|
|
Post by therealfake on Oct 1, 2011 13:22:48 GMT -5
firewalkers don't get burned how they do that? How do you know they don't get burned? |
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 1, 2011 13:25:33 GMT -5
youtube  There are plenty of examples of yogis (and mentalists) that can manipulate matter in ways that defy belief. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Oct 1, 2011 13:31:31 GMT -5
They are phenomenogenically related....you can observe this yourself....whenever you have a sexual arousal and are having a little sex fantasy in your head if the fantasy is visceral enough you have physical sensations down below...but the same is true of every sense....if you think about your favorite dish viscerally enough you can smell and taste it, and science has shown that you brains mirror circuits fire the same way whether you are actually tasting something or just intensely thinking about tasting something....so the evidence does not in fact indicate that sensory perseption and thought are phenomenogenically seperate. Hey Tat, I see what your saying and it seems to make sense. Your saying there's no difference between being aware of the perception of a raging fire in a fire pit and the awareness of the 'thought' of a raging fire in the minds eye, absent of a perception. Except that there's just one problem with that and it's the experience of putting the perception of your hand in a fire and the experience of putting your imaginary hand in the fire of the mind. And it's the difference between experiencing a burnt hand and not experiencing a burnt hand. That scenario speaks about the tangibility between direct perception and the perception of a 'thought'. Somehow that tangibility becomes known in the awareness and that's why we don't stick our hands in raging fires...heh But I don't really want to pursue the perception of thoughts so much, as much as pursuing the perception of perception... Peace The only thing that seperates the intensity of perception between putting your hand in the fire and thinking very viscerally about putting your hand in the fire is the intensity of belief....the intensity of a sensory perception, or its feeling of "realness", is directly corelated to the intensity or realness of belief....this is why you can hypnotize a person and make them absolutely believe the fire is real, and then when he puts his hand in the imaginary fire he very much feels the same pain as if the fire was real, and he experiences a real burn...Becuase for him it IS real....if you hypnotized everyone in the room that the fire was real everyone would see the damage to his hand and smell the burning flesh...so here is the point....everything is an imagining...literally everything...the only thing that seperates what people consider to be real, or just thought, is the intensity of the sensory perception...but in fact the intensity of sensory perception is only a corelation with the intensity of a belief.....I.e....whatever thoughts you have that take on the mantle of belief, become reality for you, physical reality, emotional reality, idealogical reality...its all imagination with varying amounts of belief attached to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 15:00:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by popee2 on Oct 1, 2011 16:18:09 GMT -5
Sure max, there are plenty of curiosities which don't survive careful scrutiny. Some are less easily explained though, although I don't have a reference handy, nor am I must prone to believing in "magic". I once spent a lot of time reading about A. Crowley, and his bag of tricks, but something kept me from traveling down that particular road.
|
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Oct 1, 2011 16:35:09 GMT -5
Sure max, there are plenty of curiosities which don't survive careful scrutiny. Some are less easily explained though, although I don't have a reference handy, nor am I must prone to believing in "magic". I once spent a lot of time reading about A. Crowley, and his bag of tricks, but something kept me from traveling down that particular road. At one time i saw the spiritual path like going down a long hallway with many many doors going off to either side...you could take any door you wanted...into science, into occult, into some of the "mystcal" or magical experiences....but they were all side passages away from reaching the end of the hallway....I resolved to be an arrow shooting straight and true to the target. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 17:34:50 GMT -5
In a similar way to how your nightly dreams are ideas expressed as 'sense perceptions'. It's just a larger context. Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. I didn't mean to say thoughts are causally related to sense perceptions. For whatever reason (probly my carelessness with words) this discussion keeps going someplace unintended, which is why I didn't want to follow the MIND idea down the bunny hole. Likewise, I've been trying to avoid using the term 'thoughts' lately because what I'm talking about is ideas and imagination, and I don't really mean the ideas and imagination of an individual. I keep trying to talk about a very large context in which the foundational frameworks of space and time are imagined into apparent existence in consciousness itself, and we end up talking about personal minds and personal thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Oct 1, 2011 17:47:39 GMT -5
Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. I didn't mean to say thoughts are causally related to sense perceptions. For whatever reason (probly my carelessness with words) this discussion keeps going someplace unintended, which is why I didn't want to follow the MIND idea down the bunny hole. Likewise, I've been trying to avoid using the term 'thoughts' lately because what I'm talking about is ideas and imagination, and I don't really mean the ideas and imagination of an individual. I keep trying to talk about a very large context in which the foundational frameworks of space and time are imagined into apparent existence in consciousness itself, and we end up talking about personal minds and personal thoughts. Maybe your talking about the Mind and Thoughts of God...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 17:51:47 GMT -5
whatever thoughts you have that take on the mantle of belief, become reality for you, physical reality, emotional reality, idealogical reality...its all imagination with varying amounts of belief attached to it. Yes, though I've been trying to avoid the quagmire of personal belief by referring to the larger context of creation as a whole, that's what I've been trying to say to Question. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
I didn't mean to say thoughts are causally related to sense perceptions. For whatever reason (probly my carelessness with words) this discussion keeps going someplace unintended, which is why I didn't want to follow the MIND idea down the bunny hole. Likewise, I've been trying to avoid using the term 'thoughts' lately because what I'm talking about is ideas and imagination, and I don't really mean the ideas and imagination of an individual. I keep trying to talk about a very large context in which the foundational frameworks of space and time are imagined into apparent existence in consciousness itself, and we end up talking about personal minds and personal thoughts. Maybe your talking about the Mind and Thoughts of God... Well, I am, but of course the whole God deally opens yet another can of worms (albeit Divine worms). |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 19:51:49 GMT -5
Even if thoughts are causally related to perceptions, thoughts aren't phenomenologically related to sense perceptions (nightly dreams or not). In the same way how a 'taste:spicy' is phenomenologically unrelated to a 'colour:yellow'. And I doubt that they are causally related, because even in absence of thoughts you still do see colours and stuff, don't you? But my main point is tht thoughts and sensory perceptions aren't phenomenologically related. I didn't mean to say thoughts are causally related to sense perceptions. For whatever reason (probly my carelessness with words) this discussion keeps going someplace unintended, which is why I didn't want to follow the MIND idea down the bunny hole. Likewise, I've been trying to avoid using the term 'thoughts' lately because what I'm talking about is ideas and imagination, and I don't really mean the ideas and imagination of an individual. I keep trying to talk about a very large context in which the foundational frameworks of space and time are imagined into apparent existence in consciousness itself, and we end up talking about personal minds and personal thoughts. Yeah, I have no idea how to read that. All I've got to work with are experiences in the here and now. If verifying what you're saying requires me to somehow check out God's thoughts then I guess I'll have to pass on that one. Would you say that one needs a woo woo experience in order to see what you're talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 20:57:50 GMT -5
I didn't mean to say thoughts are causally related to sense perceptions. For whatever reason (probly my carelessness with words) this discussion keeps going someplace unintended, which is why I didn't want to follow the MIND idea down the bunny hole. Likewise, I've been trying to avoid using the term 'thoughts' lately because what I'm talking about is ideas and imagination, and I don't really mean the ideas and imagination of an individual. I keep trying to talk about a very large context in which the foundational frameworks of space and time are imagined into apparent existence in consciousness itself, and we end up talking about personal minds and personal thoughts. Yeah, I have no idea how to read that. All I've got to work with are experiences in the here and now. If verifying what you're saying requires me to somehow check out God's thoughts then I guess I'll have to pass on that one. Would you say that one needs a woo woo experience in order to see what you're talking about? Gnaw. I had a discussion with someone recently and I said it's extremely difficult to see the wholeness of a vase after it has been shattered, but it's quite obvious before shattering it, meaning it's much easier to see oneness by looking at what it is before we imagine the parts. Likewise, beginning with all of these appearances of senses and thoughts and feelings, and trying to assemble them into a kind of jig saw puzzle is an endless process of creation rather than assembly. What happens if we begin with nothing; no universe, no time/space, nothing but the infinite potential of intelligence? So assuming something happens, what happens? You say you have nothing to work with but experiences, but it's not true. As spiritually incorrect as it is, you have the essence of creation moving in you right now; the exact same essence that forms the universe and spins all these tales about it. You have imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Oct 1, 2011 21:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2011 21:03:40 GMT -5
They're a lot like gummy worms, but more sacred. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 1, 2011 22:10:56 GMT -5
Gnaw. I had a discussion with someone recently and I said it's extremely difficult to see the wholeness of a vase after it has been shattered, but it's quite obvious before shattering it, meaning it's much easier to see oneness by looking at what it is before we imagine the parts. Likewise, beginning with all of these appearances of senses and thoughts and feelings, and trying to assemble them into a kind of jig saw puzzle is an endless process of creation rather than assembly. It's not really much of a puzzle. There's just whatever is happening and it needs no explanation except when thinking imagines that it does, but thinking is also just happening and when it's seen that mind's models are self-contained and have no authority beyond mind then mind is integrated into the caleidoscope of existence. With the issue about how understanding is prior to any specific context it was a lot easier because I could actually consult experience and see that it was true. But in the case of sensory perception vs imagination it's a lot more difficult, because experiential evidence doesn't support the hypothesis. Where I come from we don't have nothing. What happens is just whatever happens, I don't see no infinite potential of intelligence creating stuff out of thin air except as a cool story. Sorry, but from my pov it's just a fairytale. I can imagine all I want, for some strange reason my imagination doesn't create, I actually have to work in order for a imagination to materialize. Meh, this conversation isn't really working our too well right now. I'm not the kinda guy who falls for poetry or spiritual pep talk.  |
|
