Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, 2009. Description: We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, something that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The conscious self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal image, but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience is "a virtual self in a virtual reality." But if the self is not "real," why and how did it evolve? How does the brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal autonomy, or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books This book was written for the lay person. A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same subject, Being No One, can be found here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsyche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hbC2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg53l8Q Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, > 2009. > > Description: > We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, > something > that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas > Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The > conscious > self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal > image, > but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience > is " a > virtual self in a virtual reality. " > > But if the self is not " real, " why and how did it evolve? > How does the > brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal > autonomy, > or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is > becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a > stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. even if it was " real " .. whatever that's supposed to mean.. or what an alternative would be.. why is there need of a " why " ? ...or a " how " ? it sells books may be the best answer. ..b b.b. > Amazon link: > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_p\ > roddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books > > This book was written for the lay person. > > A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same > subject, Being No One, can be found here: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fp\ > syche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hb\ > C2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg\ > 53l8Q > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, > > 2009. > > > > Description: > > We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, > > something > > that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas > > Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The > > conscious > > self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal > > image, > > but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience > > is " a > > virtual self in a virtual reality. " > > > > But if the self is not " real, " why and how did it evolve? > > How does the > > brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal > > autonomy, > > or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is > > becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a > > stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. > even if it was " real " .. > > whatever that's supposed to mean.. > > or what an alternative would be.. > > why is there need of a " why " ? > > ..or a " how " ? > > it sells books may be the best answer. > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Amazon link: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_p\ > > roddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books > > > > This book was written for the lay person. > > > > A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same > > subject, Being No One, can be found here: > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fp\ > > syche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hb\ > > C2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg\ > > 53l8Q > > > > Bill > > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a separate self. 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. 3. Game over. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, > > > 2009. > > > > > > Description: > > > We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, > > > something > > > that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas > > > Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The > > > conscious > > > self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal > > > image, > > > but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience > > > is " a > > > virtual self in a virtual reality. " > > > > > > But if the self is not " real, " why and how did it evolve? > > > How does the > > > brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal > > > autonomy, > > > or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is > > > becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a > > > stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if it was " real " .. > > > > whatever that's supposed to mean.. > > > > or what an alternative would be.. > > > > why is there need of a " why " ? > > > > ..or a " how " ? > > > > it sells books may be the best answer. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazon link: > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_p\ > > > roddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books > > > > > > This book was written for the lay person. > > > > > > A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same > > > subject, Being No One, can be found here: > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fp\ > > > syche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hb\ > > > C2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg\ > > > 53l8Q > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a separate self. > > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > > 3. Game over. toombaru that's my theory too. no reasons necessary. aren't theoretical thoughts great! you bet. and on no particular grounds... which require rational thought at all. why would it anyway? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, > > > > 2009. > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, > > > > something > > > > that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas > > > > Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The > > > > conscious > > > > self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal > > > > image, > > > > but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience > > > > is " a > > > > virtual self in a virtual reality. " > > > > > > > > But if the self is not " real, " why and how did it evolve? > > > > How does the > > > > brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal > > > > autonomy, > > > > or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is > > > > becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a > > > > stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if it was " real " .. > > > > > > whatever that's supposed to mean.. > > > > > > or what an alternative would be.. > > > > > > why is there need of a " why " ? > > > > > > ..or a " how " ? > > > > > > it sells books may be the best answer. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazon link: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_p\ > > > > roddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books > > > > > > > > This book was written for the lay person. > > > > > > > > A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same > > > > subject, Being No One, can be found here: > > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fp\ > > > > syche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hb\ > > > > C2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg\ > > > > 53l8Q > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a separate self. > > > > > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > > > > > 3. Game over. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru that's my theory too. > > no reasons necessary. > > aren't theoretical thoughts great! > > you bet. > > and on no particular grounds... > > which require rational thought at all. > > why would it anyway? > > .b b.b. > The image of self shimmers to life in the thought-mirroring between the physical organisms. And that is where one has to go to see its ultimate emptiness. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > New book by Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel, just released March 16, > > > > > 2009. > > > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > > We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, > > > > > something > > > > > that we either have or are. In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas > > > > > Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists. The > > > > > conscious > > > > > self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal > > > > > image, > > > > > but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience > > > > > is " a > > > > > virtual self in a virtual reality. " > > > > > > > > > > But if the self is not " real, " why and how did it evolve? > > > > > How does the > > > > > brain construct it? Do we still have souls, free will, personal > > > > > autonomy, > > > > > or moral accountability? In a time when the science of cognition is > > > > > becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a > > > > > stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if it was " real " .. > > > > > > > > whatever that's supposed to mean.. > > > > > > > > or what an alternative would be.. > > > > > > > > why is there need of a " why " ? > > > > > > > > ..or a " how " ? > > > > > > > > it sells books may be the best answer. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazon link: > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0465045677/ref=dp_p\ > > > > > roddesc_0?ie=UTF8 & n=283155 & s=books > > > > > > > > > > This book was written for the lay person. > > > > > > > > > > A summary by the author of his more in-depth book on the same > > > > > subject, Being No One, can be found here: > > > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t & source=web & ct=res & cd=1 & url=http%3A%2F%2Fp\ > > > > > syche.cs.monash.edu.au%2Fsymposia%2Fmetzinger%2Fprecis.pdf & ei=8KDUSc51hb\ > > > > > C2A9mBracK & usg=AFQjCNESNzO9XFiJHeaYlkgIiVgeguwCfQ & sig2=3FP9o1hCUxTtUjKJg\ > > > > > 53l8Q > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a separate self. > > > > > > > > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > > > > > > > > 3. Game over. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's my theory too. > > > > no reasons necessary. > > > > aren't theoretical thoughts great! > > > > you bet. > > > > and on no particular grounds... > > > > which require rational thought at all. > > > > why would it anyway? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > The image of self shimmers to life in the thought-mirroring between the physical organisms. > > And that is where one has to go to see its ultimate emptiness. > > > > > toombaru if there's " one " left to go. or if you go to Togo... it's ultimately pretty empty there too. of course.. there is here. no there...no here....nowhere.. to be found.. no one to go looking. lookey there! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a separate self. 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. 3. Game over. toombaru................Consciousness is a fiction.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a > separate self. > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > 3. Game over. > > toombaru > > ................ > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > Bill is that a fact? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a > separate self. > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > 3. Game over. > > toombaru > > ................ > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > Bill > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. Is that what you're saying? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 consciousness does not create anything, electricity is not aware of any concept called light, the presence of light is said to depict the existence of electricity. -mahesh toombaru2006 <lastrainNisargadatta Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 7:58:51 PM Re: The Ego Tunnel Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn > wrote:>> 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a> separate self.> > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity.> > 3. Game over.> > toombaru> > ............ ....> > Consciousness is a fiction.> > Bill>If the "things" within consciousness have no separate reality..... .consciousness itself has no separate reality.Is that what you're saying?toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 who says? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > consciousness does not create anything, electricity is not aware of any concept called light, the presence of light is said to depict the existence of electricity. > -mahesh > > > > > ________________________________ > toombaru2006 <lastrain > Nisargadatta > Monday, April 6, 2009 7:58:51 PM > Re: The Ego Tunnel > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > 1. Consciousness creates a conceptual overlay along with a sense of a > > separate self. > > > > 2. The imaginary self becomes aware of its own ultimate vacuity. > > > > 3. Game over. > > > > toombaru > > > > ............ .... > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > Bill > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate reality..... ..consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > Is that what you're saying? > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 > Consciousness is a fiction. > > Bill > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. Is that what you're saying? toombaru.................I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such.It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality.[pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates.Consciousness is an aggregate.Therefore in the moment there is no such thingas consciousness.Further, what is not in the moment is not actual,is unreal. Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal.But what is " in the moment " ?A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind...such a person may consider that is being in the now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any senseof continuity. Continuity entails duration. In realitywhat is presented in consciousness are only quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion,so the quanta of sensory fragments can be interpreted as a continuous experience. But suchcontinuity is illusion.Experience is just the display of the brain. There is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closestto " reality " that can be known is the myriad simultaneous quanta of sensory display.Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > toombaru > > > > ................. > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > as consciousness. > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > is unreal. > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > continuity is illusion. > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its limited own purview. > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > toombaru it's a continuous story that never continues. it's an it. there's nothing you can do about it. it doesn't care. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > Bill > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > Is that what you're saying? > > toombaru > > ................. > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > Consciousness is an aggregate. > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > as consciousness. > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > is unreal. > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > such a person may consider that is being in the > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > what is presented in consciousness are only > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > continuity is illusion. > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > Bill > I believe what you say. But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its limited own purview. Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that is awareing its own vacuity? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > toombaru > > > > ................. > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > as consciousness. > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > is unreal. > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > continuity is illusion. > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its > limited own purview. > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that is > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > toombaru you're " working " it right now. or it's " working " " you " . same dif. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > is unreal. > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its > > limited own purview. > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that is > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > you're " working " it right now. > > or it's " working " " you " . > > same dif. > > .b b.b. > Doth It livith in the blind spot? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > Bill > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > Is that what you're saying? > > toombaru > > ................. > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > Consciousness is an aggregate. > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > as consciousness. > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > is unreal. > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > such a person may consider that is being in the > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > what is presented in consciousness are only > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > continuity is illusion. > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > Bill > I believe what you say. But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its limited own purview.The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " .Rephrase that as, " The apparent ability to become aware of <name your aggregate, such as own essential emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " Such ability is only apparent because such awareness is illusory. Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is awareing its own vacuity?Cannot have as there is none such.More important than any of the above is the following:Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circlearound " phenomenal presence and effectively designateas an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed.Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux.So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a wayis a most primal form of " pretend " . And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essentialemptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becomingaware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.]Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets off the ground because any embrace of " This " howeverconceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed,any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the momentit may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same reasons.The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is.And nothing of substance can ever arise from it.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its > > limited own purview. > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that is > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > you're " working " it right now. > > or it's " working " " you " . > > same dif. > > .b b.b. > Doth It livith in the blind spot? toombaru------------------I wonder if Bob knows what you mean by " the blind spot " . You are, of course,referring to Metzinger's notion of inability to see that the construction of a phenomenal self by the brainis precisely that, a construction by thebrain.That is, the " blind spot " is not where any " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans theblind spot it would be quite evident that whatever is experienced is simply a construction, is not " real " .What Metzinger is saying is that we arein effect *hard wired* to be deludedabout existence of a personal self.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > toombaru > > > > ................. > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > as consciousness. > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > is unreal. > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > continuity is illusion. > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > Bill > > > > I believe what you say. > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > beyond its own limited purview. > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > aggregate, such as own essential > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > awareing its own vacuity? > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > More important than any of the above is the following: > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > reasons. > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > Bill > Ok......I can see that.......I think. There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware > of its > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > beyond its > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that > is > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > same dif. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > toombaru > > ------------------ > > I wonder if Bob knows what you mean > by " the blind spot " . You are, of course, > referring to Metzinger's notion of > inability to see that the construction > of a phenomenal self by the brain > is precisely that, a construction by the > brain. > > That is, the " blind spot " is not where any > " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans the > blind spot it would be quite evident that > whatever is experienced is simply a > construction, is not " real " . > > What Metzinger is saying is that we are > in effect *hard wired* to be deluded > about existence of a personal self. > > > Bill > And wouldn't you say that the sense of " we " is an apparitional result of the hard wiring and not an actuality? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > > is unreal. > > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of its > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be beyond its > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that is > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > same dif. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > > > > toombaru It's Aliiiiiiiiiiiive! It's Aliiiiiiiiiiive! Baron von Frankenstein de .b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > toombaru > > > > ................. > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > as consciousness. > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > is unreal. > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > continuity is illusion. > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > Bill > > > > I believe what you say. > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > beyond its limited own purview. > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > aggregate, such as own essential > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > awareing its own vacuity? > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > More important than any of the above is the following: > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > reasons. > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > Bill is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " itself substantial? what would it mean if it wasn't? it probably doesn't substantially mean anything. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware > of its > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > beyond its > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that > is > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > same dif. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > toombaru > > ------------------ > > I wonder if Bob knows what you mean > by " the blind spot " . You are, of course, > referring to Metzinger's notion of > inability to see that the construction > of a phenomenal self by the brain > is precisely that, a construction by the > brain. > > That is, the " blind spot " is not where any > " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans the > blind spot it would be quite evident that > whatever is experienced is simply a > construction, is not " real " . > > What Metzinger is saying is that we are > in effect *hard wired* to be deluded > about existence of a personal self. > > > Bill wonder no more! Bob aka .b b.b. doesn't know anything. and i mean it. and it makes a happiness obtain. who's the " we " who be deluded about this self thingie? no self..no me..no we. no? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Consciousness is a fiction. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > If the " things " within consciousness have no separate > > > reality......consciousness itself has no separate reality. > > > > > > Is that what you're saying? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > ................. > > > > > > I am saying that consciousness does not exist as such. > > > It not only has no separate reality, it has no reality. > > > [pardon if this is splitting hairs, just trying to be clear] > > > > > > Briefly, in the moment there are no aggregates. > > > Consciousness is an aggregate. > > > Therefore in the moment there is no such thing > > > as consciousness. > > > > > > Further, what is not in the moment is not actual, > > > is unreal. > > > Therefore consciousness is not actual, is unreal. > > > > > > But what is " in the moment " ? > > > > > > A person sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying a > > > donut and a cup of coffee, no worries on the mind... > > > such a person may consider that is being in the > > > now. But it is not " in the now " if there is any sense > > > of continuity. Continuity entails duration. In reality > > > what is presented in consciousness are only > > > quantized fragments of sensation. Just as the frames > > > of a movie can be interpreted as continuous motion, > > > so the quanta of sensory fragments can be > > > interpreted as a continuous experience. But such > > > continuity is illusion. > > > > > > Experience is just the display of the brain. There > > > is nothing " metaphysical " about it. The closest > > > to " reality " that can be known is the myriad > > > simultaneous quanta of sensory display. > > > > > > Illusion is the interpretive " findings " in such display. > > > A form of reading tea leaves, and no more real. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware of > > its own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > beyond its own limited purview. > > > > The only problem with that statement is the word " ability " . > > Rephrase that as, " The *apparent *ability to become aware of <name your > > aggregate, such as own essential > > emptiness etc.> would have to be beyond its limited purview. " > > > > Such ability is *only *apparent because such awareness is illusory. > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity of mechanism that is > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > Cannot have as there is none such. > > > > More important than any of the above is the following: > > Illusion begins when there is a seeming apprehension of > > experience itself. To do so is to, in a sense, " draw a circle > > around " phenomenal presence and effectively designate > > as an object of experience (reify) what is so encompassed. > > Such a process is entirely false, however, as phenomenal > > presence is edgeless, borderless, and in constant flux. > > So to " embrace experience in the moment " in such a way > > is a most primal form of " pretend " . > > > > And it is just such false embrace that constitutes what you > > refer to above as " becoming aware of its own essential > > emptiness of conditional attributes. " [Actually, becoming > > aware " of its own X " amounts to the same thing.] > > > > Becoming aware of its own anything never properly gets > > off the ground because any embrace of " This " however > > conceived is already an embarking into falsehood. Indeed, > > any " act " whatsoever by any " it " , however in the moment > > it may seem to be, is illusory and false, and for all the same > > reasons. > > > > The phenomenal present, ever in flux, is all the reality there is. > > And nothing of substance can ever arise from it. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Ok......I can see that.......I think. > > There remains a wondering concerning the nature of the apparatus that becomes aware that all there is the " phenomenal present, ever in flux " . > > Jan Cox speaks of " standing up in the river " or " awareness becoming aware that it is aware " ....which......I imagine..... is somehow outside of the self-referential circularity. > > toombaru and this makes awareness very wary about itself. which makes it think. which screws it up. which tears down the house that jack builds. jack's not aware of this though. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > I believe what you say. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if that were true to the fullest extent, the ability to become aware > > of its > > > > own essential emptiness of conditional attributes would have to be > > beyond its > > > > limited own purview. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the entity or mechanism that > > is > > > > awareing its own vacuity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > you're " working " it right now. > > > > > > or it's " working " " you " . > > > > > > same dif. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Doth It livith in the blind spot? > > > > toombaru > > > > ------------------ > > > > I wonder if Bob knows what you mean > > by " the blind spot " . You are, of course, > > referring to Metzinger's notion of > > inability to see that the construction > > of a phenomenal self by the brain > > is precisely that, a construction by the > > brain. > > > > That is, the " blind spot " is not where any > > " it " is hiding. Quite the opposite. Sans the > > blind spot it would be quite evident that > > whatever is experienced is simply a > > construction, is not " real " . > > > > What Metzinger is saying is that we are > > in effect *hard wired* to be deluded > > about existence of a personal self. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > And wouldn't you say that the sense of " we " is an apparitional result of the hard wiring and not an actuality? > > > > > toombaru would it mean anything either way? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.