural world, learning to become closer with its maker. A new world. A saved world.

This is our future. Either that or armageddon. Two choices. Not long left.

 

[Phil]

When my philosophy is finally accepted by humanity as a whole, which it will, then the world shall become as one nation where "the first shall come last and the last shall come first.". Heard that before? It simply means that those who govern shall do so primarily for the people, who will come first before those that do govern.
No more wars. No more inequality or injustice. No more crime. No more poverty. Everybody genuinely working towards the betterment of everyone else - because they love their neighbour as themselves. A deeply spiritual and cultural world, learning to become closer with its maker. A new world. A saved world.

This is our future. Either that or armageddon. Two choices. Not long left.

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?