An excellent overview of the Self. As a philosopher I see 3 tiers - the Brain and perceptions, the Self incorporating the body and homeostasis, , and underpinning both of these the phenotype, which defines Identity. When you examine them all separately, you can assemble suites of mental constructs, above that hard genetic scaffolding, that do hold hands with each other. Dwight @humanism
Self Acts As *CREATOR"'s Body. It _can_ be used as that purely. Or it can be used by what controls other people. Now that I've *Completely* destroyed ALL concept that *CONSCIOUSNESS* must reside in just because 'it feels like that', I grew into being "*CREATOR*'s best photographer for capturing the year after humanity's dire end game.
The truth is that we don't have the language to create the pictures of understanding about what's happening within Nature. Physics found this out over a hundred years ago with the double-slit experiment. We can model atoms to a certain degree and use those analogies and metaphors to explain the workings of an atom, but, it's only useful to a certain degree. Is an atom a wave or a particle? It's a question that will never be answered, because, we don't have the language to create the pictures to understand Nature. "I don't exist" is hard to understand when someone believes they do exist. People still question what is the I they are referring too. It's a descriptive word used to translate ourselves using understandings we've developed through our own growth path. I doesn't really exist is the sense that you're made up of billions and billions of individual cells, working in symbiosis to create the illusion of one entity. But, the entity isn't an illusion. It actually exists, but that someone just may be not making the same connections as the person who assumes the entity exists. People like to ask for the existence of God. Show me proof! Well, proof is in the thought of the believer. Thoughts are measurable and radiate outside of the human head. We can hook people up to computers and have them think of a tree or a circle and the computer can show what that person is thinking about - to a certain degree. Well, perhaps, eventually we're going to be able to see the idea of what God is to a person. God is simply a descriptive word with several different meanings to each and every person. Does God exists? Yep, but that doesn't mean that the same God inside your head exists for everyone. Natures' imagination is far more greater than our imagination. We believe we have the model correct with mathematics though, because our theories work. Now, all the new sciences are hitting the same wall that physics did a 100 years ago. The beauty of Nature.
"altered consciousness consists of altering the contents of consciousness." What is consciousness *without* contents? *Dreamless sleep* = No world. No time. No things. No "me" perceive the lack of them. *Dream-sleep* = An imaginary world. Imaginary time. An imaginary "me" to perceive them. *Wakefulness* = A world. Things. Time. And a "me" to perceive them. A "me" made up of thought, opinions, preferences, memories, etc. In other words, wakeful and dream states have two different egos. Dreamless sleep has none, but we still know that while we were in dreamless sleep, we "knew nothing." So, what is it that exists in all three states, wakefulness, dream-sleep and dreamless sleep? None of these three states is totally unconscious, so there is a type of consciousness in all three. Consciousness never is shut off completely (not even in coma). So there must be something that continues all through these three states, no? Some "I" that transcends all. Some "I" which experiences all three? Vedanta calls this "Turiya" or "the fourth state" or "pure consciousness." You are not a "me," a thing to be conjured, sustained and defended by thought. Vedanta says that this Turiya is what you actually are. Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art). Vedanta is a philosophy, not a religion, and so expects to be challenged by your direct experience. It is not to be believed, but to be confirmed or not.
tem algum computador testando essas teorias? Se precisar de ajuda me procura mas não vou opinar porque eu tenho uma ideia diferente que pode funcionar e já é usado a muinto tempo mas vamos deixar isso como um complemento a essa teoria complexa quero ver oque isso pode se tornar então continua esse trabalho depois eu conto umas 💡 ideias simples
Too much unnecessary tiptoeing, mystification and beating around a bush.. but thats what makes contemporary industry-forged "award-winning science journalist".. saying the obvious more clearly would shock "consumers".
+Marko Kraguljac I wonder why you call it 'beating around a bush'. The speaker clearly mentions that his is an investigation into a question which has befuddled humans for more than a century, and to which Science hasn't yet found a conclusive answer. So any answer he'd give would be telling about where things stand in neuroscience. There are no definitive answers now, if that's what you were hoping to find, but the knowledge gained from the investigations itself is far more intriguing.
But when asked if there was some ultimate Self underlying the illusive "self" he was noncommittal. When asked by a disciple ,"is there a Self,?" he replied "did I say there was a Self? Then when asked by a second disciple, "So, there is not a Self?," he replied, "did I say there is not a Self?
Anil should NOT come forward on out-of-body experiences and the afterlife.. It takes to have experienced it YOURSELF and FIRST-HAND to know.. Plus SCIENCE is too LIMITED to talk or advance anything on the afterlife. Anil should just realize he DOESN'T know ..he doesn't know (in the "spiritual' so-called 'paranormal' realm and domain for lack of a better word). Voilà.
An excellent overview of the Self. As a philosopher I see 3 tiers - the Brain and perceptions, the Self incorporating the body and homeostasis, , and underpinning both of these the phenotype, which defines Identity. When you examine them all separately, you can assemble suites of mental constructs, above that hard genetic scaffolding, that do hold hands with each other. Dwight @humanism
Is the self just an imagination and who does it belong to, that is quiet entertaining to think about. Danke !
Self Acts As *CREATOR"'s Body.
It _can_ be used as that purely.
Or it can be used by what controls other people.
Now that I've *Completely* destroyed ALL concept that *CONSCIOUSNESS* must reside in just because 'it feels like that', I grew into being "*CREATOR*'s best photographer for capturing the year after humanity's dire end game.
What an amazing person!! I'd love to know more of this topic from him 😊
An interesting take. The audience might also enjoy the book "Phantoms in the Brain"
The truth is that we don't have the language to create the pictures of understanding about what's happening within Nature.
Physics found this out over a hundred years ago with the double-slit experiment. We can model atoms to a certain degree and use those analogies and metaphors to explain the workings of an atom, but, it's only useful to a certain degree.
Is an atom a wave or a particle?
It's a question that will never be answered, because, we don't have the language to create the pictures to understand Nature.
"I don't exist" is hard to understand when someone believes they do exist. People still question what is the I they are referring too. It's a descriptive word used to translate ourselves using understandings we've developed through our own growth path. I doesn't really exist is the sense that you're made up of billions and billions of individual cells, working in symbiosis to create the illusion of one entity. But, the entity isn't an illusion. It actually exists, but that someone just may be not making the same connections as the person who assumes the entity exists.
People like to ask for the existence of God. Show me proof! Well, proof is in the thought of the believer. Thoughts are measurable and radiate outside of the human head. We can hook people up to computers and have them think of a tree or a circle and the computer can show what that person is thinking about - to a certain degree. Well, perhaps, eventually we're going to be able to see the idea of what God is to a person.
God is simply a descriptive word with several different meanings to each and every person.
Does God exists? Yep, but that doesn't mean that the same God inside your head exists for everyone.
Natures' imagination is far more greater than our imagination.
We believe we have the model correct with mathematics though, because our theories work.
Now, all the new sciences are hitting the same wall that physics did a 100 years ago.
The beauty of Nature.
===
Sentience Begat Awareness
*CONSCIOUSNESS* BEGAT SENTIENCE
===
CREATOR CREATES CREATION
CREATION BECOMES CREATOR'S BODY
===
"altered consciousness consists of altering the contents of consciousness."
What is consciousness *without* contents?
*Dreamless sleep* = No world. No time. No things. No "me" perceive the lack of them.
*Dream-sleep* = An imaginary world. Imaginary time. An imaginary "me" to perceive them.
*Wakefulness* = A world. Things. Time. And a "me" to perceive them. A "me" made up of thought, opinions, preferences, memories, etc.
In other words, wakeful and dream states have two different egos. Dreamless sleep has none, but we still know that while we were in dreamless sleep, we "knew nothing."
So, what is it that exists in all three states, wakefulness, dream-sleep and dreamless sleep? None of these three states is totally unconscious, so there is a type of consciousness in all three. Consciousness never is shut off completely (not even in coma). So there must be something that continues all through these three states, no? Some "I" that transcends all. Some "I" which experiences all three?
Vedanta calls this "Turiya" or "the fourth state" or "pure consciousness."
You are not a "me," a thing to be conjured, sustained and defended by thought.
Vedanta says that this Turiya is what you actually are. Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art).
Vedanta is a philosophy, not a religion, and so expects to be challenged by your direct experience. It is not to be believed, but to be confirmed or not.
tem algum computador testando essas teorias? Se precisar de ajuda me procura mas não vou opinar porque eu tenho uma ideia diferente que pode funcionar e já é usado a muinto tempo mas vamos deixar isso como um complemento a essa teoria complexa quero ver oque isso pode se tornar então continua esse trabalho depois eu conto umas 💡 ideias simples
*NOTHING* REQUIRES *CONSCIOUSNESS* IN ORDER TO BRING EACH TRIAL WORLD's CREATOR INTO PLAY, YET NOT BESMIRCH *NOTHING*'s INTEGRITY
===
Too much unnecessary tiptoeing, mystification and beating around a bush.. but thats what makes contemporary industry-forged "award-winning science journalist".. saying the obvious more clearly would shock "consumers".
+Marko Kraguljac I wonder why you call it 'beating around a bush'. The speaker clearly mentions that his is an investigation into a question which has befuddled humans for more than a century, and to which Science hasn't yet found a conclusive answer. So any answer he'd give would be telling about where things stand in neuroscience. There are no definitive answers now, if that's what you were hoping to find, but the knowledge gained from the investigations itself is far more intriguing.
The Buddha said the self is an illusion.
But when asked if there was some ultimate Self underlying the illusive "self" he was noncommittal.
When asked by a disciple ,"is there a Self,?" he replied "did I say there was a Self?
Then when asked by a second disciple, "So, there is not a Self?," he replied, "did I say there is not a Self?
Anil should NOT come forward on out-of-body experiences and the afterlife.. It takes to have experienced it YOURSELF and FIRST-HAND to know.. Plus SCIENCE is too LIMITED to talk or advance anything on the afterlife. Anil should just realize he DOESN'T know ..he doesn't know (in the "spiritual' so-called 'paranormal' realm and domain for lack of a better word). Voilà.