The Changeless Perceiver

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: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.


The Changeless Perceiver that You are is always already free of suffering. Try this experiment now to prove it for yourself;

Imagine having the actual experience of the most appalling suffering you can come up with (what ever it may be).

Now imagine having the actual experience of the most wonderful joy you can come up with (what ever it may be).

Now imagine having the actual experience of the most boring monotony that you can come up with (what ever it may be).

Lastly, take THIS current experience of reading these words (how ever it may be).

Now, each of these four different experiences (what ever they were) were undeniably 'perceived'. The question is, were they all perceived in four different ways, or were they all perceived in exactly the same way?

Are there different ways to perceive different experiences?

Now speculate, educatedly, about the answer to this question of these four different experiences from 'another perceiver's' point of view, whether they be of your experiences, or of their own.

See what I'm getting at here?

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:46 pm

Can 'the perceiver' ever be affected in any way by anything that is 'perceived', especially since anything that IS perceived to be affected must be perceived in exactly the same way after it is affected as it was before it was affected?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:17 am

...and back to ignoring me. :roll: I must be saying something you don't like to hear? :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:28 am

scrmbldggs wrote:...and back to ignoring me. :roll: I must be saying something you don't like to hear? :-P


Sorry Scrmbldggs. I forgot about a response to you. I'm at work right now.

Tony Parsons (while I don't entirely agree with the way he puts his communication) is exactly right. At the same time, he wouldn't have talks if he didn't believe they may have some kind of effect on those who go to hear them. It's true that nothing can be done, coz there is no autonomous agent in Reality.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:19 am

There is remembering something you have experienced, and the experience itself. In your diaologue I guess I perceive both "events"?

but there is a world of difference in remembering being hit in the head with a shovel and being hit in the head with a shovel.

Maybe something you need?
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: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:29 am

Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:...and back to ignoring me. :roll: I must be saying something you don't like to hear? :-P


Sorry Scrmbldggs. I forgot about a response to you. I'm at work right now.

Tony Parsons (while I don't entirely agree with the way he puts his communication) is exactly right. At the same time, he wouldn't have talks if he didn't believe they may have some kind of effect on those who go to hear them. It's true that nothing can be done, coz there is no autonomous agent in Reality.

S'ok, work takes precedence. But with Parsons - that's exactly it. It is what it is - or not, and no one is doing anything, not even existing. Apparently.

Now prove it to be so. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:There is remembering something you have experienced, and the experience itself. In your diaologue I guess I perceive both "events"?

but there is a world of difference in remembering being hit in the head with a shovel and being hit in the head with a shovel.

Maybe something you need?


The memory is perceived by the perceiver, and the actuality is perceived by the perceiver.

Differently? In what way? And if so, wouldn't the two different ways of perceiving both be perceived in the same way (that is to say, in the same way that ANYTHING ELSE is ever perceived)?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:08 am

You deserve "a boot to the head." Not a waste of conversation.

Out.
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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:20 am

Relinquish85 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, 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.

One does not changelessly perceive. You my think you perceive things today the same way you did twenty years ago, or twenty months ago, or twenty minutes ago, but you do not.

Here, watch a video about the philosophy of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:34 am

Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 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, 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.

One does not changelessly perceive. You my think you perceive things today the same way you did twenty years ago, or twenty months ago, or twenty minutes ago, but you do not.

Here, watch a video about the philosophy of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo


ANY changing that can be reported, must have been (or, is continuing to be) perceived.

So, what of the one that REMAINS perceiving this ceaseless changing in precisely the same way that it always has been? Can THIS one ever change?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:37 am

Relinquish85 wrote:
Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 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, 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.

One does not changelessly perceive. You my think you perceive things today the same way you did twenty years ago, or twenty months ago, or twenty minutes ago, but you do not.

Here, watch a video about the philosophy of self:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo


ANY changing that can be reported is changing that is (or has been) perceived.

So, what of the one that REMAINS perceiving this ceaseless changing in precisely the same way that it always has been? Can THIS one ever change?

Yes. There is no changeless perceiver. The perception of change that the perceiver perceives is a perception of an actual change to the actual perceiver. The perceiver is not "the same way that it always has been".

Consider the allegory of the ship from the video I posted. It set sail, and in its journeys every board was changed, every member of the crew was replaced. By the time it returned to port, it had none of the original component parts, yet in at least one important way, it was still considered to be the same ship: as it pertains to its voyage.

Your life is your voyage, your memories are your cargo, and you (the perceiver) are the ship. You may claim to be unchanged in shape and in purpose, but every part of you has been replaced since you set sail. You are not even the same shape you once were, so you do not move in the same way or carrying yourself in the same manner.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:43 am

Gord: thats an excellent allegory. To me, it means: all that change, and no change at all. I can see the validity of that, as well as the contra. I'm too busy right now to look........at the Batman Clip I presume?.... but I will soon.

This notion of "the Perceiver" is just too much twaddle to follow. Thanks.
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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:This notion of "the Perceiver" is just too much twaddle to follow.

I agree. Just consider another conundrum straight out of science fiction:

On Star Trek: Next Generation, a main character was duplicated by a transporter accident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geMGo2P94j4

They are identical people, and both consider themselves the "original unchanged perceiver" (so to speak). In one sense, they both are (they both perceive themselves to be the original). In several other senses, neither is (they are both composed of different non-original parts; they both have memories that differ from historical fact; they each have opinions on the "meanings" of past events which differ from others' opinions; etc., etc., etc.).

Although this is not an actual event, and therefore is nothing more than a thought experiments, it shows one of the problems with believing in an "unchanging perceiver": Even if you are one, you can't tell that you aren't.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:15 am

Gord: good points. Perhaps leading to the notion that some differences.....don't make any difference. And 'I" think that is about it: Telling {!#%@} from Shinola. its a defective analysis ON ITS FACE. Sure there are "differences"...but what are the similarities????? Then you analysse and assess both side, add them up, and make a JUDGEMENT: on what is important.

The notion/fact/ that there are differences........becomes the recognition of an idiot savant....with no savant.

Just Look.
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 » Sun Aug 07, 2016 3:42 am

Is there any way that change can be perceived that is different to the way that change is being perceived right now?

What is the difference, and in what way is the difference perceived?

Is there any way that the difference can be perceived that is different to the way that the difference is being perceived right now?

Obviously form is always changing. Form IS change. Ceaselessly changing form is what is perceived.

How can a form (like a living body or a brain) be the source of the demonstrably changeless emanation that is 'perceiving'?

Yet, perceiving MUST have a source.

Surely you can see what I'm getting at now....

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 07, 2016 3:50 am

Hitler?
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 » Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hitler?


Yes, Bobbo.

Hitler.

:|

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Relinquish85 wrote: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?


One may never know as everyone is forced
beyond conception to conform to social
order.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19764
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Aug 07, 2016 5:08 pm

And if you play the video of your birth backwards you are set free as your mother's vagina eats 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.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26754
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:33 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Is there any way that change can be perceived that is different to the way that change is being perceived right now?
Try turn the above into an English language sentence.

Are you saying, we can be aware of "historical changes" in our perception, concerning a subjective observation and then be also aware of additional current changes in our subjective observation? If so, than that's very normal.

Secondly, you seem to avoid dealing with two or more people observing the same phenomena and those same people exchanging external scientific indicators through shared experiments. In that scenario it is the external indicators that provide the evidence of existence and personal subjective interpretation becomes irreverent.

Please repeat your claim, in a scenario where there are two or more people observing the same phenomena and exchanging other external objective scientific evidences about that same phenomena.

Doesn't your claim completely collapse?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29411
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:18 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Is there any way that change can be perceived that is different to the way that change is being perceived right now?

Yes.

What is the difference, and in what way is the difference perceived?

The difference depends on the way in which it is different. The difference in perception depends on that.

Is there any way that the difference can be perceived that is different to the way that the difference is being perceived right now?

Uhhhhh...hang on, let me think. Oh! Yes.

Obviously form is always changing. Form IS change. Ceaselessly changing form is what is perceived.

Form isn't change. What we perceive is the changing perception that we perceive.

How can a form (like a living body or a brain) be the source of the demonstrably changeless emanation that is 'perceiving'?

You haven't demonstrated that "perceiving" is either changeless or an emanation. The brain can be the source of perception by being the instrument which wish perception is realised.

Yet, perceiving MUST have a source.

Perception can be defined as our recognition and interpretation of sensory information. Perception also includes how we respond to the information. We can think of perception as a process where we take in sensory information from our environment and use that information in order to interact with our environment. Perception allows us to take the sensory information in and make it into something meaningful.

Insofar as it would have a "source", we would call that "source" the brain.

Surely you can see what I'm getting at now....

Nope, not really.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:30 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And if you play the video of your birth backwards you are set free as your mother's vagina eats you.


And if you take good care of your
recorder ~ you can record the changes
forever. Doh
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19764
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:49 am

Angel wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And if you play the video of your birth backwards you are set free as your mother's vagina eats you.


And if you take good care of your
recorder ~ you can record the changes
forever. Doh

I prefer a bassoon over a recorder.
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
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:51 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:And if you play the video of your birth backwards you are set free as your mother's vagina eats you.


And if you take good care of your
recorder ~ you can record the changes
forever. Doh

I prefer a bassoon over a recorder.


Interesting .
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
sandisk
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:20 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby sandisk » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:48 pm

ElectricMonk wrote: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 obviously disagree. If you mean , the continuous 'false self' then I'd agree. I'm not the same as I was last year, regarding my goals and stuff.

If you mean continuous 'true self' is an illusion then you are obviously wrong. because I never changed myself, the deep myself within me. NEVER changed. doesn't matter how much changes I've been through. Hard to explain, Only I KNOW myself to be what I am, and since childhood, I NEVER changed. I use masks all the time. but the true 'me' NEVER changed. You some say the true you is within your memories, but even that is wrong. Picasso never turned into Einstein. The continuous self is within him. It is not an illusion and never was. I am myself, the one which turns into any false self I want, the one behind the mask I use, because the mask is necessary, because things change and move in the Universe, so you can't continue being your masked self for the rest of your life, your mask has to change. NOT YOU.

here is a great quote from bruce lee
"Always be yourself, express yourself, have faith in yourself, do not go out and look for a successful personality and duplicate it."
- Bruce Lee

This is more like talking about the true unchanging self, not the false self, which changes all the time. the true one, If you express that one, you will be unique.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:57 pm

Carry on Bruce Lee!!!! <3
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
sandisk
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:20 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby sandisk » Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:00 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:...and back to ignoring me. :roll: I must be saying something you don't like to hear? :-P


Sorry Scrmbldggs. I forgot about a response to you. I'm at work right now.

Tony Parsons (while I don't entirely agree with the way he puts his communication) is exactly right. At the same time, he wouldn't have talks if he didn't believe they may have some kind of effect on those who go to hear them. It's true that nothing can be done, coz there is no autonomous agent in Reality.


Tony parsons is an autonomous agent in reality without even noticing, guess what? his "non-dual" religious meetings is already Him making stuff in time, therefore he (autonomous agent) trying to influence (others) in TIME. You can verify for yourself, that he looks at his clock all the time during a "meeting". He is a doer, without even noticing, or worst, he knows he is a doer, but he is obviously using his concepts that he himself has created to create a new form of non duality to impress people of his "methods" of PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION (no-you, no-me) because that's what he is supposed to do in his "job" of being a obnoxious liar, while he is getting money of clueless sheeps.

And you are also a doer and a autonomous agent, you are doing stuff and writing stuff here, these posts that you made couldn't possibly be made without a cause, and the cause is someone (you) writing them, therefore you are the so called 'agent' behind your post

"It's true that nothing can be done"
How can nothing be done? You are doing right now , posting your stupidity here for us to read. This is an effect of a cause, made by you. There is a topic called "Re: The Changeless Perceiver", It wasn't done by cleverbot, it was done by Relinquish and his stupidity, it was done by YOU, the DOER behind this post. So yes, Things CAN be done and YOU ARE Doing them.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 09, 2016 1:54 pm

@USB-port
Are you your true self when using drugs? After a stroke?
There can not be such a thing as an unalterable self - the newborn brain isn't even capable of complex personalities.
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
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:59 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:@USB-port
Are you your true self when using drugs? After a stroke?
There can not be such a thing as an unalterable self - the newborn brain isn't even capable of complex personalities.


Pardon me for interrupting but the self
and the body are two different thing.
The body is a noun & the self is a perception
of the body. A new born brain is a noun and
the self still perceives it. It's only too weak
to make change. Or is it? Hmm.....
Adults keep trying to tell it ~ it is too weak.
Dults ~ seaweed brains?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:49 pm

Can perception be deceiving ?
Is deception a flat lie?
Or is it only in 3D? Lay?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
sandisk
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:20 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby sandisk » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:55 am

ElectricMonk wrote:@USB-port
Are you your true self when using drugs? After a stroke?
There can not be such a thing as an unalterable self - the newborn brain isn't even capable of complex personalities.


I will be expressing my true self while in drugs..

There can be such a thing as an unalterable self and there IS. We cannot understand it, it is beyond our logic, can you understand Einstein geniality? Picasso's creativity? Walt Disney's creativity? Did Picasso turned into Einstein ? Do you even understand what Bruce Lee means by true self? I don't think you do, and you can't understand it using neuroscience at ALL.

LOL, having a stroke has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking here. what would you expect? 'me' functioning 100% without my brain 100%? LOL

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:33 am

SD,

personalities do change, through trauma, drugs, therapy, injury, time.
Getting a life-partner changes you, as does getting kids.

We are not butterflies that only after undergoing changes emerge as the "true self": we are beings in interaction with others: if we can't change, then it would be best to shoot every criminal on the spot: no point in punishment or rehabilitation if they can't change anyway.
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
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:05 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:SD,

personalities do change, through trauma, drugs, therapy, injury, time.
Getting a life-partner changes you, as does getting kids.

We are not butterflies that only after undergoing changes emerge as the "true self": we are beings in interaction with others: if we can't change, then it would be best to shoot every criminal on the spot: no point in punishment or rehabilitation if they can't change anyway.


These things only change you
because they use up all your time
leaving you no time to heal.
These people trend to save all their
healing for retirement only to die.
I'd rather heal as I go so I do not
change.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:06 pm

Ps~ r u in a hurry to retire? lol
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:56 pm

Just to undermine every argument that has been used against mine so far;

Let's say 'perceiving' does occur in multiple different forms. Even so, 'perceiving' itself is in fact NONE of these particular forms.

None of these forms of perceiving can occur without perceiving itself, yet perceiving itself remains independent of any one of these forms. It isn't limited to any one of them.

Fundamentally, ALL forms of perceiving (including this current form) are equally forms of perceiving.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26754
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 12, 2016 1:54 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Just to undermine every argument that has been used against mine so far
No. You simply ignore our points as though we never posted anything. We're used to that. :D

Relinquish85 wrote:Let's say 'perceiving' does occur in multiple different forms. Even so, 'perceiving' itself is in fact NONE of these particular forms.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are making a contradictory claim
1) Perceiving occurs in different forms.
2) None of these forms of perceiving are perceiving.

Now, that doesn't make any sense, does it?
:lol:

Relinquish85 wrote:None of these forms of perceiving can occur without perceiving itself, yet perceiving itself remains independent of any one of these forms. It isn't limited to any one of them.
No, that also makes no sense. Here are different ways a human can perceive an external object.
1) Electromagnetic wave frequencies and amplitude ( colour and luminosity)
2) Chemical testing of the object (smell and taste)
3) Thermal radiation ( heat or cold from the object)
4) Compression wave frequencies in the air ( hearing it)
5) Gravitational waves ( we fall onto really big things)

6) Shared scientific communication ( Objective external scientific experiments that allow for a detailed analysis of the object accepted by all perceivers simultaneously)

Relinquish85 wrote: Fundamentally, ALL forms of perceiving (including this current form) are equally forms of perceiving.
No. Please explain why you think all the above forms of perceiving are equal, when they are obviously not equal.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:10 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Just to undermine every argument that has been used against mine so far
No. You simply ignore our points as though we never posted anything. We're used to that. :D

Relinquish85 wrote:Let's say 'perceiving' does occur in multiple different forms. Even so, 'perceiving' itself is in fact NONE of these particular forms.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are making a contradictory claim
1) Perceiving occurs in different forms.
2) None of these forms of perceiving are perceiving.

Now, that doesn't make any sense, does it?
:lol:

Relinquish85 wrote:None of these forms of perceiving can occur without perceiving itself, yet perceiving itself remains independent of any one of these forms. It isn't limited to any one of them.
No, that also makes no sense. Here are different ways a human can perceive an external object.
1) Electromagnetic wave frequencies and amplitude ( colour and luminosity)
2) Chemical testing of the object (smell and taste)
3) Thermal radiation ( heat or cold from the object)
4) Compression wave frequencies in the air ( hearing it)
5) Gravitational waves ( we fall onto really big things)

6) Shared scientific communication ( Objective external scientific experiments that allow for a detailed analysis of the object accepted by all perceivers simultaneously)

Relinquish85 wrote: Fundamentally, ALL forms of perceiving (including this current form) are equally forms of perceiving.
No. Please explain why you think all the above forms of perceiving are equal, when they are obviously not equal.


Who is this " we" you speak for?
You seem to have puffed yourself up there
with hiding people numbers. Typical sciency
methods. Hehe

Not everybody knows colour ~ smell ~ taste ~
heat ~ cold ~ hearing or gravity.
Not everybody experiences these things.
Where do you get your data from ?
A blind person who knows a smoker that
can't smell or taste because they smoke who
lives next door to a person who doesn't
feel heat or cold because they have experienced
these in such extreme that the senses
were destroyed while defying gravity?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26754
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:13 am

Angel wrote: Who is this " we" you speak for?
Members of the forum who have studied behavioural psychology and people who understand basic physics.

Who do think you speak for? Trolling poets?
:lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:27 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Who is this " we" you speak for?
Members of the forum who have studied behavioural psychology and people who understand basic physics.

Who do think you speak for? Trolling poets?
:lol:


Do they know?
Studied or read about it?

How cute an image ~ a poetic troll.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:30 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Who is this " we" you speak for?
Members of the forum who have studied behavioural psychology and people who understand basic physics.

Who do think you speak for? Trolling poets?
:lol:


Do they know?
Studied or read about it?

How cute an image ~ a poetic troll.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest