One sentence on Thought

[einbert]

[ 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.

[J. Stew]

[ 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.

[J. Stew]

[ 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.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ 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.

[usmhot]

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.

[J. Stew]

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.

[usmhot]

[ 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.

[J. Stew]

[ 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.

[usmhot]

[ 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.

[J. Stew]

[ 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.