Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness states it experiences, any time it wishes, then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Thanks. I understand now. The "something" that can control the conscious states it experiences , must be separate from consciousness. That feels intuitively true.

I find a problem. There must be something that can control the "something" that must be separate from the "something.

[Sy Borg]

Nature is based on self-organisation. I see no reason why the mind can't also be self-organising. There is no need for an outside agent.

God has done nothing wrong for the same reason that vampires have done nothing wrong, despite fictional claims.

[Joshua10]

Nature is based on self-organisation. I see no reason why the mind can't also be self-organising. There is no need for an outside agent.

God has done nothing wrong for the same reason that vampires have done nothing wrong, despite fictional claims.

The simple point being made Sy Borg is that as the something can CONTROL the consciousness states any time it wishes by bringing itself into the moment if it is out of the moment then that something is separate from consciousness.I have previously suggested that things need to be UNTANGLED or SEPARATED.I would therefore suggest that there is definitely an outside agent to consciousness.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness states it experiences, any time it wishes, then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Thanks. I understand now. The "something" that can control the conscious states it experiences , must be separate from consciousness. That feels intuitively true.

I find a problem. There must be something that can control the "something" that must be separate from the "something.

It needn’t just be intuitively true though.”Player” experiments confirm that it is EXPERIENTIALLY true as well.

I have suggested that there is something that sits between the something and consciousness.

That something being AWARENESS.

[Joshua10]

If you don’t have awareness then you reside within UNAWARENESS.If you are unaware then the something won’t be aware that it can take CONTROL of the consciousness states.

[Joshua10]

I have already suggested the hierarchy in other posts:

The “I am” , AWARENESS, CONSCIOUSNESS , THOUGHTS , EMOTIONS

CONTROL of consciousness is only introduced if the “I am” has AWARENESS of “consciousness toggling”

[Belindi]

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness states it experiences, any time it wishes, then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Thanks. I understand now. The "something" that can control the conscious states it experiences , must be separate from consciousness. That feels intuitively true.

I find a problem. There must be something that can control the "something" that must be separate from the "something.

It needn’t just be intuitively true though.”Player” experiments confirm that it is EXPERIENTIALLY true as well.

I have suggested that there is something that sits between the something and consciousness.

That something being AWARENESS.

But your theory leads to infinite regress: by your reasoning regress would be infinite. I fear you may not understand this.Your language , certain of the words, you choose to describe your theory veil the fact that the imperious "something" in its turn submits to another "something" then another and another and so forth.

[Greatest I am]

If you can see God as nature instead of some imaginary super powered entity, you will agree that we live in the best of all possible worlds, --- and that God has not done anything wrong.

The Gnostic Christian reality.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

[LuckyR]

Nature is based on self-organisation. I see no reason why the mind can't also be self-organising. There is no need for an outside agent.

God has done nothing wrong for the same reason that vampires have done nothing wrong, despite fictional claims.

The simple point being made Sy Borg is that as the something can CONTROL the consciousness states any time it wishes by bringing itself into the moment if it is out of the moment then that something is separate from consciousness.I have previously suggested that things need to be UNTANGLED or SEPARATED.I would therefore suggest that there is definitely an outside agent to consciousness.

An interesting opinion. One of many.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness states it experiences, any time it wishes, then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Thanks. I understand now. The "something" that can control the conscious states it experiences , must be separate from consciousness. That feels intuitively true.

I find a problem. There must be something that can control the "something" that must be separate from the "something.

It needn’t just be intuitively true though.”Player” experiments confirm that it is EXPERIENTIALLY true as well.

I have suggested that there is something that sits between the something and consciousness.

That something being AWARENESS.

But your theory leads to infinite regress: by your reasoning regress would be infinite. I fear you may not understand this.Your language , certain of the words, you choose to describe your theory veil the fact that the imperious "something" in its turn submits to another "something" then another and another and so forth.

I would suggest not and are you missing the point.Secular science in its ignorance says we are nothing more than consciousness.We are not consciousness.My theory does not lead to infinite regress at all.It all stops with the “I am” with awareness controlling the consciousness states.The psychological workings are identical to the cosmos workings because all sciences are interconnected.This confirms that secular science is not natures science.

[Joshua10]

You don’t need gravity if electromagnetism is at play at the macro and micro levels.

Balanced “toggling” +/- forces hold matter together.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that the above forms the basis of NATURES science and these toggling and balanced principles mimic the psychological workings as well.

[Belindi]

Thanks. I understand now. The "something" that can control the conscious states it experiences , must be separate from consciousness. That feels intuitively true.

I find a problem. There must be something that can control the "something" that must be separate from the "something.

It needn’t just be intuitively true though.”Player” experiments confirm that it is EXPERIENTIALLY true as well.

I have suggested that there is something that sits between the something and consciousness.

That something being AWARENESS.

But your theory leads to infinite regress: by your reasoning regress would be infinite. I fear you may not understand this.Your language , certain of the words, you choose to describe your theory veil the fact that the imperious "something" in its turn submits to another "something" then another and another and so forth.

I would suggest not and are you missing the point.Secular science in its ignorance says we are nothing more than consciousness.We are not consciousness.My theory does not lead to infinite regress at all.It all stops with the “I am” with awareness controlling the consciousness states.The psychological workings are identical to the cosmos workings because all sciences are interconnected.This confirms that secular science is not natures science.

The "I am" would therefore be supernatural. The "I am" which is the causeless cause, the ground of being, is either God or , for atheists, the Absolute. It seems Joshua believes each man has inside him a thin sliver of the supernatural.

[Joshua10]

It needn’t just be intuitively true though.”Player” experiments confirm that it is EXPERIENTIALLY true as well.

I have suggested that there is something that sits between the something and consciousness.

That something being AWARENESS.

But your theory leads to infinite regress: by your reasoning regress would be infinite. I fear you may not understand this.Your language , certain of the words, you choose to describe your theory veil the fact that the imperious "something" in its turn submits to another "something" then another and another and so forth.

I would suggest not and are you missing the point.Secular science in its ignorance says we are nothing more than consciousness.We are not consciousness.My theory does not lead to infinite regress at all.It all stops with the “I am” with awareness controlling the consciousness states.The psychological workings are identical to the cosmos workings because all sciences are interconnected.This confirms that secular science is not natures science.

The "I am" would therefore be supernatural. The "I am" which is the causeless cause, the ground of being, is either God or , for atheists, the Absolute. It seems Joshua believes each man has inside him a thin sliver of the supernatural.

I would suggest that the “I am” is therefore NATURAL and not SUPERNATURAL.I would suggest that only a secularist in ignorance and unawareness would claim what is natural to be supernatural.

[Belindi]

But your theory leads to infinite regress: by your reasoning regress would be infinite. I fear you may not understand this.Your language , certain of the words, you choose to describe your theory veil the fact that the imperious "something" in its turn submits to another "something" then another and another and so forth.

I would suggest not and are you missing the point.Secular science in its ignorance says we are nothing more than consciousness.We are not consciousness.My theory does not lead to infinite regress at all.It all stops with the “I am” with awareness controlling the consciousness states.The psychological workings are identical to the cosmos workings because all sciences are interconnected.This confirms that secular science is not natures science.

The "I am" would therefore be supernatural. The "I am" which is the causeless cause, the ground of being, is either God or , for atheists, the Absolute. It seems Joshua believes each man has inside him a thin sliver of the supernatural.

I would suggest that the “I am” is therefore NATURAL and not SUPERNATURAL.I would suggest that only a secularist in ignorance and unawareness would claim what is natural to be supernatural.

Your 'I am' is supernatural by definition if it originates your actions, which is your basic claim.

The supernatural is uncaused: the natural is caused.