Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

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

Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:09 pm

As I see it, if the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE actually subject to change as my critics on this forum assert, then the inherent change of 'the perceived' would be utterly imperceivable. That is to say, in any given moment, it would seem as if 'the perceived' had never been at all different to the way it was in that moment. It would seem as if it had always been the exactly the same as it was in that moment, and so that it was not subject to change.

The coming and going of different patterns would not be perceivable.

Obviously this is not the case.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:18 am

Another way to put it is that if the 'constant difference' that is 'the perceived' were perceived in a manner that was ITSELF constantly different, then 'the perceived' would SEEM (in any given moment) to be constantly the same.

Again, this obviously is not the case.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:22 am

Relinquish85 wrote:As I see it, if the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE actually subject to change as my critics on this forum assert, then the inherent change of 'the perceived' would be utterly imperceivable.


Try using clear language and actually quote "your critics" if you disagree with their earlier points.

You are now claiming that you accept photon light frequencies can only be perceived over time but as this is a very short time, the difference cannot be perceived by an observer.

That is absolutely ridiculous and incorrect. The whole reason we see different colours is because of variation in the frequency of photon light waves, that reach our eyes. This requires a duration of time.

Thank you for destroying your own argument.

How Light Works
"The frequency is the number of waves that pass a point in space during any time interval, usually one second. We measure it in units of cycles (waves) per second, or hertz. The frequency of visible light is referred to as color, and ranges from 430 trillion hertz, seen as red, to 750 trillion hertz, seen as violet."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm


How Observers see Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_fZPHasdo

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:As I see it, if the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE actually subject to change as my critics on this forum assert, then the inherent change of 'the perceived' would be utterly imperceivable.


Try using clear language and actually quote "your critics" if you disagree with their earlier points.

You are now claiming that you accept photon light frequencies can only be perceived over time but as this is a very short time, the difference cannot be perceived by an observer.

That is absolutely ridiculous and incorrect. The whole reason we see different colours is because of variation in the frequency of photon light waves, that reach our eyes. This requires a duration of time.

Thank you for destroying your own argument.

How Light Works
"The frequency is the number of waves that pass a point in space during any time interval, usually one second. We measure it in units of cycles (waves) per second, or hertz. The frequency of visible light is referred to as color, and ranges from 430 trillion hertz, seen as red, to 750 trillion hertz, seen as violet."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm


How Observers see Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_fZPHasdo


As I have long suspected, you are disagreeing with what you THINK I'm saying, and have simply misunderstood what I'm ACTUALLY saying.

Difference from moment to moment (of ANY phenomenon) IS perceived precisely because the MANNER in which 'perceiving' is happening is NOT AT ALL different from moment to moment.

If the the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE different from moment to moment, then the perceived phenomena could not appear to be different from moment to moment, as it obviously does and is.

I am not saying what you think I'm saying. What you think I'm saying is, of course, absolutely ridiculous and incorrect, and THAT is what you are correctly disagreeing with.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:21 am

Relinquish85 wrote:As I have long suspected, you are disagreeing with what you THINK I'm saying, and have simply misunderstood what I'm ACTUALLY saying.
Considering that you didn't know that light had frequencies until a week ago, you were simply wrong.

Relinquish85 wrote:Difference from moment to moment (of ANY phenomenon) IS perceived precisely because the MANNER in which 'perceiving' is happening is NOT AT ALL different from moment to moment.
You are still not getting it. The top and the bottom of a light frequency wave form arrive in the eye at different times, and that's they can have different frequency and thus different colours.

Your previous claim was "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.". I have now informed you that an observer cannot be changeless or he wouldn't perceive the varying light frequencies required to see anything. He is changed by receiving photons, in waveforms, over time.

Relinquish85 wrote:If the the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE different from moment to moment, then the perceived phenomena could not appear to be different from moment to moment, as it obviously does and is.
You are still not getting it. The object being viewed is changing as it is emitting photons, in varying frequencies, over time. The observer is changing as he is receiving photons, in varying frequencies, over time

Relinquish85 previously wrote:One way or the other, you ARE reading these words (and disagreeing with them) RIGHT NOW.
Can you now see how your earlier claim is an impossibility? At a singular point in time no photons would be emitted and no one would observe anything.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:27 am

Before this gets really confusing......

Can you clearly state what you think your original claim is?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Gord » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:33 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Difference from moment to moment (of ANY phenomenon) IS perceived precisely because the MANNER in which 'perceiving' is happening is NOT AT ALL different from moment to moment.

If the the manner in which 'perceiving' is happening WERE different from moment to moment, then the perceived phenomena could not appear to be different from moment to moment, as it obviously does and is.

But the way we perceive does change over time. I perceive the fire as bright, then as noisy, then as comforting, then as hot, then as painful. These are all different manners of perceiving fire.
"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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:53 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Before this gets really confusing......

Can you clearly state what you think your original claim is?


Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. Our seemingly separate organisms (and every other particular organism in the universe) can be thought of as 'nerve ends' of what I might call the eternally cyclic Universal Organism, the presence of which is fundamentally symptomatic of the fact that Reality is a (or THE) Self.

In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about.

You think that You ARE (or have) that body that is sitting there reading these words right now, and AS that body, You are a perceiver. That body is one of the myriad nerve ends of the Universal Organism. The belief that You ARE that is the result of the natural capacity of these EXTREMELY complex 'homo sapien' nerve ends to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings.

This hypnosis makes it seem to these nerve ends as if there is a uniquely isolated, finite and temporary consciousness functioning within each one of them, which in turn gives rise to the illusion that they are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

My way of demonstrating that this feeling is an illusion is as follows;

Take the body that seems to be You/Yours. That body has been constantly growing/decaying from the moment of it's conception to the present moment, and You have been perceiving that growth/decay in a MANNER that has itself not been growing/decaying at all.

If, for instance, the functionality of that body's eyes were to deteriorate and cease, You would FULLY perceive the absence of sight, in the same way that You now FULLY perceive the presence of sight. The same is true of all the other sense organs, even all together.

In this way, Your true nature (the one changeless perceiver) remains completely unaffected by even the complete destruction of that body. As such, You can not be or have that body, or share the limits of any form, as all forms are subject to decay. Therefore, You have no location or edge.

There is more to it, but I'll leave it there so you can condescendingly respond, and so I can think of better ways to convey my point.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:08 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you clearly state what you think your original claim is?
Relinquish85 wrote: I'm trying to provide experiential proof that .... the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local pure awareness


Start now.
1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?

3) What is your experiential proof?


Relinquish85 wrote:That body has been constantly growing/decaying from the moment of it's conception to the present moment,
We eat food and breath oxygen to replace dead cells. So what? What living creature doesn't do that?

Are slugs and anteaters part of this universal magical consciousness you religiously believe in?
:lol:

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:20 am

Perception is a rather difficult idea
to master. You have to see it in your
mind before you can believe it to be
true. Thus it can be true. Then there
are steps to take in order to make it
true. You have to know it in order to
know it. You don't know what you don't
know.
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: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:26 am

Angel wrote:Perception is a rather difficult idea to master.
No. It's just photon wave frequencies. Anyone can do it. :lol:

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Perception is a rather difficult idea to master.
No. It's just photon wave frequencies. Anyone can do it. :lol:


Please demonstrate your ability to do that.
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: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:14 am

Angel wrote:Perception is a rather difficult idea to master.
Matthew Ellard wrote: No. It's just photon wave frequencies. Anyone can do it. :lol:
Angel wrote:Please demonstrate your ability to do that.

how-eyes-see-color1.jpg

Well.....see that thingy that all these words are appearing on? It's called a monitor.

The monitor, depending on the technology, emits theses little things called photons at different wave frequencies. If the words are red, the the wave frequency is 4×1014 Hz.

Those two round things at the front of your head are called eyes. These eyes have these little things called "cones" that receive the photons and measure the frequency, and thus you see the colour red.

Tell me if I'm going to fast for you.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you clearly state what you think your original claim is?
Relinquish85 wrote: I'm trying to provide experiential proof that .... the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local pure awareness


Start now.
1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?

3) What is your experiential proof?


Relinquish85 wrote:That body has been constantly growing/decaying from the moment of it's conception to the present moment,
We eat food and breath oxygen to replace dead cells. So what? What living creature doesn't do that?

Are slugs and anteaters part of this universal magical consciousness you religiously believe in?
:lol:


What evidence do you (or anyone) have to actually support the notion that consciousness equals 'wave form frequencies'?

Every living creature (nerve end of the one Universal Organism) eats food, breaths oxygen and replaces dead cells. Even 'slugs' and 'anteaters'.

My experiential proof is the demonstrable fact that perceiving happens in a changeless, impersonal, universal manner.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:39 am

Relinquish85 wrote: I'm trying to provide experiential proof that .... the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local pure awareness
Matthew Ellard wrote:Start now.
1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?
3) What is your experiential proof?


Relinquish85 wrote:What evidence do you (or anyone) have to actually support the notion that consciousness equals 'wave form frequencies'?
No. I never said that. I am waiting for you to back up your claim and tell us what particle or waveform or whatever, there is, that is exchanged by all humans to create one non-local awareness.

Are you saying you never thought that bit through, that something has to be exchanged to allow for one universal consciousness, as you claim exists?
:lol:

Tell me about the synapses in brains? What is exchanged between synapses to allow one human to have a consciousness?
Synapse.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: I'm trying to provide experiential proof that .... the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local pure awareness
Matthew Ellard wrote:Start now.
1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?
3) What is your experiential proof?


Relinquish85 wrote:What evidence do you (or anyone) have to actually support the notion that consciousness equals 'wave form frequencies'?
No. I never said that. I am waiting for you to back up your claim and tell us what particle or waveform or whatever, there is, that is exchanged by all humans to create one non-local awareness.

Are you saying you never thought that bit through, that something has to be exchanged to allow for one universal consciousness, as you claim exists?
:lol:

Tell me about the synapses in brains? What is exchanged between synapses to allow one human to have a consciousness? Synapse.jpg


There is exactly zero evidence that chemical and electrical signal exchange between neurons via synapses is what consciousness fundamentally arises from. These processes are just as non-conscious as any other phenomenon in the universe. Consciousness doesn't arise from any of those other phenomena, so why should it arise from brain activity?

The idea of Universal Consciousness is that it is the causeless ground of the universe itself. Even if nothing else was, it would still be.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:30 am

Relinquish85 wrote: There is exactly zero evidence that chemical and electrical signal exchange between neurons via synapses is what consciousness fundamentally arises from.
That is complete crap and you know it. You know very well that MRI can monitor synapse exchanges and match them to actual differing conscious thought activities.
MRI synapse exchanges measuring consciouss thoughts.jpg


Now stop running away and answer my three questions about your ridiculous "universal consciousness" claim.

1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?
3) What is your experiential proof?



Relinquish85 wrote: Consciousness doesn't arise from any of those other phenomena, so why should it arise from brain activity?
Because brains have evolved synapses that allow consciousness. What do you think synapses do? Sit around twiddling their thumbs?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: There is exactly zero evidence that chemical and electrical signal exchange between neurons via synapses is what consciousness fundamentally arises from.
That is complete crap and you know it. You know very well that MRI can monitor synapse exchanges and match them to actual differing conscious thought activities. MRI synapse exchanges measuring consciouss thoughts.jpg

Now stop running away and answer my three questions about your ridiculous "universal consciousness" claim.

1) What wave form or particle or whatever, is exchanged by all humans to allow for one consciousness?
2) What is the best evidence you have for this waveform, particle, whatever?
3) What is your experiential proof?



Relinquish85 wrote: Consciousness doesn't arise from any of those other phenomena, so why should it arise from brain activity?
Because brains have evolved synapses that allow consciousness. What do you think synapses do? Sit around twiddling their thumbs?


Thought does not perceive anything, so thought is not conscious. Thought (and all else) is perceived BY consciousness.

Obviously there is correlation between consciousness and brain activity. This is not in any way evidence that consciousness is caused by brain activity.

Universal Consciousness (being causeless and boundless) does not need a waveform, particle or anything else be exchanged by all humans (or anything else) to allow for it. That just isn't how it works.

The idea is that Universal Consciousness causelessly IS, period. ALL ELSE is 'down stream' (as it were) of It.

Note that I'm not talking about a personal creator god of any kind.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:14 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Perception is a rather difficult idea to master.
Matthew Ellard wrote: No. It's just photon wave frequencies. Anyone can do it. :lol:
Angel wrote:Please demonstrate your ability to do that.

how-eyes-see-color1.jpg
Well.....see that thingy that all these words are appearing on? It's called a monitor.

The monitor, depending on the technology, emits theses little things called photons at different wave frequencies. If the words are red, the the wave frequency is 4×1014 Hz.

Those two round things at the front of your head are called eyes. These eyes have these little things called "cones" that receive the photons and measure the frequency, and thus you see the colour red.

Tell me if I'm going to fast for you.


And everybodies eyes are exactly the same
right?
Everybody has the same view point?
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: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:49 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Thought does not perceive anything, so thought is not conscious.
Your optic nerve, that goes from your eyes into your brain, connects via synapses. These synapses are integrated with all the other brain cell synapses in your brain. It is integrated into your brain through evolution. Human consciousness is an evolved phenomena.

You cannot separate eyes from brain activities in humans as they are integrated and evolved together.


Do you deny this?

Relinquish85 wrote:Obviously there is correlation between consciousness and brain activity. This is not in any way evidence that consciousness is caused by brain activity.
Absolute bull-shit. There are thousands of scientific papers that clearly show otherwise. Clearly state the external mechanism that you claim allows for non-localised universal consciousness? You can't can you.

Scenario 1
Wooist : There is an invisible elephant standing outside my window.
Skeptic : What evidence do you have for this?
Wooist : None
Skeptic : Can you describe any mechanism for the invisible elephant?
Wooist : No
Skeptic: Therefore you are unable to describe, or explain something, that there is no evidence for it even existing?
Wooist : OK. I'll stop.

Scenario 2
Wooist : Green monkeys only eat bananas on Tuesday
Skeptic : What evidence do you have for this?
Wooist : None
Skeptic : Is there any evidence for green monkeys?
Wooist : No
Skeptic: Therefore, if you are unable to describe, or explain something, that there is no evidence, it even exists?
Wooist : OK. I'll stop.

Relinquish85 Scenario
Relinquish85 : There is a universal consciousness unifying all living things
Skeptic : What evidence do you have for this?
Relinquish85 : None
Skeptic : Can you describe any mechanism for living things to exchange universal consciousness?
Relinquish85 : No
Skeptic : Therefore, if science already has tested and working scientific evidence that consciousness is localised in the synapses of brains, then what better evidence do you have that says otherwise.
Relinquish85 : I don't have anything.....let me post some more word salad. :D


Relinquish85 wrote:Universal Consciousness (being causeless and boundless)
If there is no causality, then it doesn't actually do anything, does it? Therefore we can simply say it doesn't exist, like the green monkey and the invisible elephant.

What is your counter argument?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:53 am

Relinquish85 wrote: The idea is that Universal Consciousness causelessly IS, period. ALL ELSE is 'down stream' (as it were) of It. Note that I'm not talking about a personal creator god of any kind.


Another Relinquish85 wrote: The idea is that God exists, without any reason, evidence or explanation, simply IS, period. ALL ELSE is 'down stream' (as it were) of It. Note that I'm not talking about a personal creator god of any kind.


Give up. You are 100% religious and faith based.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:55 am

Angel wrote:And everybodies eyes are exactly the same right? Everybody has the same view point?

No, you complete moron. How can everyone be standing in exactly the same place witnessing the exact same events?

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: The idea is that Universal Consciousness causelessly IS, period. ALL ELSE is 'down stream' (as it were) of It. Note that I'm not talking about a personal creator god of any kind.


Another Relinquish85 wrote: The idea is that God exists, without any reason, evidence or explanation, simply IS, period. ALL ELSE is 'down stream' (as it were) of It. Note that I'm not talking about a personal creator god of any kind.


Give up. You are 100% religious and faith based.


I give it all up
to God. Hahaha
What does that make you?
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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:32 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:And everybodies eyes are exactly the same right? Everybody has the same view point?

No, you complete moron. How can everyone be standing in exactly the same place witnessing the exact same events?


Put urself in me shoes.
Don't trip. :roll:
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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8109
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Poodle » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:... My experiential proof is the demonstrable fact that perceiving happens in a changeless, impersonal, universal manner.


Oooohh! How did I miss this? OK Relinquish - if it's demonstrable, please get on and demonstrate it. I would be very interested to see your proof that "perceiving happens in a changeless, impersonal, universal manner". I'm not at all sure what it means, but your evidence will, I'm sure, make it all clear to me.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:49 pm

A changeless , impersonal universal
manner is like saying when time stands
still when nobody cares. making it
universal would be hard I think.
Too many different types of people.
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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:45 pm

Poodle wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:... My experiential proof is the demonstrable fact that perceiving happens in a changeless, impersonal, universal manner.


Oooohh! How did I miss this? OK Relinquish - if it's demonstrable, please get on and demonstrate it. I would be very interested to see your proof that "perceiving happens in a changeless, impersonal, universal manner". I'm not at all sure what it means, but your evidence will, I'm sure, make it all clear to me.


Take the body/mind that seems to be You/Yours. That body/mind has been constantly growing/decaying from the moment of it's conception to the present moment, and You have been perceiving that growth/decay in a MANNER that has itself not been growing/decaying at all.

If, for instance, the functionality of that body/mind's eyes were to deteriorate and cease, You would FULLY perceive the absence of sight that would remain, in the same way that You now FULLY perceive the presence of sight. The same is true of all the other sense organs, even all together.

All physical phenomena in the universe are impermanent. As such, any phenomenon that is in process at any given time is in fact, by definition, 'incomplete', simply because WHILE it is still in process (while it is still exists), it is not yet 'done'. By the time it IS done (complete), the phenomenon no longer exists. That is to say, the phenomenon is gone from the universe. It is no longer in process.

However, the incompleteness that is perceivable phenomena can not possibly be perceived in a manner that is anything less than complete, or else it would not be perceived at all.

The body/mind that seems to be You/Yours is currently incomplete, yet it is perceived by You in a manner that is nothing less than absolutely complete. This has been (and will be) the case at every point in the life of that body/mind.

The same could be said of any life form in the universe, and it would be just as true.

The only constant, permanent completeness that has any reality is that of emptiness, changelessness, stillness and silence (all of which are attributes of each other).

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:39 am

Angel wrote:I give it all up to God. Hahaha What does that make you?

An atheist skeptic reading a post, by a mentally ill Christian, on a science forum for skeptics.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:55 am

Poodle wrote: if it's demonstrable, please get on and demonstrate it..
Relinquish85 wrote:Take the body/mind that seems to be You/Yours. That body/mind has been constantly growing/decaying from the moment of it's conception to the present moment, and You have been perceiving that growth/decay in a MANNER that has itself not been growing/decaying at all.
That simply demonstrates that humans replace individual cells with nourishment. Secondly, Humans are very aware that they are changing with age. Didn't you undergo puberty? Have you never been to a birthday party?

Are you claiming humans don't perceive they get older and weaker?



No evidence of a Universal Consciousness.
1) You are unable to define what you claim a Universal Consciousness is.
Strike One

2) You are unable to provide one iota of evidence that there is a Universal Consciousness.
Strike Two

3) You are unable to offer any mechanism that would allow for a Universal Consciouness to exist.
Strike Three

Therefore, if you can't describe something, can't provide any evidence that thing exists and can't even explain how it works ......then it simply doesn't exist.
You're Out.
baseball.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you claiming humans don't perceive they get older and weaker?


'Humans getting older and weaker' (as part of the totality of change that is happening) ARE perceived, changelessly by the one Universal Perceiver (which is the only REAL perceiver that has ever existed, or will ever exist).

The multiplicity of independent perceivers is PURELY an illusion. Human body/mind's don't perceive anything at all. There is, however, an inextricable correlation between the vast multiplicity of life forms in the universe and the illusion of many independent perceivers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you claiming humans don't perceive they get older and weaker?
Relinquish85 wrote:'Humans getting older and weaker' (as part of the totality of change that is happening) ARE perceived,
Well that destroys you own argument.

Relinquish85 wrote:.......changelessly by the one Universal Perceiver (which is the only REAL perceiver that has ever existed, or will ever exist).
No that's religious crap. You have failed to provide any evidence that there is a universal "perceiver" or even put forward a mechanism for how a universal perceiver would operate.

Relinquish85 wrote:Human body/mind's don't perceive anything at all.
I have clearly provided evidence that states the exact opposite. You are simply in denial now, as you are religious.


Relinquish85 wrote:There is, however, an inextricable correlation between the vast multiplicity of life forms in the universe and the illusion of many independent perceivers.
Set out this mathematical correlation so I can review your "evidence". You can't can you, because you simply made this new claim up, on the spot.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you claiming humans don't perceive they get older and weaker?
Relinquish85 wrote:'Humans getting older and weaker' (as part of the totality of change that is happening) ARE perceived,
Well that destroys you own argument.

Relinquish85 wrote:.......changelessly by the one Universal Perceiver (which is the only REAL perceiver that has ever existed, or will ever exist).
No that's religious crap. You have failed to provide any evidence that there is a universal "perceiver" or even put forward a mechanism for how a universal perceiver would operate.

Relinquish85 wrote:Human body/mind's don't perceive anything at all.
I have clearly provided evidence that states the exact opposite. You are simply in denial now, as you are religious.


Relinquish85 wrote:There is, however, an inextricable correlation between the vast multiplicity of life forms in the universe and the illusion of many independent perceivers.
Set out this mathematical correlation so I can review your "evidence". You can't can you, because you simply made this new claim up, on the spot.


Well, no. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

Please, if you will, respond to the part of my response to Poodle about 'incompleteness'.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:37 am

Relinquish85 wrote:There is, however, an inextricable correlation between the vast multiplicity of life forms in the universe and the illusion of many independent perceivers.
Matthew Ellard wrote: Set out this mathematical correlation so I can review your "evidence". You can't can you, because you simply made this new claim up, on the spot.
Relinquish85 wrote:Well, no. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.


No. You are now in 100% religious mode. You are holding two conflicting views in your head simultaneously.

You are saying there is a correlation and then saying there is no correlation.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:There is, however, an inextricable correlation between the vast multiplicity of life forms in the universe and the illusion of many independent perceivers.
Matthew Ellard wrote: Set out this mathematical correlation so I can review your "evidence". You can't can you, because you simply made this new claim up, on the spot.
Relinquish85 wrote:Well, no. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.


No. You are now in 100% religious mode. You are holding two conflicting views in your head simultaneously.

You are saying there is a correlation and then saying there is no correlation.


I'm REALLY not. If you think that then you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me.

You think I'm saying that change is not perceived. Obviously this would be a completely ridiculous statement.

I'm saying EXACTLY the opposite. What is changeless is the MANNER in which the ceaseless change of the body, mind and universe is perceived.

I'm not saying change is perceived to be changeless. Change is of course perceived to be a process of change. I haven't ONCE denied that.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:20 am

Relinquish85 wrote:I'm REALLY not. If you think that then you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me.

No. I think you are confused in your own head and what you write simply reflects that. It only makes sense to you. That's why no one here understands you. It's not us, It's you.

In essence you are trying to justify to yourself a variation of "God" that you rename "Universal Consciousness".

You have as much evidence for this "universal consciousness" as I have for my "Invisible elephant". None

I will only continue if you do the following things
1) Define Universal consciousness.
2) State clearly how this Universal consciousness interacts with the actual universe,
3) Offer a hypothetical mechanism for how it works.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:26 am

Relinquish85 wrote: There is exactly zero evidence that chemical and electrical signal exchange between neurons via synapses is what consciousness fundamentally arises from.
I also suggest you start doing some basic research before making up stories

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... en-we-die/

Scientific American
The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1 leads to loss of conscious visual perception. Changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions made. Using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing.

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

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:03 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:I give it all up to God. Hahaha What does that make you?

An atheist skeptic reading a post, by a mentally ill Christian, on a science forum for skeptics.


Time will tell.
When are you scheduled to die?
Ah~ who cares. I won't be there.
I'll ask God for that day off. :mrgreen:
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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Angel » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:06 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm REALLY not. If you think that then you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me.

No. I think you are confused in your own head and what you write simply reflects that. It only makes sense to you. That's why no one here understands you. It's not us, It's you.

In essence you are trying to justify to yourself a variation of "God" that you rename "Universal Consciousness".

You have as much evidence for this "universal consciousness" as I have for my "Invisible elephant". None

I will only continue if you do the following things
1) Define Universal consciousness.
2) State clearly how this Universal consciousness interacts with the actual universe,
3) Offer a hypothetical mechanism for how it works.


Mass hallucinations make sence to
a lot of people. The truth only makes sence.
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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Relinquish85 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm REALLY not. If you think that then you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me.

No. I think you are confused in your own head and what you write simply reflects that. It only makes sense to you. That's why no one here understands you. It's not us, It's you.

In essence you are trying to justify to yourself a variation of "God" that you rename "Universal Consciousness".

You have as much evidence for this "universal consciousness" as I have for my "Invisible elephant". None

I will only continue if you do the following things
1) Define Universal consciousness.
2) State clearly how this Universal consciousness interacts with the actual universe,
3) Offer a hypothetical mechanism for how it works.


1. Universal Consciousness (a.k.a. the Universal Self) is the causeless, boundless, changeless, non-local, inherently self-perceiving 'isness' that is Reality itself. It's 'point of view' is that of infinite emptiness.

Call it a variation of god if you want to. I don't mean it as some kind of 'king' of the universe, or whatever, to which divine honours are due as above all else. It is simply the ultimate reality and ground of the universe.

2. There isn't anything for It to interact with, because there is ONLY Itself. What we call 'the universe' is simply It's own eternally cyclic Organism, which is not in any way 'other than' Itself.

3. It doesn't need any 'mechanism' in order to perceive Itself. It perceives Itself just by BEING Itself.

Obviously this state of affairs doesn't amount to anything. It's a cycle that simply goes on and on forever, without beginning or ending, for no reason at all.

Does Reality have to amount to anything in order to be real?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby Lausten » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:44 am

It's definitely you Reliquish85. You are the one who doesn't make sense. Matt just confirmed it to the nth degree.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests