Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:48 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Call it a variation of god if you want to.
You assert there is a "God" and offer no evidence, on a science based skeptical forum.

I simply can't respond to such nonsense.

You really need to go post on a religious forum and educate yourself as to the various teleological arguments, before posting here again.

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 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:03 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe
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 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: Call it a variation of god if you want to.
You assert there is a "God" and offer no evidence, on a science based skeptical forum.

I simply can't respond to such nonsense.

You really need to go post on a religious forum and educate yourself as to the various teleological arguments, before posting here again.


You assert there is no God.
Do your job and explain all that scientist
have yet to explain. :-p
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 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:30 pm

Angel wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe


Hi Angel. Firstly, I just want to say sorry that I've never actually responded to any of your posts. The reason why is that all your posts in my threads seem to be in total agreement with what I'm saying, and then you go and say something that I either completely disagree with, or just can't understand at all. I simply don't know how to respond to your posts, based on what I am here to share. Most of what you have said doesn't help my position in any way.

It seems as though you believe we are on the same philosophical page, but it is quite apparent to me that this is not the case.

I certainly don't believe in the kind of divinity you seem to believe in.

What do you actually believe about Reality?

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 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:37 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:
Angel wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe


Hi Angel. Firstly, I just want to say sorry that I've never actually responded to any of your posts. The reason why is that all your posts in my threads seem to be in total agreement with what I'm saying, and then you go and say something that I either completely disagree with, or just can't understand at all. I simply don't know how to respond to your posts, based on what I am here to share. Most of what you have said doesn't help my position in any way.

It seems as though you believe we are on the same philosophical page, but it is quite apparent to me that this is not the case.

I certainly don't believe in the kind of divinity you seem to believe in.

What do you actually believe about Reality?


That's ok :-)
I don't always understand what I say ~ right away. It's sometimes like finding bits of
information and putting in the right place
to latter create the whole picture.
You can have 2 ends or loop yourself and be
whole. Where do you really learn from?
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: Exploring the notion that 'perceiving' IS subject to change

Postby sandisk » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:20 am

Angel wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe


just pointing out the FACT that nothing is the OPPOSITE of something.
Thanks

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:10 am

Angel wrote: You assert there is no God.
I don't have to. As you cannot point to one thing "God" has ever done and have no evidence for "God", there is no need for me to do anything.

I also don't have to assert there is no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Rudolf the Red-nosed reindeer or Boogeyman, for the same reason.


You are claiming the the fictional YAWEH from Middle Eastern literature is a real "God". You have to supply evidence for your claim.

Do you still deny you are religious? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :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 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:09 pm

sandisk wrote:
Angel wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe


just pointing out the FACT that nothing is the OPPOSITE of something.
Thanks


Nothing is also something. It cannot be perceived until it is .
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
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

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

Postby mirror93 » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:15 pm

Angel wrote:
sandisk wrote:
Angel wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:
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?



Speak for yourself Mat~ if u r able. lol

Reality that doesn't amount to anything
is a waste of time. Nothing is useful yet
not for all ways as nothing IS something.
hehe


just pointing out the FACT that nothing is the OPPOSITE of something.
Thanks


Nothing is also something. It cannot be perceived until it is .


NOTHING is NOTHING , it can't be something. since nothing is the opposite of something, without the opposite you wouldn't know about nothing. lol,
you're dumb asf

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:28 am

mirror93 wrote: NOTHING is NOTHING ,

Don't worry about Angel. Angel stopped posting a year ago. Angel was here for about six months posting poems in all the threads, to show the greatness of God and Jesus.

She was very very tedious and basically the same as Gorgeous.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

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

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:41 am

I completely understand Mirror's need to post a reply, Matt. It's difficult to let BS stand without challenging it, especially a statement as ridiculous as "nothing is something." Even if Angel never posts again, whoever else reads the thread will see the responses.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest