How does one PROVE that SELF is an illusion?

Hey move from "autopilot" onto "manual" and fly out of a window....just recreate what you are conscious of as you go along falling down. Start with the floor down below!

Ummm…intriguing Albuquerque…. .I get “autopilot” and “manual”clearly.

I’m intrigued by “window”…”falling down” …. “floor down below”.

Also, correlations with the sciences are important I feel.

SELF is either AWARE or UNAWARE.

If self is AWARE then self can exercise CONTROL over consciousness types.

However,what CONTROL is SELF exercising?

SELF is controlling MOVEMENT as well as the ENGAGEMENT/DISENGAGEMENT with the consciousness types i.e.manual/autopilot.

If SELF remains STILL at the FULCRUM (i.e.stops the “toggling”) then SELF synchronises with PRESENCE.

What is the correlation/significance of this across the sciences I wonder.

I know that there is significant implications in psychology if SELF can learn to fully control the MOVEMENT and ENGAGING/DISENGAGING with the consciousness types.

“SELF is separate from consciousness and has authority…”
Yes.
Even a rabbit can know he is not merely a bounce.

SELF is always exercising that authority. No question. No what “paradox”. No what “confusing”.
Why it’s not a good thing?
A rabbit’s long ears are always exercising “that authority” too: detecting the noise around. Sometimes one detect forward while another detect backward. haha

I would say that SELF only exercises that AUTHORITY/CONTROL over the CONSCIOUSNESS states if AWARE.

SELF does not exercise that authority/control if UNAWARE.

…i.e.

0,0…UNAWARENESS
0,1….PARTIAL AWARENESS
1,0….PARTIAL AWARENESS
1,1…..AWARENESS

The difference between philosophy and science, touchy and feely:

Well piggy always feels that in pure philosophy people concern more about “subjective consciousness”, while in science people concern more about specific physical environment. The meaning and function of SELF might be a bit different. But the whole system of PRESENCE – SELF – CONSCIOUNESS seems the same.

Neither philosophy has to cater to science, nor science has to cater to philosophy.
All are trying to touch the elephant.
If we can find something of INTERCONNECTION between them, it will be interesting.
If some philosophical principle can be employed to solve some “hard problems” in science, it will be great.

…………………………………………………………….
That “eccentric” rabbit is still “toggling” on the PENDULUM, bungee bungee, and enjoy the game very much. They are “eccentric” but is UNAWARE of this. But they are also authorities and “exercise authority”.
They consider that their “consciousness” is the sole / standard angle of touching the elephant. They never can be AWARE of the FULCRUM over their head.

Why should those guys who are AWARE be subjected to the “limitation” of those “prisoner of consciousness”? What can they do?
Abandon those “prisoner of consciousness” and LEFT them behind. Move on.

Why don’t you go to wiki to recommend your knowledge? Just “toggle toggle” here, you can’t save science.
(Piggy really doesn’t know when the First Order will decide to shout “execute”, and the piggy will disappear entirely in this cosmos.)

“I would say that SELF only exercises that AUTHORITY/CONTROL over the CONSCIOUSNESS states if AWARE.

SELF does not exercise that authority/control if UNAWARE.

…i.e.

0,0…UNAWARENESS
0,1….PARTIAL AWARENESS
1,0….PARTIAL AWARENESS
1,1…..AWARENESS”

Seems you are more of a researcher in psychology? You are going down the way back to “subjectivity”.

As piggy pointed out once upon a time, the absolute 2 – off logic “0, 0; 1,1” represents the absolute difference of the objectivity of PRESENCE: rabbit is rabbit, pig is pig, elephant is elephant, monkey is monkey, etc, …

AWARE is affair in man’s heart (mind). If a man is AWARE, he will view nature in this way; if a man is UNAWARE, he will view nature in that way.

Satisfied yourself in perfect “subjectivity” / psychology or go out to command science with your excellent advantage of FULCRUM. It’s up to your choice.
Yourself need to be AWARE first.

Philosophical ideas are proven by the individual EXPERIENCING the theory.

If SELF doesn’t experience the theory then SELF will not be PERSUADED by it.

Dull / dreary enough.

@ leadfoot:
When you drive your plane, would you like ATUOPILOT or MANUAL?

Haha…one step at a time as you always say…

I have satisfied myself in psychology.

0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1 logic output possibilities are tried…tested and proven…… to me anyway.

THEY are the TEMPLATE in a simple form.

They summarise the closed loop system of the biological machine reasonings and have correlations across all the sciences.

I am persuaded that I am not a machine….I know how the machine works.

It doesn’t dictate me ….I dictate to it.

And IT does state that good is good and bad is bad as possibilities regardless of what we think.

Do you go to wiki to recommend your advantage of FULCRUM? This is also what the pig cares…

In your honest opinion is there enough scientific grounds to back the FULCRUM theory?

Science needs to be able to corroborate philosophy and philosophy needs the be able to corroborate science.

“In your honest opinion is there enough scientific grounds to back the FULCRUM theory?”
Fun comment. Really. Haha
Piggy knows nowadays more than 99 percent of the “scientific grounds” are in the hands of those “prisoner of consciousness”. Even they feel “confusing”, they insist their so called “standard”. they are reluctant to listen to new ideas.

Interesting….

Too much “toggling” happening in the scientific community “standard” theories then?

Is there no concept of “stillness” in equations?

With regard to your question to Leadfoot….……"When you drive your plane, would you like ATUOPILOT or MANUAL?" …..

Haha...don't be fooled by MANUAL consciousness...…...it's a "red herring"

It's the "TOGGLING" one needs to focus on ...i.e. STILL it!!!

A time for all things.

When the flight is to get from point A to point B, I engage the autopilot as soon as I get to cruising altitude and enjoy just sightseeing. But those are the exceptions. Most flights are only for the joy of flying and I would never even think about the autopilot.

“Too much “toggling” happening in the scientific community “standard” theories then?”
One outstanding example is just Einstein’s relativistic principle, “toggling” between establish / abandon. Some guys feel it “confusing”. Some guys dub it “non-sense”. Some guys doubt whether it’s wrong. The oddest, some guys only admit relativistic time. Some guys just shift to play tricky math game. Of course, some guys try to back it up. Many “debate”. (No evidence shows that Einstein ever tried to save his relativistic mass with his own dynamic internal energy equation E = mc². It demonstrated that Einstein seemed UNAWARE that a FULCRUM was over there due to the limitation of era).

“Is there no concept of “stillness” in equations?”
There should be one: Einstein’s static internal energy equation E = m0c².
It demonstrated that actually Einstein was the first guy to touch the FULCRUM. But he seemed UNAWARE that a FULCRUM was over there due to the limitation of era. (No evidence shows that he ever asked such question as “how does internal energy deposit”. Nor any evidence shows that he ever tried to derive the mass – space equation L’ ∝1/ M).
He slid down the PENDULUM again and bungee to another side: the gravity.

………………………………………………………..
Dandan’s Rabbitism has a philosophy column too. But piggy doesn’t think that rabbit would be happy with your FULCRUM. Haha

After piggy “made it under the fence”, piggy will look you up and board your plane “for the joy of flying”…thrilling…