One sentence on Thought
 

I don’t think we can prove this sentence, but I am fairly certain that we cannot disprove it:

One witnesses a miracle when one witnesses one’s own thought.

Whether or not the miracle is from God is irrelevant here.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

assuming things are true until disproven isnot good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
assuming things are true until disproven is not good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem to go fine under Philosophy ?

I am not totally illiterate, but my formal training in philosophy is not that extensive.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
assuming things are true until disproven is not good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem to go fine under Philosophy ?

I am not totally illiterate, but my formal training in philosophy is not that extensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming something is true "because it has not been disproven" is pretty awful, whether you're talking about science, math, philosophy, or just about anything else.

As for your statement, I tend to agree. But the exact meaning of the word miracle is so varied within the English language that your statement doesn't really hold any weight, or have any usefulness.

Maybe what you could say instead is that people tend to overlook the extraordinary, even when it's sitting right in front of them. The most amazing things occur every day and most people don't even notice. We would probably be better off if we spent more time appreciating some of the wonderful things in this life, for example human thought.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

To Prove = to verify truth. What is truth except that which the consciousness can perceive. The 'One' in, "One witnesses a miracle when . . ." is one's consciousness.

So if You with Your consciousness witness your own thoughts, then you are seeing your thoughts from conciousness which is your true nature, which sees the reality/truth of everything it perceives.

So you will see truth for yourself when you are able to see your own thoughts. How can ultimate truth be explained in words. Only relative truths can be proven with statements of concepts. The more important thing is if you can observe your thoughts from your consciousness then you will see the truth for yourself and there will be no need to prove it.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
The more important thing is if you can observe your thoughts from your consciousness then you will see the truth for yourself and there will be no need to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounded like total idiocy when I first read it.

After thinking about it some, I really like it. I even think I agree with you. Maybe.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

What part is unclear.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this?

Cheers.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean consciousness is deep. I meant your statement was deep.

Thanks for the extra salad though.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean consciousness is deep. I meant your statement was deep.

Thanks for the extra salad though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depth in insight comes from depth in mind, they are the same. Or I should say insight is the conceptual manifestation of consciousness.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this?

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness perceives reality, it sees the truth, should it not be clouded by thoughts. Believed thoughts are attachments to concepts, concepts are not real. A thought is real insofar as the thinker believes it. A web of believed thoughts is referred to as the 'ego'. The ego-mind thinks whereas the consciousness is just aware. The degree to which a person believes his own ego or, 'web of thoughts', to be truth/reality/'right', is the degree which that person is away from the actual truth that that person's consciousness perceives. When two people look at something with their pure conscious mind, that is, no discriminative thought about it, they perceive the same thing or same reality. They see the truth about reality, that there is just a rock, or a tree or whatever they are looking at. That is why you see truth when you look as your consciousness and where the term 'miracle' in op's post comes from. To see from God or consciousness's eye is miraculous (sp?) as it is ultimate truth.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness is deep in the mind, but only if you have a lot of thoughts/worries clouding up the intrinsic connection to it. Kids are very 'perceptive' because they don't have a lot of worries/thoughts to cloud their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this?

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consciousness perceives reality, it sees the truth, should it not be clouded by thoughts. Believed thoughts are attachments to concepts, concepts are not real. A thought is real insofar as the thinker believes it. A web of believed thoughts is referred to as the 'ego'. The ego-mind thinks whereas the consciousness is just aware. The degree to which a person believes his own ego or, 'web of thoughts', to be truth/reality/'right', is the degree which that person is away from the actual truth that that person's consciousness perceives. When two people look at something with their pure conscious mind, that is, no discriminative thought about it, they perceive the same thing or same reality. They see the truth about reality, that there is just a rock, or a tree or whatever they are looking at. That is why you see truth when you look as your consciousness and where the term 'miracle' in op's post comes from. To see from God or consciousness's eye is miraculous (sp?) as it is ultimate truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where can I read more about this?

Is there any philosopher which echos your statements here?

Cheers.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realises that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong. However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

Studying Zen Buddism would be a like a guide to your own introspection which would satisfy the itch that asked that question,if I'm assuming correctly. If philosophy is a combination of concepts then zen is the opposite of a philosophy. If philosophy is looked upon as a guide towards self-realization then zen could be a philosophy about the way someone could go about realizing truth.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
The consciousness perceives reality, it sees the truth, should it not be clouded by thoughts. Believed thoughts are attachments to concepts, concepts are not real. A thought is real insofar as the thinker believes it. A web of believed thoughts is referred to as the 'ego'. The ego-mind thinks whereas the consciousness is just aware. The degree to which a person believes his own ego or, 'web of thoughts', to be truth/reality/'right', is the degree which that person is away from the actual truth that that person's consciousness perceives. When two people look at something with their pure conscious mind, that is, no discriminative thought about it, they perceive the same thing or same reality. They see the truth about reality, that there is just a rock, or a tree or whatever they are looking at. That is why you see truth when you look as your consciousness and where the term 'miracle' in op's post comes from. To see from God or consciousness's eye is miraculous (sp?) as it is ultimate truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you are confusing some issues here. Consciousness is a meta level phenomenon. To be conscious of something is to interpret it. This is one step removed from pure perception. No interpretation is context free, and indeed, there is no meaning without context.

So, consciousness does not perceive reality - rather it contextualises the perception of reality. Consciousness is a property of the thoughts - imposition of context - that you wish to remove to produce 'truth'

Also, it is impossible for two different observers to perceive the same reality. For example, two observers perceiving the same tree must (trivially) perceive it from two different points in space-time, and from these two different points the perception is necessarily different (however minimally). So, in an important sense, perception is not truth, for the two observers cannot completely agree on the objective reality of every aspect of the tree.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The consciousness perceives reality, it sees the truth, should it not be clouded by thoughts. Believed thoughts are attachments to concepts, concepts are not real. A thought is real insofar as the thinker believes it. A web of believed thoughts is referred to as the 'ego'. The ego-mind thinks whereas the consciousness is just aware. The degree to which a person believes his own ego or, 'web of thoughts', to be truth/reality/'right', is the degree which that person is away from the actual truth that that person's consciousness perceives. When two people look at something with their pure conscious mind, that is, no discriminative thought about it, they perceive the same thing or same reality. They see the truth about reality, that there is just a rock, or a tree or whatever they are looking at. That is why you see truth when you look as your consciousness and where the term 'miracle' in op's post comes from. To see from God or consciousness's eye is miraculous (sp?) as it is ultimate truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you are confusing some issues here. Consciousness is a meta level phenomenon. To be conscious of something is to interpret it. This is one step removed from pure perception. No interpretation is context free, and indeed, there is no meaning without context.



[/ QUOTE ]

One can be consciously aware of the tree without interpreting/discriminating about its size, color, position in respect to perceiver. How is pure perception different from consciousness-awareness?

"Consciousness is a property of the thoughts - imposition of context - that you wish to remove to produce 'truth'"

The discriminatory mind is an extension of consciousness. Thoughts are concepts, when they are believed to be true they become attachments which cloud 'truth'

"Also, it is impossible for two different observers to perceive the same reality."

Should they both be operating from a 'blank slate of consciousness' would their reality's not be the same.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
One can be consciously aware of the tree without interpreting/discriminating about its size, color, position in respect to perceiver. How is pure perception different from consciousness-awareness?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is exactly your use of the word 'aware' in this that confirms the nature of consciousness. We have a perception system which receives innumerable sensations, but the vast majority of these we are never 'aware' of - in other words never enter consciousness. For something to go from perception to consciousness it must be attended to and pulled into a contextual interpretation.

And, further, by saying 'One can be consciously aware of the tree' you are admitting to contextualisation, as to classify is to contextualise. To be aware of something is to identify it, classify it, contextualise it. Indeed, it is impossible to be conscious of something without identifying it.


[ QUOTE ]
"Also, it is impossible for two different observers to perceive the same reality."

Should they both be operating from a 'blank slate of consciousness' would their reality's not be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed no. The important point is that it is impossible for two observers, in any state to receive precisely the same perception sensations.

If they are separate in space then their perceptions are dependent on their disparate spatial locations - a different angle of perception will always yield different perceptions as nothing can be absolutely uniform.

And if they are separate in time (though at the same spatial location) then their perceptions are dependent on their disparate time locations - everything is subject to change and so cannot remain static from one moment to the next.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is exactly your use of the word 'aware' in this that confirms the nature of consciousness. We have a perception system which receives innumerable sensations, but the vast majority of these we are never 'aware' of - in other words never enter consciousness. For something to go from perception to consciousness it must be attended to and pulled into a contextual interpretation.

And, further, by saying 'One can be consciously aware of the tree' you are admitting to contextualisation, as to classify is to contextualise. To be aware of something is to identify it, classify it, contextualise it. Indeed, it is impossible to be conscious of something without identifying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I say tree, then that is contexualizing the tree but if I say 'awareness' without saying awareness and just am awareness, there is no discernment about the tree, I am just aware. How is this consciousness different than perception.


[ QUOTE ]

And if they are separate in time (though at the same spatial location) then their perceptions are dependent on their disparate time locations - everything is subject to change and so cannot remain static from one moment to the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our two hypotheticals are both operating in present-mindedness don't they both see this transiency from their pure awareness which is reality or truth and should they operate from a similar understanding of self-realization, be able to understand reality as eachother 'know' it.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

I don't believe you're using the term awareness as it's commonly used. Your awareness sounds very idealized, perfect and pretty much unattainable by mere mortals. A perspective doesn't just invite bias, it creates a bias. One could even say that it IS a bias.

At least for humans, our range of awareness is so limited that we select a small range of things to observe and that act alone prevents observation of some ultimate truth because we focus on a microcosm at best.

All that said, what you seem to be speaking of, transcendental meditation strikes me as a very positive activity. By freeing yourself from the main trappings and attachments of society, you can be cleansed of your main stressors and avoid what seems to be for humans, an unnatural and uncomfortable existence. We were not meant to be sitting on our asses working at a desk and driving or sitting in cars with such great access to delicious fatty and sweet food, indoors, with stifled sex lives. It's a very peaceful and useful activity and seems to make people happier as well as healthier as shown in a few studies.

I have a number of problems with your post, not the least of which is the fact that usmot's contribution has been entirely consistent with what makes philosophical sense to me as well as modern neuroscience's take on consciousness, sense data, sensory transduction, and thalamic gatewaying.

What I see you attempting to do is go below consciousness to a level where sense data has entered the brain and is a pure and accurate representation of the exterior world. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble here because what happens isn't remotely like that.

The first problem as far as accurately perceiving reality is that humans are aware of such a limited range of the available, ambient data. Our temperature awareness is imprecise and only gives some rough approximation of the energy density of systems in which we're in contact. We are aware of only a small range of electromagnetic radiation, sound frequencies, chemical stimuli and tactile stimulation. Even on our own bodies, sensory discrimination in some areas is so poor we can't tell a pinprick as being in two different places despite a difference of a centimeter. Let's push all those concerns aside and just say "so what, so our range of sensory information is limited to certain ranges of certain external events and not perfectly consistent on our own bodies." I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

If we go just below consciousness and try to reach an area of pure external awareness, we have a problem. You're in the thalamus and the cortex modifies incoming data (tuning and gating it) based on cortical activity. You decide what to experience or not experience to some extent. The information reaching the thalamus is already modified and structured and is not an accurate representation of the external world. It's not our subconscious either because the thalamus is not really a part of the brain where cogitation occurs (and the subconscious needs to be consciously accessible at some point). That's pretty much the cortex and to some extent the cerebellum.

Even if you go to the primary sensory neurons themselves that interact with the outside world, there's a problem. The nervous system is arranged such that one pays attention to changes in the environment. This occurs in both a temporal sense (adaptation--and now how most would use the term, refers to a molecular mechanism by which the identical stimulus over time causes less activity) and in the sense that contrasts are enhanced. The nervous system is structured so that something called lateral inhibition occurs. It's why watermelon tastes sweeter with some salt on it and it's why those edges you see are overshaded on one side and undershaded on the other side compared to how the light actually hits the object.

There's even a blind spot in your vision. The brain just fills in the visual field you perceive to make up for the fact that retinoganglion cell axons (your optic nerve at this point) are placed so that no photoreceptor cells are present in a small degree range of your receptive field. It's a lie to create a complete visual picture of the world.

Unless you have some means of knowing how your nervous system is constantly lying to you about reality and can directly access this sense data, your whole world is a lie. It's an evolutionarily useful lie based on paying attention to contract and temporally dynamic events, but a lie just the same. And if you're not aware of something like sense data itself as your perfect awareness, I don't see how you can be aware of anything without it being distorted compared to the outside world. Once you've axed out sense data, the rest of our experience is conceptual and suffers the trappings of bias that you've already pointed out.

There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between scientific truth and religous truth. A scientific theory appears analagous to a religon but open-minded scientists have no issue with admiting their theory might be wrong.

A closer analogy might be between scientism (science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.) and theism but again open-minded scientists have no issue with not believing in scientism.

Of course being open-minded is not needed to be a scientist and many are dogmatic about all sorts of things including science but that's to do with them and is nothing to do with science.

chez

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]

There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bumper sticker, is it pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, or put out by a 'peace' organization or similar?

Cheers.

Re: One sentence on Thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you're using the term awareness as it's commonly used. Your awareness sounds very idealized, perfect and pretty much unattainable by mere mortals. A perspective doesn't just invite bias, it creates a bias. One could even say that it IS a bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Letting the discriminatory mind quiet down reveals a clearer picture of reality, that is, one can become more aware of what is going on inside him and around him by quieting the mind. Pure awareness is the logical end to progressively quieting down the mind until is free from judgment and sees reality as is. That is enlightenment. I concede that it is impossible for humans to achieve purity of mind, but on the premise that perfection is infinite. Should this be so there is always more to do in terms of non-introspective introspection.

[ QUOTE ]
At least for humans, our range of awareness is so limited that we select a small range of things to observe and that act alone prevents observation of some ultimate truth because we focus on a microcosm at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes when the mind is busy we are thinking, but when the mind is quiet what is it focused on if not everything. What is everything except reality. If the mind is open and aware of everything, what does it not know as truth in terms of what pure conciousness can know as reality. When we choose to place awareness on something we can choose to conceptualize it or we can choose to have 'choiceless awareness'. After we choose to be choiceless we would just be awareness.

[ QUOTE ]
All that said, what you seem to be speaking of, transcendental meditation strikes me as a very positive activity. By freeing yourself from the main trappings and attachments of society, you can be cleansed of your main stressors and avoid what seems to be for humans, an unnatural and uncomfortable existence. We were not meant to be sitting on our asses working at a desk and driving or sitting in cars with such great access to delicious fatty and sweet food, indoors, with stifled sex lives. It's a very peaceful and useful activity and seems to make people happier as well as healthier as shown in a few studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say free yourself, but are referring to your mind. When the mind is free from attachments where is it but everywhere. And if it is everywhere what is it except purified.

We cannot avoid existence, we are on a rock orbiting a ball of fire, respectively. What else is there to do but purify the mind or enjoy the party. But can you really enjoy the party until your mind is purified?

[ QUOTE ]
I have a number of problems with your post, not the least of which is the fact that usmot's contribution has been entirely consistent with what makes philosophical sense to me as well as modern neuroscience's take on consciousness, sense data, sensory transduction, and thalamic gatewaying.

What I see you attempting to do is go below consciousness to a level where sense data has entered the brain and is a pure and accurate representation of the exterior world. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble here because what happens isn't remotely like that.

The first problem as far as accurately perceiving reality is that humans are aware of such a limited range of the available, ambient data. Our temperature awareness is imprecise and only gives some rough approximation of the energy density of systems in which we're in contact. We are aware of only a small range of electromagnetic radiation, sound frequencies, chemical stimuli and tactile stimulation. Even on our own bodies, sensory discrimination in some areas is so poor we can't tell a pinprick as being in two different places despite a difference of a centimeter. Let's push all those concerns aside and just say "so what, so our range of sensory information is limited to certain ranges of certain external events and not perfectly consistent on our own bodies." I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

If we go just below consciousness and try to reach an area of pure external awareness, we have a problem. You're in the thalamus and the cortex modifies incoming data (tuning and gating it) based on cortical activity. You decide what to experience or not experience to some extent. The information reaching the thalamus is already modified and structured and is not an accurate representation of the external world. It's not our subconscious either because the thalamus is not really a part of the brain where cogitation occurs (and the subconscious needs to be consciously accessible at some point). That's pretty much the cortex and to some extent the cerebellum.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you notice your thoughts you are able to see how the mind discriminates/interprets/contexualizes data. The body’s natural reaction is to take the hand off a burning stove. You don’t have to take your hand off the stove, but the body/mind has become conditioned to instinctively remove the hand because of all the data it has collected from past burnings. You burn your hand and say, ‘damn, I should have lifted my hand faster’ or, ‘I shouldn’t have put my hand there’, so you strengthen a believed thought which becomes an attachment which, unknowingly to you, if you don’t know it’s become an attachment, changes the way you see reality. I’m not saying burning your hand is good, but operating from the mindset that sees how sensory input influences our reality is the mindset that is pure or at least purer in relation to the infinite.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you go to the primary sensory neurons themselves that interact with the outside world, there's a problem. The nervous system is arranged such that one pays attention to changes in the environment. This occurs in both a temporal sense (adaptation--and now how most would use the term, refers to a molecular mechanism by which the identical stimulus over time causes less activity) and in the sense that contrasts are enhanced. The nervous system is structured so that something called lateral inhibition occurs. It's why watermelon tastes sweeter with some salt on it and it's why those edges you see are overshaded on one side and undershaded on the other side compared to how the light actually hits the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the body adapts naturally. The present-moment mindset I'm referring to understands/knows that natural change because the present moment is constantly changing. My girlfriend had a fat cat when I moved away for 6 months, when I came back the cat was significantly skinnier. I noticed because my last concept of the cat was 'fat cat'. My girlfriend hadn't noticed a big change. She was there everyday with the cat and her concept of the cat was constantly changing as he got skinnier. What she didn't realize was that her concept was changing. If she was very 'in the present moment' she would notice the cat's face was skinnier, he was lighter to pick up . . . along the way. If someone could first be in tune with what is happening, that is, be in the present moment, then silently observe how the mind is perceiving things, then that is the platform from which reality can be truth. Since the mind is infinite there would be no end to purification unless infinity can be experienced, which some say they have.

[ QUOTE ]

There's even a blind spot in your vision. The brain just fills in the visual field you perceive to make up for the fact that retinoganglion cell axons (your optic nerve at this point) are placed so that no photoreceptor cells are present in a small degree range of your receptive field. It's a lie to create a complete visual picture of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, so what. It's something, but it can be let go.

[/ QUOTE ]
is applicable here.



[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have some means of knowing how your nervous system is constantly lying to you about reality and can directly access this sense data, your whole world is a lie. It's an evolutionarily useful lie based on paying attention to contract and temporally dynamic events, but a lie just the same. And if you're not aware of something like sense data itself as your perfect awareness, I don't see how you can be aware of anything without it being distorted compared to the outside world. Once you've axed out sense data, the rest of our experience is conceptual and suffers the trappings of bias that you've already pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the center of our discussion. The connection with the 'silent observer' can grow stronger. That is, the silent observer becomes more quiet and more observant as the connection to it is cleansed.

Long time meditation practicioners have said they can feel their blood moving.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a bumper sticker that you see in my part of the world, "Question Reality." Question reality indeed. And not even considering drug states, idealistic philosophy, and the journalistic presentation of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are both doing that, thanks for the reply and insight.