|
Post by sree on Jul 24, 2022 21:44:11 GMT -5
That doesn't explain the compulsion. In the 'is it real or is it a figment' context, the whole world could be functioning as per normal without anyone or anything else being aware or conscious. Their point is that the 'one' that is aware can ONLY be aware of their own capacity to be aware. So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Yup. If andrew is not there, it doesn't make a noise as far as andrew is concerned. But if you are there, it makes a noise.
but if andrew is with you, the felled tree makes a noise to both of you.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2022 21:52:10 GMT -5
Then keep going I guess I don't really understand what you've written. To me, compulsion indicates the presence of unneccessary waves. Compulsion is the opposite of flow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2022 22:36:34 GMT -5
So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? Yup. If andrew is not there, it doesn't make a noise as far as andrew is concerned. But if you are there, it makes a noise.
but if andrew is with you, the felled tree makes a noise to both of you.
No it doesn't. It only makes a noise for me even if Andrew is with me. If you admit that it only makes a noise as far as Andrew is concerned then it only makes a noise for me as far as I'm concerned whether Andrew is with me or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 3:03:02 GMT -5
I don't really understand what you've written. To me, compulsion indicates the presence of unneccessary waves. Compulsion is the opposite of flow. Yeah, we could say that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 25, 2022 3:11:11 GMT -5
That doesn't explain the compulsion. In the 'is it real or is it a figment' context, the whole world could be functioning as per normal without anyone or anything else being aware or conscious. Their point is that the 'one' that is aware can ONLY be aware of their own capacity to be aware. So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 3:16:31 GMT -5
So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean. if the whole world is functioning then it is functioning for whom? If you say it functions without you then that tree is also making a noise without you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 25, 2022 3:23:22 GMT -5
I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean. if the whole world is functioning then it is functioning for whom? If you say it functions without you then that tree is also making a noise without you. yeah. Or another way to say it is....if my physical body dies right now, 'the world' continues. Not everyone and everything dies with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 5:35:25 GMT -5
If you want coffee at Starbucks you gotta interact with the barista That doesn't explain the compulsion. In the 'is it real or is it a figment' context, the whole world could be functioning as per normal without anyone or anything else being aware or conscious. Their point is that the 'one' that is aware can ONLY be aware of their own capacity to be aware. If we're both watching the train wreck, and are in agreement about the different elements we each see, I'd be convinced you are both there and aware
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 25, 2022 6:52:30 GMT -5
That doesn't explain the compulsion. In the 'is it real or is it a figment' context, the whole world could be functioning as per normal without anyone or anything else being aware or conscious. Their point is that the 'one' that is aware can ONLY be aware of their own capacity to be aware. If we're both watching the train wreck, and are in agreement about the different elements we each see, I'd be convinced you are both there and aware Yeah, okay, though from within the 'is it real or is it figment' context, that wouldn't be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 25, 2022 9:11:52 GMT -5
Yup. If andrew is not there, it doesn't make a noise as far as andrew is concerned. But if you are there, it makes a noise.
but if andrew is with you, the felled tree makes a noise to both of you.
No it doesn't. It only makes a noise for me even if Andrew is with me. If you admit that it only makes a noise as far as Andrew is concerned then it only makes a noise for me as far as I'm concerned whether Andrew is with me or not. I may have not be clear. My reasoning based on my perception on consciousness is this. The falling tree will make a noise if you are there. You, or andrew or anyone, is a state of awareness. If the tree is within that state, it makes a noise. The tree has no independent existence of its own. Don't follow the science. There is no objective reality. Each of us is a state of awareness. If all of us die, everything vanishes. There never were dinosaurs before us. We did not evolve from apes.We are not human beings. We are consciousness. And we don't come out of the brain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 11:09:05 GMT -5
If we're both watching the train wreck, and are in agreement about the different elements we each see, I'd be convinced you are both there and aware Yeah, okay, though from within the 'is it real or is it figment' context, that wouldn't be relevant. what's the figment, the train in that example, or the second observer? how 'bout when the things you hear from the 2nd guy (things you couldn't see from your vantage point) are confirmed to be true?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 25, 2022 11:36:49 GMT -5
Yeah, okay, though from within the 'is it real or is it figment' context, that wouldn't be relevant. what's the figment, the train in that example, or the second observer? how 'bout when the things you hear from the 2nd guy (things you couldn't see from your vantage point) are confirmed to be true? The basic idea is that you can only know your own awareness, your own consciousness, your own capacity to perceive. So there's no evidence to be found anywhere that could give you a clue as to whether there is another awareness, another one that is conscious, another perceiver. So the things you hear from the second guy would have no bearing at all, it wouldn't be evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 12:10:59 GMT -5
what's the figment, the train in that example, or the second observer? how 'bout when the things you hear from the 2nd guy (things you couldn't see from your vantage point) are confirmed to be true? The basic idea is that you can only know your own awareness, your own consciousness, your own capacity to perceive. So there's no evidence to be found anywhere that could give you a clue as to whether there is another awareness, another one that is conscious, another perceiver. So the things you hear from the second guy would have no bearing at all, it wouldn't be evidence. "Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 25, 2022 12:48:44 GMT -5
The basic idea is that you can only know your own awareness, your own consciousness, your own capacity to perceive. So there's no evidence to be found anywhere that could give you a clue as to whether there is another awareness, another one that is conscious, another perceiver. So the things you hear from the second guy would have no bearing at all, it wouldn't be evidence. "Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches I should add that the word 'own' might not be specifically used, but I'm trying to lay out the basic idea in 2 sentences, and I don't think I'm being misrepresentative by using the word, I think I'm just cutting to the chase. Could say...'awareness as it pertains to me', or 'perception that is associated with I', or 'my consciousness'. There have been many different ways of saying it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 12:56:21 GMT -5
"Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches I should add that the word 'own' might not be specifically used, but I'm trying to lay out the basic idea in 2 sentences, and I don't think I'm being misrepresentative by using the word, I think I'm just cutting to the chase. Could say...'awareness as it pertains to me', or 'perception that is associated with I', or 'my consciousness'. There have been many different ways of saying it. I know what you meant. And I'm at a loss as to how to refute that position then. But "keep going" seems appropriate
|
|