Apech Posted November 15, 2011 Hahaha!!! Matter is energy. Continuous cycles; energy to matter and matter to energy, etc. No energy is ever lost. Yea!!!!! Eternity!!!! I agree with that. So matter is not inert lumps of dead stuff. Its energy. How are we going to define energy? What is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 15, 2011 Dwai, I know it's an old question but if consiousness is experiencing unity of consciousness, isn't that problematic? The experience is real, yes, but the conclusion is "after the fact". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 How are we going to define energy? What is it? That's why I stopped where I did. I wanted to define it but found myself lost for words. In my mind it is the stuff that Singularity was. No, I cannot define Singularity. But Singularity did go 'bang'. Well, kinda'. And we are already beyond the knowable so it would be best to stop and not try to define it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 15, 2011 Mr MH, I think we ought to try to define it, lest it becomes defined for us :-) The point of definition is to produce application/results. (Most) physicists (IMO, I'd love to be wrong as usual) don't spend their time attempting to understand reality so they can enjoy its play like some old zen monk in his garden. They do it to be able to have an effect over it and make things that use that understanding of reality to 'do stuff'. As far as I read Fu Xi mentioned that his teaching would make 'gods' of the people he taught it to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted November 15, 2011 That's why I stopped where I did. I wanted to define it but found myself lost for words. In my mind it is the stuff that Singularity was. No, I cannot define Singularity. But Singularity did go 'bang'. Well, kinda'. And we are already beyond the knowable so it would be best to stop and not try to define it. That's what I find interesting about these conversations. We all make bold statements about things that we cannot, or struggle to define. A physicist would say energy= capacity to do work ... which means basically its 'something that can do things' ... which gets us nowhere really. The word consciousness is similar ... a word which we would struggle to define. Literally it means 'with cutting' or something like that! So to know things we divide up reality ... into knowable bits ... hence the cutting part. The movement from the unknown to the known - or the mystery to the manifest. The implication being that the act of being conscious does this ... it breaks down 'reality' from an unknown mystery into known things. Which would also imply that we somehow create the things that we know... hmmmm. Sentience means to be able to feel. I would suggest this is basic to consciousness. I would suggest that all living things can feel at some level in some way. So our human consciousness is not the product of the complexity of our brains so mush as the evolution of the basic ability to feel which we share with all life. But where does that come from? If it doesn't come from complexity then it must come from that which makes up living entities ... i.e. forms of matter, proteins and so on ... And matter is energy ... so maybe hylozoism isn't so strange an idea after all. Mr MH, I think we ought to try to define it, lest it becomes defined for us :-) The point of definition is to produce application/results. (Most) physicists (IMO, I'd love to be wrong as usual) don't spend their time attempting to understand reality so they can enjoy its play like some old zen monk in his garden. They do it to be able to have an effect over it and make things that use that understanding of reality to 'do stuff'. As far as I read Fu Xi mentioned that his teaching would make 'gods' of the people he taught it to. Absolutely. Even if we think its going to be difficult to get a perfect definition we should try to define terms we use. then at least we can agree what they mean. And I think you are right ... the reason for wanting to know ... is it to manipulate or to enjoy life?????? 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Dwai, I know it's an old question but if consiousness is experiencing unity of consciousness, isn't that problematic? The experience is real, yes, but the conclusion is "after the fact". (an interjection on my part since you were asking Dwai) An analogy: The witness about "unity" that is made by a Being who also spins as a weaving back in a 3d world - can only speak of the 6d experience or its aftermath through the use of 3d tools... does that mean that the 6d is not still there? I'd say only to those who accept the drawing limits of 3d as full proof. Anyway, the unity experience of all time/space and further yet - its dissolution which could be described as an implosion or return to that which it never left, still stands or is still there, regardless of the apparent or relative "problems" you mention of coming and going. And this text probably doesn't help any? Edited November 15, 2011 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted November 15, 2011 Hehehe. A horse isn't a turtle. Okay, yes, it is easy to state what something is not. It is a little more challenging to state what something is. As soon as we start defining a thing we are in fact limiting that thing. What we can know is limited; what we cannot know is unlimited. Know when to stop! We are equally defining and limiting a thing whether we are telling what it is or what it is not. So then, tell me what consciousness is not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted November 15, 2011 Dwai, I know it's an old question but if consiousness is experiencing unity of consciousness, isn't that problematic? The experience is real, yes, but the conclusion is "after the fact". Does the sun experience sunlight? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 15, 2011 Does the sun experience sunlight? You're asking me about an experience something that is not me might or might not have? I asked you about your experience :-) Not to offend, but this is what I hate about these discussions. Too much cryptic 'stuff' and 'go seek young padawan'. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Mr MH, I think we ought to try to define it, lest it becomes defined for us :-) The point of definition is to produce application/results. (Most) physicists (IMO, I'd love to be wrong as usual) don't spend their time attempting to understand reality so they can enjoy its play like some old zen monk in his garden. They do it to be able to have an effect over it and make things that use that understanding of reality to 'do stuff'. As far as I read Fu Xi mentioned that his teaching would make 'gods' of the people he taught it to. a (edit) -person trying to become- a "god" can be less than a micron measurement away from becoming a "demon" thus "doing things" is not the point... Edited November 15, 2011 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 15, 2011 a "god" can be less than a micron measurement away from becoming a "demon" thus "doing things" is not the point... Hmm, not sure I get what you mean. I don't believe in 'gods' nor 'demons'. Not to say that I don't think some things and acts are 'demonic' or that some things and acts are 'demonised' but that's IMO an entirely 'nother' discussion :-) What did Fu Xi mean and what was he teaching? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Hmm, not sure I get what you mean. I don't believe in 'gods' nor 'demons'. Not to say that I don't think some things and acts are 'demonic' or that some things and acts are 'demonised' but that's IMO an entirely 'nother' discussion :-) What did Fu Xi mean and what was he teaching? Well if you have the full quote and could share it here then the context of his teaching could be better commented upon... I only threw out a general but often mentioned type of problem (from various sources) that has happened to many Beings. one's range of belief does not always equate with ones range of possible experience... Edited November 15, 2011 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 15, 2011 I will try to re-find the thing i read. I don't know what Fu Xi taught. That's why i asked:-) Yes, I know that "things" occur outside of and in spite of my beliefs about anything. In fact, something I'd categorize as "demonic" is probably someone or something that knows this and uses it:-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 Mr MH, I think we ought to try to define it, lest it becomes defined for us :-) Hehehe. As long as I can keep what I say reasonable (in my mind) and keep what I say within the realms of logic I will speak to it if others are interested in discussing the subject. But remember that it has been said that the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. In this case I have already associated Singularity with Tao so I will be limited to what I can say. But you are right about the scientists studying this stuff for academic reason while we are doing it to find if there is any applicability to how we live our life. And the beat goes on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 ... hence the cutting part. Therein is the problem. When we cut things up to see what they are made of we no longer have the whole of what we have cut up - only parts. Sure, we can tear down a functioning lawn mower and give names to all the parts, reassemble it properly and we still have a functioning lawn mower. But if we try the same thing with a horse all we will end up with is dog food. The horse, and any 'thing' with an inner essence of its own, will be incomplete no matter how far it is broken down and we will miss the most important aspect of, say, the horse - its horseness. As to consciousness, I still hold to the understanding that a brain of some form (or central nervous system) is required for consciousness to exist. I like to think that consciousness is equal to self-awareness but I realize that I am being very conservative with this opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted November 15, 2011 As to consciousness, I still hold to the understanding that a brain of some form (or central nervous system) is required for consciousness to exist. So how about the converse? Is consciousness required for a brain to exist? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 And this text probably doesn't help any? Well, it added to the discussion of things to consider. Yes, 3D. 4D being space/time. Is it necessary to enter 4D in order to observe 5D? I don't know what the 5th dimension is. I know that I have never physically travelled to the past or the future. Sure, I have done it with my mind. But was that real or a delusion? I recently told a young lady that if I were forty years younger she would be fair game. Sadly though, I can't be forty years younger. Reality sucks sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 We are equally defining and limiting a thing whether we are telling what it is or what it is not. So then, tell me what consciousness is not? Hehehe. You are right in your first sentence. What?!?!? Do I look like a brain surgeon? Well, there have been people who have been in a full coma while their brain was still performing the functions of keeping the person alive but they were not conscious. So I would say, "Being in a full coma is not consciousness." I think that a rock is not aware of its existence therefore it would not have consciousness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 one's range of belief does not always equate with ones range of possible experience... WoW! What a concept to throw into this discussion. I will just let it ride for the moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 15, 2011 So how about the converse? Is consciousness required for a brain to exist? No, based on the comments I just made about a person being in a coma. (That's accepting that my logic is sound regarding a coma.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 16, 2011 WoW! What a concept to throw into this discussion. I will just let it ride for the moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted November 16, 2011 No, based on the comments I just made about a person being in a coma. (That's accepting that my logic is sound regarding a coma.) Considering or using previous logic in this string (which is more or less) along the lines of "matter=energy" such does not sound sound. ruff ruff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 16, 2011 I will have to go back to Chinatown to buy the paper cut out of Fu Xi on the back of which is the text I was referring to:-) Maybe not everything is on the internet;-) This is getting off the 'Vendanta' topic, sorry. Random digging up about Fu Xi and not surprised to see such a variety of 'stuff' about him. http://www.mysteriouschina.com/chinese-myth-legend-1-fu-xi-legend/ http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Myth/mythology.html http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1598 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Three_Sovereigns_and_Five_Emperors I also found a reference to a horse-dragon :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) No, based on the comments I just made about a person being in a coma. (That's accepting that my logic is sound regarding a coma.) No, you're too fixated on an individual consciousness. There is always more than that. If I am comatose there are others to recognize my brain's existence. That is an artificial example. There is always matter and consciousness. Matter is anything that consciousness feels is other. But as you say, matter is energy, the capacity and activity of doing work - change. Consciousness evokes matter out of this and consciousness is made of matter at the same time - Consciousness is THAT- to quote Nisargadatta. If you see a green leaf, the leaf is not green. It is the nature of your eye to see green, not the leaf. Another eye might see red or whatever. The "material universe" is equally a reflection of your unique perceptive characteristics, the way your antennas are tuned, as well as that undefinable capacity for work and change. They arise mutually to use the Daoist slang Edited November 16, 2011 by steve added stuff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 16, 2011 If you say "D.O" I will leave the universe! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
