The Changeless Perceiver

What you think about how you think.
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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:34 am

Angel wrote: Who is this " we" you speak for?
Matthew Ellard wrote: Members of the forum who have studied behavioural psychology and people who understand basic physics.
Angel wrote:Do they know? Studied or read about it?
Yes. And what have you studied? :lol:

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:56 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.


For arguments sake, let's say that H2O comes in three different forms; liquid, solid and gas. However, H2O ITSELF is neither a liquid, a solid, nor a gas, is it? These three different forms are EQUALLY three different forms of H2O.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:44 am

Relinquish85 wrote:For arguments sake, let's say that H2O comes in three different forms; liquid, solid and gas.
However, H2O ITSELF is neither a liquid, a solid, nor a gas, is it? These three different forms are EQUALLY three different forms of H2O.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Does H20 observe objects and perceive them? The answer is clearly "No".

Do observers, perceiving an object come in different frozen. liquid and solid states? The answer is clearly "No".

You are going out of your way to avoid dealing with the tangible actual ways that humans actually perceive things. As we evolved language 195.000 years ago we also perceive things and exchange information in groups .

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)

Stop doing that and start formulating a hypothesis that can actually be applied to things. If you hypothesis is not predictive, it is not a claim but is just poetry.

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:For arguments sake, let's say that H2O comes in three different forms; liquid, solid and gas.
However, H2O ITSELF is neither a liquid, a solid, nor a gas, is it? These three different forms are EQUALLY three different forms of H2O.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Does H20 observe objects and perceive them? The answer is clearly "No".

Do observers, perceiving an object come in different frozen. liquid and solid states? The answer is clearly "No".

You are going out of your way to avoid dealing with the tangible actual ways that humans actually perceive things. As we evolved language 195.000 years ago we also perceive things and exchange information in groups .

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)

Stop doing that and start formulating a hypothesis that can actually be applied to things. If you hypothesis is not predictive, it is not a claim but is just poetry.


Everything on your list is 'perceived' and is subject to 'change'. This 'constant difference' remains perceived to be 'constantly coherent' because the manner in which it is perceived, itself, is not subject to 'constant difference'.

This is why 'the perceived', as a whole, remains coherent as the dynamic fractal asymmetry that it seems to.

Change is ALWAYS perceived in 'THIS' manner.

One way or the other, as a matter of conscious experience, perceiving is ALWAYS 'now', isn't it?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:57 pm, edited 8 times in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:36 am

'now' is just the amount of change between the current and the past measurement cycle. In that sense, it's more past than present. It also heavily depends on your degree of awareness and ability to sense time.
We know from schizophrenia patients that they often have difficulties ordering events chronologically.
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

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:08 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:'now' is just the amount of change between the current and the past measurement cycle. In that sense, it's more past than present. It also heavily depends on your degree of awareness and ability to sense time.
We know from schizophrenia patients that they often have difficulties ordering events chronologically.


As far as we need to be concerned, for all intents and purposes, whatever this is that we call 'now' REALLY IS 'right now'.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:21 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:As far as we need to be concerned, for all intents and purposes, whatever this is that we call 'now' REALLY IS 'right now'.


Nope, because two people might not agree on what is "now", as I pointed out.
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

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:53 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:As far as we need to be concerned, for all intents and purposes, whatever this is that we call 'now' REALLY IS 'right now'.


Nope, because two people might not agree on what is "now", as I pointed out.


My point is that such a disagreement would be an entirely inconsequential mind game.

One way or the other, you ARE reading these words (and disagreeing with them) RIGHT NOW.

:)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Human methods of perceiving things

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:Everything on your list is 'perceived' and is subject to 'change'.
Firstly, how else can anything perceive any form of frequeny based light or sound wave. By their very definition they require time to be perceived.

Secondly, humans have evolved so that their senses perceive things over time, both in reception of the raw data (wave freqency) and secondly in the time it takes electrons to jump over all those synapses to process that data.

By artificially pretending that perception can't deal with time simultaneously, you are denying the way that perception and the human brain actually works, which is very silly.


Relinquish85 wrote:One way or the other, as a matter of conscious experience, perceiving is ALWAYS 'now', isn't it?
That is totally incorrect, as I explained above. How can you hear or see light frequencies without it being a sampled period of time? If I only perceived things at the instantaneous moment how could I perceive frequencies?

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Human methods of perceiving things

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:Everything on your list is 'perceived' and is subject to 'change'.
Firstly, how else can anything perceive any form of frequeny based light or sound wave. By their very definition they require time to be perceived.

Secondly, humans have evolved so that their senses perceive things over time, both in reception of the raw data (wave freqency) and secondly in the time it takes electrons to jump over all those synapses to process that data.

By artificially pretending that perception can't deal with time simultaneously, you are denying the way that perception and the human brain actually works, which is very silly.


Relinquish85 wrote:One way or the other, as a matter of conscious experience, perceiving is ALWAYS 'now', isn't it?
That is totally incorrect, as I explained above. How can you hear or see light frequencies without it being a sampled period of time? If I only perceived things at the instantaneous moment how could I perceive frequencies?


The Reality of 'now' has nothing to do with 'time'. In Truth, 'now' is this causeless, unencompassed void that is never not 'here', beyond all apparent time.

Where/whenever ANYTHING happens (no matter what the apparent 'time' or 'place'), it always ACTUALLY happens 'here/now'.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:28 am

In other words, you are trying to be philosophical and are happy to ignore the science of perception.
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

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:27 am

ElectricMonk wrote:In other words, you are trying to be philosophical and are happy to ignore the science of perception.


Unfortunately (and quite strangely, to be honest) the 'science of perception' does not treat direct experience as the ultimate test of Reality.

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Angel » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Who is this " we" you speak for?
Matthew Ellard wrote: Members of the forum who have studied behavioural psychology and people who understand basic physics.
Angel wrote:Do they know? Studied or read about it?
Yes. And what have you studied? :lol:


Nature.
I imagine I will still be dominating it
while you're in a sick bed somewhere
getting somebody to nurse a simple
hangover. Hahahahaha.
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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:02 pm

I've noticed that others can push me
to behave like them yet when left
alone I go back to being who I am.
Behooved 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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:33 am

ElectricMonk wrote:In other words, you are trying to be philosophical and are happy to ignore the science of perception.
Relinquish85 wrote:Unfortunately (and quite strangely, to be honest) the 'science of perception' does not treat direct experience as the ultimate test of Reality.


No. Try again. What you are really saying is that

"You science people have an accurate working set of hypotheses that accurately explain perception that accurately predicts real world situations. The nonsense hypothesis that I am trying to make does not actually work, cannot predict anything, has no scientific basis and cannot be tested."

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:In other words, you are trying to be philosophical and are happy to ignore the science of perception.
Relinquish85 wrote:Unfortunately (and quite strangely, to be honest) the 'science of perception' does not treat direct experience as the ultimate test of Reality.


No. Try again. What you are really saying is that

"You science people have an accurate working set of hypotheses that accurately explain perception that accurately predicts real world situations. The nonsense hypothesis that I am trying to make does not actually work, cannot predict anything, has no scientific basis and cannot be tested."


You are talking about what is perceived (the natural focus of science). I am talking about the manner in which the perceiver is perceiving it (about which science has had very little to say thus far).

This is why we are unable to meet in understanding.

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

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:59 am

Can the manner in which 'perceiving' happens ever be 'incomplete'? Can the manner ever be anything other than 'complete'?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:50 am

Relinquish85 wrote: I am talking about the manner in which the perceiver is perceiving it (about which science has had very little to say thus far).
That is complete crap. You are falsely claiming science has done little research on how humans perceive things.

Simultaneously, you are totally ignorant about how we perceive wave frequency information like sound and light over time.

You really can't offer an alternative theory, unless you actually can set out what your theory is actually talking about.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:34 pm

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.

Well not really. It's actually quite valid what Relinquish has suggested.

The Self never changes - but the perceptions of Self do. The Self is not the body. The Self is the perceiver of the body. The body doesn't perceive anything, it is the perceived. The perceived cannot perceive anything. There is only ''perceiving''
Every cell in the body has consciousness and knows what it is doing else how would it possibly know how to function?
That's what was meant in the OP

The perceiver never changes but the perceptions do. The image of self is constantly changing as in I AM a boy, or a girl... or I AM a grandfather, or a brother or a postman, or a ballet dancer. Today I Am rich but tomorrow I will be poor because today I will spend all my riches. Today I'm moody, but yesterday I was cheerful...these are the changes being talked about. The I AM never changes...but the mental narrative of what this I AM thinks it is constantly changes.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:40 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Simultaneously, you are totally ignorant about how we perceive wave frequency information like sound and light over time.

And you are totally ignorant in perceiving that there is no ''we'' perceiving. That's what you've failed to perceive. Oh Ignorant one perhaps you need to go back to school and unlearn the lies you were taught.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:49 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:Can the manner in which 'perceiving' happens ever be 'incomplete'? Can the manner ever be anything other than 'complete'?


Not incomplete.

But Yes, it's totally unborn, undying, non-changing, non-moving, whole,complete and true in every boundlessly free moment. And that moment is eternity right here and now...appearing as if it is a never ending sequence of diverse moments in an illusory spacetime continuum.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:57 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
This is why we are unable to meet in understanding.


No two minds can ever meet, simply because no one has ever been able to exit their consciousness and look at it from the outside in.

This is an inside job. The only way out is back in.


One has to be out of the mind that is not theirs and into the mind that is theirs..before realisation or understanding can take place.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:00 pm

Angel wrote:I've noticed that others can push me
to behave like them yet when left
alone I go back to being who I am.
Behooved lol


Beautiful.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:00 pm

placid wrote:And you are totally ignorant in perceiving that there is no ''we'' perceiving. That's what you've failed to perceive. Oh Ignorant one perhaps you need to go back to school and unlearn the lies you were taught.


If you had ever gone to school yourself, you would understand that the visible light and audio waves we perceive have both frequency and amplitude. Frequency is measured over time. Therefore Relinquish's claim that time is irrelevant is fundamentally wrong.

This is a science forum and not a spiritual forum. If you want to repeat the same spiritual garbage that you already posted and already deleted , try a spiritual forum.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/

https://www.thetreeofawakening.com/foru ... ries-help/

http://www.spiritboard.net/

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:And you are totally ignorant in perceiving that there is no ''we'' perceiving. That's what you've failed to perceive. Oh Ignorant one perhaps you need to go back to school and unlearn the lies you were taught.


If you had ever gone to school yourself, you would understand that the visible light and audio waves we perceive have both frequency and amplitude. Frequency is measured over time. Therefore Relinquish's claim that time is irrelevant is fundamentally wrong.

This is a science forum and not a spiritual forum. If you want to repeat the same spiritual garbage that you already posted and already deleted , try a spiritual forum.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/

https://www.thetreeofawakening.com/foru ... ries-help/

http://www.spiritboard.net/


Stop telling people what they should and shouldn't post. Or where they should be and not be. Your like a one sided coin. Your a half baked brain. You need to include the whole picture when discussing matters of science.
How can one expect to understand the universe without first understanding who or what is the self that wants to understand...or even why it wants to understand it's place in this vast universe? .... your still in primitive monkey mind. .. evolution of the human mind is moving on, please keep up, or stay a monkey mind, it's your prerogative.

It's already happening, please catch up.
Image

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Poodle » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:10 am

placid wrote:... Stop telling people what they should and shouldn't post ...


:lol:
There you go again.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:08 am

placid wrote:...please catch up.

You're moving backward, and you're too caught up in yourself to see it.
"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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

The non-stop liar

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:12 pm

placid wrote:Stop telling people what they should and shouldn't post.
placid, yesterday wrote:...and there is no one to stop what happens - there simply is no one at the controls, life is living itself.
How can I stop what happens? Only yesterday you said I had no control. Were you lying yesterday? :lol:

Can you see that your posts are conflicting, infantile and make no sense? Go away and post on a religious forum where your crap posts are not going to be noticed.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:42 pm

placid wrote:It's already happening, please catch up.
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/

As per normal, we actually know about the owners of this spiritual conference scam. Maurizio Benazzo is the owner. He was a B-grade american actor on the TV series Law & Order in the 1990's, before starting this new profit making scheme. :D

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The non-stop liar

Postby placid » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:22 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Can you see that your posts are conflicting, infantile and make no sense? Go away and post on a religious forum where your crap posts are not going to be noticed.


Who is going to make sense of anything.. until it is known who it is that wants to know sense in the first place... Surely the mature thing to do would be to try and make sense of everything together ..rather than to shoo away those who you only assume are not making sense. How the heck do you know who is making sense?

Lets discover together... unless you prefer to act like an insolent child that you accuse others of being.

Okay, so is there supposed to be something on this forum that is has to be noticeable? and if yes, then what is that?

What is it that you purport to know that I don't?

I'll be waiting for your answer.

Oh and why do you choose to write in blue rather than in ordinary black? is that because you like to be the centre of attention, are you the attention seeker, do you want to stick out or something?

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The non-stop liar

Postby placid » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:28 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:Stop telling people what they should and shouldn't post.
placid, yesterday wrote:...and there is no one to stop what happens - there simply is no one at the controls, life is living itself.
[color=#000080]How can I stop what happens? Only yesterday you said I had no control. Were you lying yesterday? :lol:



Yes, I was lying because I was telling the truth.

How can I know what lying is, if I didn't also know what truth is in the exact same moment?

Sounds conflicting? ....go figure that one out? :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Poodle » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:52 pm

Conflicting? No. Vacuous? Certainly.

(he said in a sharply blunting manner).

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The non-stop liar

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:24 pm

placid wrote:Yes, I was lying because I was telling the truth.
Nope. You are just really really stupid and get caught lying all the time. That's why you deleted all your earlier posts remember? :lol:

Subaru7
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Subaru7 » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:16 am

Relinquish85 wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:As far as we need to be concerned, for all intents and purposes, whatever this is that we call 'now' REALLY IS 'right now'.


Nope, because two people might not agree on what is "now", as I pointed out.


My point is that such a disagreement would be an entirely inconsequential mind game.

It is a well-known consequence of Special relativity that there is no such thing as an objective "now" that all observers can agree on.

As a consequence: Einstein's "Block Universe" where "change" is a "persistent illusion" (as Einstein wrote shortly before his death).

Fairly consequential . . . ;)
.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:14 am

Subaru7 wrote:It is a well-known consequence of Special relativity that there is no such thing as an objective "now" that all observers can agree on.
Thank you for that. That was going to be my next obvious counter argument against Placid's non-dualism religious claim.

Please also note that Relinquish85 and Angel had stopped posting some time ago. Placid is the only religious non-dualism fan left on the forum.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:39 am

Subaru7 wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:As far as we need to be concerned, for all intents and purposes, whatever this is that we call 'now' REALLY IS 'right now'.


Nope, because two people might not agree on what is "now", as I pointed out.


My point is that such a disagreement would be an entirely inconsequential mind game.

It is a well-known consequence of Special relativity that there is no such thing as an objective "now" that all observers can agree on.

As a consequence: Einstein's "Block Universe" where "change" is a "persistent illusion" (as Einstein wrote shortly before his death).

Fairly consequential . . . ;)
.


I agree with the premise that there is no such thing as an objective now. And the answer for why that is so is because there is only one observer, meaning there is no individual observer observing reality, as the seer is inseparable from what it sees. And the seer is known as awareness. No thing other than awareness itself can see awareness because it's what's already doing the seeing. Objective reality is an illusory appearance within a subjective world of infinite seeing..aka knowing.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby Gord » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:43 am

...gibberish....
"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
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby placid » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Subaru7 wrote:It is a well-known consequence of Special relativity that there is no such thing as an objective "now" that all observers can agree on.
Thank you for that. That was going to be my next obvious counter argument against Placid's non-dualism religious claim.

Please also note that Relinquish85 and Angel had stopped posting some time ago. Placid is the only religious non-dualism fan left on the forum.



OMG..listen to yourself, how old are you, 5? ...you are so unbelievably ignorant, blinded by your conditioning which has become your own personal religion and faith...sounds a bit hypocritical to me...grow up little boy.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19816
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Changeless Perceiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:56 am

Sorry, adoption isn't on this forum's menu.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest