The Changeless Perceiver

What you think about how you think.
Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:14 pm

So, let's try this again, yeah?

Straight up, I'm going to put foward what I feel is the most distilled version of the position I have been trying to share on this forum since I joined.

If one changelessly perceives ever-changing form (including the particular ever-changing body/mind that one SEEMS to be or have) as one in fact DOES, one must actually be absolutely changeless and formless, and so cannot actually be or have the particular ever-changing body/mind that one seems to be or have.

If one actually were (or had) that particular ever-changing body/mind, one would not have been changelessly perceiving all of these ever-changing forms (including the particular ever-changing body/mind) as one has been (and continues to be).

No matter how different one form is to another form, the perceiving of both of these two forms in question happens in exactly the same way. 'Difference' is only EVER a property of 'the perceived', and NEVER a property of the 'perceiving' of that 'difference'. As such, 'difference' cannot be a property of 'the perceiver'.

Therefore, 'the perceiver' is always without objective attributes.

What say you?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:31 pm

Welll........I say..... what do you mean constantly changing body/mind? the whole point is that "it doesn't." Seems you have a basic error in presumptions?

but changing or not: so what? People desiring absolutes are never happy. almost makes one want to have a more subtle appreciation of life...... and related things?

Know what I mean? .............. and I know that you don't.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Welll........I say..... what do you mean constantly changing body/mind? the whole point is that "it doesn't." Seems you have a basic error in presumptions?


Are you suggesting that the body/mind is in fact not constantly changing, and that You have not been (and do not continue to be) changelessly perceiving that constant change?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:16 am

My perceptions in and of "life" have been pretty much constant from about age 30 on.. Slight changes...yes.

The notion that the body replaces all its cells every x months does not support any notion at all that the body (or mind) is constantly changing. It is only replaced by "younger same stuff?/NO CHANGE at all. Thats what allows us to have an image of "self" from day to day.

Really quite silly to suggest anything else.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4211
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby gorgeous » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:21 am

Seth----On perception------

“You seem to perceive exclusively through your physical senses, and yet you have only to extend your egotistical idea of reality, and you will find even your egotistical self accepting quite readily the existence of nonphysical information.

“As it does, so its own ideas of its own nature will automatically change and expand, for you will have removed limitations to its growth. Now, any act of perception changes the perceiver, and so the soul, considered as a perceiver, must also change. There are no real divisions between the perceiver and the thing seemingly perceived. In many ways the thing perceived is an extension of the perceiver. This may seem strange, but all acts are mental, or if you prefer, psychic acts. This is an extremely simple explanation; but the thought creates the reality. Then the creator of the thought perceives the object, and he does not understand the connection between him and this seemingly separate thing.”

Seth Speaks
Session 527
-------------------------------Consciousness is, among other things, a spontaneous exercise in creativity. You are learning now, in a three-dimensional context, the ways in which your emotional and psychic existence can create varieties of physical form. You manipulate within the psychic environment, and these manipulations are then automatically impressed upon the physical mold.

Seth, Seth Speaks, Session 515
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:29 am

Gorgeous: what key word did you tee off on?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:55 am

Relinquish wrote:If one changelessly perceives ever-changing form (including the particular ever-changing body/mind that one SEEMS to be or have) as one in fact DOES...

Who's the "one" that doesn't originate from the mind and - allegedly - is changeless?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:My perceptions in and of "life" have been pretty much constant from about age 30 on.. Slight changes...yes.

The notion that the body replaces all its cells every x months does not support any notion at all that the body (or mind) is constantly changing. It is only replaced by "younger same stuff?/NO CHANGE at all. Thats what allows us to have an image of "self" from day to day.

Really quite silly to suggest anything else.


You can't be serious. How can 'younger' stuff possibly be 'same' stuff? Surely, if it was 'same' stuff, then by definition, it would NOT be 'younger' stuff.

That aside, there is also the simple fact that the body/mind, like ever form, is constantly moving through space. It is always growing/decaying.

If you were to subtract the 'constant change' from ANY form, the form itself would be completely subtracted.

The point is that no matter what particular state the body/mind is in, the perceiving of it has never happened (and will never happen) in any other way than the way it is happening in this very moment. The same is true of ALL that is 'perceived'.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:47 am

Gibberish. But if not you, we all know it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:54 am

The continuous self is an illusion, as we sometimes realize when we look at old photos of ourselves.
The only important attribute is that the changes are negligible from one instant to the next so that we can tell if a change was caused by an outside signal or not.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:57 am

The point is that no matter what particular state the body/mind is in, the perceiving of it has never happened (and will never happen) in any other way than the way it is happening in this very moment. The same is true of ALL that is 'perceived'.

S/he's Eckhart Tolle-ing you... :roll:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:19 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Therefore, 'the perceiver' is always without objective attributes.


You have failed to account for those remaining thoughts and things that don't change, although parts of a body may have changed themselves.

You also failed to account for new materials being simply introduced to exactly replicate a legacy already existing part. If I replace the CPU in my computer it is still exactly the same computer as a whole.

Finally, you are forgetting that external evidences of objectivity, don't change at the same time as the body may change. A scientific repeatable experiment, that an apple really exists, from yesterday, remains valid, despite some cells in my body changing tomorrow.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gibberish. But if not you, we all know it.


How can 'younger' stuff be 'same' stuff?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:03 am

Relinquish85 wrote: How can 'younger' stuff be 'same' stuff?


This car was built in 1990. I have replaced the foot pedal with another 1990 foot pedal. The car is still a 1990 car.

It is the definition of the object, or set, or descriptive term that defines the object that establishes the parameter.

Try using real world objects in your next attempt at a definitive claim, so you can see your errors.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: How can 'younger' stuff be 'same' stuff?


This car was built in 1990. I have replaced the foot pedal with another 1990 foot pedal. The car is still a 1990 car.

It is the definition of the object, or set, or descriptive term that defines the object that establishes the parameter.

Try using real world objects in your next attempt at a definitive claim, so you can see your errors.


If nothing else, isn't the spatial location of the car always changing from moment to moment?

Of course it is.

There is no such thing as a changless form. Yet, the constant change of form is changelessly perceived.

How can this be so if the fundamental source of perceiving is the finite and temporary form we call the brain?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gibberish. But if not you, we all know it.

That should be on the banner: "Something gibberish this way comes."
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4211
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby gorgeous » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:02 am

the only thing that is constant is change...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:34 am

Rate of change is not constant. Change is a single event.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Paul Anthony » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:18 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gibberish. But if not you, we all know it.


How can 'younger' stuff be 'same' stuff?


DNA.

Our cells replicate using DNA as an instruction manual. The "new" is a genetically identical replacement for the worn out "old" part. Thus, continuity amid constant change.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:11 pm

Paul Anthony wrote: Thus, continuity amid constant change.

Nice said highlighting what is important. Even applies when we upload our consciousness to the Cloud. ............. Continuity, that is.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gibberish. But if not you, we all know it.


How can 'younger' stuff be 'same' stuff?


DNA.

Our cells replicate using DNA as an instruction manual. The "new" is a genetically identical replacement for the worn out "old" part. Thus, continuity amid constant change.


I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.

Constant replacement with identical parts does not actually mean that constant change isn't occurring.

The 'old' was once 'new', and the 'new' will eventually be 'old'.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:32 pm

Re: what is it about "what's important" escapes you?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Re: what is it about "what's important" escapes you?


I already acknowledged the apparent continuity, but that isn't the same as actual changelessness.

How is impermanence not as important as continuity?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:21 am

From the other thread, I'll take that as a Rhetorical Question and let you come to realize the obvious answer.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:25 am

Relinquish85 wrote:If nothing else, isn't the spatial location of the car always changing from moment to moment?
Of course it is.
And how does that prevent the car being real. Additionally, every basic particle and wave in the entire universe is in constant motion. Didn't you know that? :lol:


Relinquish85 wrote:How can this be so if the fundamental source of perceiving is the finite and temporary form we call the brain?
It isn't. The objective repeatable experimental tests, that define the existence of the car do not occur in only one humans brain, do they? Your claim is 100% wrong on that tiny point alone. More than one human brain can observe exactly the same external data from these tests because the tests are objective to all observers.

Try harder with your next attempt.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:36 am

Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:07 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4211
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby gorgeous » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:17 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Rate of change is not constant. Change is a single event.

------------our bodies are changing, our beliefs, our thoughts, emotions, understanding, learning, the Earth and everything around us is changing ...all happening all the time....constantly...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:44 pm

You have no idea what I said, do you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:49 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

Great. When will that product of paralogism pay my bills?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:46 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

Great. When will that product of paralogism pay my bills?


The realization of this truth will not pay your bills. If you want to know what it will do for you, you will need to stop taking your stand as that particular person, simply because the person is ever-changing and You are changelessly aware, so You can not be the person.

Take your stand as the Changeless Perceiver that You are, and the work that the body/mind will need to do in order to pay the bills will no longer be a problem.

Try it and see!

:)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:17 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

Great. When will that product of paralogism pay my bills?


The realization of this truth will not pay your bills. If you want to know what it will do for you, you will need to stop taking your stand as that particular person, simply because the person is ever-changing and You are changelessly aware, so You can not be the person.

Take your stand as the Changeless Perceiver that You are, and the work that the body/mind will need to do in order to pay the bills will no longer be a problem.

Try it and see!

:)

So you're asking me to take your word for it and dissociate from all that's considered normal life and its meaning(s).

How much is Byron Katie paying you for this service? Oh wait, she doesn't pay anything, only takes the big bills of others as the changeless Receiver... :heh:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:39 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

Great. When will that product of paralogism pay my bills?


The realization of this truth will not pay your bills. If you want to know what it will do for you, you will need to stop taking your stand as that particular person, simply because the person is ever-changing and You are changelessly aware, so You can not be the person.

Take your stand as the Changeless Perceiver that You are, and the work that the body/mind will need to do in order to pay the bills will no longer be a problem.

Try it and see!

:)

So you're asking me to take your word for it and dissociate from all that's considered normal life and its meaning(s).


Only if the idea of being liberated from suffering is at all of interest to you. If it isn't, don't.

Again, the person is ever-changing, and yet You remain changelessly aware of that change. None of the harm that can and will inevitably come to the person can EVER come to You. This has ALWAYS been (and will always be) Your experience, but for reasons that I can go into if you want, it just hasn't been noticed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:18 pm

How is the changelessly aware of that change to to an ever-changing person (sic--however the arrangement is supposed to work) LIBERATED from suffering....or anything else? Because, that idea is of interest to me.....having nothing to do with changing states of perception notwithstanding. Seems to me it is grounded in understanding whats going on....not the nature of change.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:23 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I agree that there is certainly continuity, but still, even if the 'new' is identical to the 'old', that doesn't mean that the 'new' IS the 'old'.
You have just trapped yourself.

Under your own definition, as everything in the universe is in constant motion, it is not the same thing. Therefore you don't actually have an ability to apply the word "old" to anything under your silly logic. :D

That's why you ran away when I asked you to write your logical rule that can be applied to a range of real world examples, to check your "logic" for consistency.

However, as educated skeptics, we understand your logic error and inability to test your own claim with real world objects. Additionally, we understand that a word defining an object is descriptive and not absolute. A 1990 car is a 1990 car ( A descriptive set of things). Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and we can objectively measure this. It's called science. :D


My point is precisely this;

The way in which 'change' is perceived has always been (and will always be) exactly the same as the way it is being perceived is in this very moment. As such, a 'perceiver' can not, itself, be subject to change, and so can not have a form of any shape or size. Being changeless and formless, a 'perciever' can only be infinite and eternal. Therefore, there can actually only be one REAL Perceiver.

This one real Perceiver can not be perceived, yet It is the True Self of ALL that is perceived.

You ARE the one real Perceiver. You are not the particular body/mind that you seem to be. That you are is an illusion, and nothing more.

Great. When will that product of paralogism pay my bills?


The realization of this truth will not pay your bills. If you want to know what it will do for you, you will need to stop taking your stand as that particular person, simply because the person is ever-changing and You are changelessly aware, so You can not be the person.

Take your stand as the Changeless Perceiver that You are, and the work that the body/mind will need to do in order to pay the bills will no longer be a problem.

Try it and see!

:)

So you're asking me to take your word for it and dissociate from all that's considered normal life and its meaning(s).


Only if the idea of being liberated from suffering is at all of interest to you. If it isn't, don't.

Again, the person is ever-changing, and yet You remain changelessly aware of that change. None of the harm that can and will inevitably come to the person can EVER come to You. This has ALWAYS been (and will always be) Your experience, but for reasons that I can go into if you want, it just hasn't been noticed.

Yabbut, Tony Parsons sez it either is - or isn't (apparently) and there's nuthin' you (or "I") can do to make that happen. Or not. :mrgreen:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10531
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:05 pm

One of the fundamental axioms of science is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Therefore, the state of the perceiver is irrelevant. It can change or not-change.

The premise that the perceiver cannot change is an assumption based on nothing more substantial than whim.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:14 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:One of the fundamental axioms of science is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Therefore, the state of the perceiver is irrelevant. It can change or not-change.

The premise that the perceiver cannot change is an assumption based on nothing more substantial than whim.

Now that's change we can believe in.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10531
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:19 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:One of the fundamental axioms of science is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Therefore, the state of the perceiver is irrelevant. It can change or not-change.

The premise that the perceiver cannot change is an assumption based on nothing more substantial than whim.

Now that's change we can believe in.

Got change for a fifty? Yeah? Can I borrow it? :twisted:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Paul Anthony » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:55 pm

Change for a fifty? Sounds like a good deal. Let's see..I've got a quarter, two dimes and a nickel. :lol:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:59 pm

Fifty single peso bills here. Looks like you have a choice, Oleg.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest