Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Yes, it seems to come down to that often. Our perception is in a way the world percieving itself, since all our abilities, and even us too, are products of it. Sometimes the interaction isn't even clearly definable. What is mind and what is matter.

0 Replies

Quex, Cryacuz has partially answered your question. Consider that when "I" see "the world" such a process is a reflection of worldly processes, e.g., neurology, optics, and on and on. The world produces the experience of itself.
Also, mind is not in another universe, so its an aspect of this universe.
The problem with the term, part, also adheres to the term, "whole" (including "universe"). How can I assume there is a whole Reality when I cannot begin to consider the boundaries that enclose and unify it? Part and whole are ultimately meaningless in this context.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyracuz wrote:
Our perception is in a way the world percieving itself, since all our abilities, and even us too, are products of it.

Quote:

JLNobody wrote:
Consider that when "I" see "the world" such a process is a reflection of worldly processes, e.g., neurology, optics, and on and on. The world produces the experience of itself.

The world doesn't produce experiences of itself, per say. If the world produces anything it produces experiences of representations or illusions of itself, which is essentially an alien world.

Much to do about dualism.

0 Replies

Twyvel, we tend to think of the world as consisting of "things." And we attribute to these "things" properties, such as the redness and roundness of an apple. But if we take away from "the thing" its attributes, are we left with a kind of blank "thingness"? Absolutely not; that's absurd. Well, then, we also have no attributes. The red and round attributes of an apple-thing cannot exist if there is no receptacle for them. There IS, however, the experience of, what we call, "roundness' or "redness." But there is no experiencer of them--that, too, implies an unwarranted self-thing having the attribute of experiences. There is ONLY that which we call "experience." Here there is no dualism.

0 Replies

JLNobody

Right.

Then there is no world, and there is no world that produces experiences of itself or anything else. There's just experiencing,.by no one.

There is no world prior to experience. Though we're habituated to think otherwise, but of course there's no one who's habituated, there's just the apparent tendency.

0 Replies

I think it is a trap we humans tend to walk in that when we inflate our thought in order to discern them better we sometimes forget to rescale them before applying them to the bigger picture, leaving notions of absoluteness such as "Then there is no world, and there is no world that produces experiences of itself or anything else. There's just experiencing,.by no one".

Seems to make not much sense that there is experience without something to have it... Come to think, even a rock benefits from it's experience...

0 Replies

Cryacuz, you would agree, I am sure, that we must not be slaves to our grammar. Experience without an experiencer may not "make sense" to us because of our dualistic language structure(s)--and the curse of Descartes--but that does not indicate the reality of subjects of experience.

0 Replies

If we cannot think of an experience without an experiencer, then how do you know that there is such a thing?

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

If we cannot think of an experience without an experiencer, then how do you know that there is such a thing?

Well, because the (supposed) experiencer is also an experience. If it weren't it wouldn't be known, but since it is known then it cannot be an experiencer. It must be an experience.

0 Replies

Yes, we look for the experiencer and find only experience.

0 Replies

Aye, JL, you assume correctly. I do agree.

Ray wrote:

Quote:

If we cannot think of an experience without an experiencer, then how do you know that there is such a thing?

A round rock tumbles down a hill, until it meets a bigger rock. In the colision the smaller rock loses it's roundness, and stops tumbling. There may not be a mind in the rock to collect the knowledge of this experience, but due to the collision the rock is no longer round, so the experience becomes the shape the rock has, before and after the collision.

This is how I envision experience without an experiencer. But I sense that it is bigger.

Twyvel, my last post was not intended to be disrespectful towards you. The wording is just ackward because I couldn't find a better way... Confused

0 Replies

Mind-boggling.

But isn't the experiencer the experience of the experience plus the rational thought that arises from the brain? Confused

Because experiences arises within specific spacetimes, then that collection of mental activies within the spacetime is what people call us, or the experiencer?

As I've said in other thread, the illusion I think is the exclusive importance that a person puts on him or her over another person.

I'll think more about this. Laughing

0 Replies

I cannot find a subject of my experience. And because there is no discoverable subject--no "I" to see "it"--there is no object of experience. Only experiencing. Our mental training (i.e., our culture) and grammar presume an agent for every action (a doer of every deed) and a subject of every experience and a cause of every effect. But these are only modes of thought, not observed realities.

0 Replies

What is the relation between the science of logic and the science of physics?

0 Replies

The former is a way our minds sometimes work, given the proper cultural and educational conditioning; it tells us how hypothetical worlds SHOULD work (in terms of our conditioned prejudices). The latter is an empirical-theoretical mode of inquiry; ideally it shows us how in fact the physical world does work.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:

But isn't the experiencer the experience of the experience plus the rational thought that arises from the brain? Because experiences arises within specific spacetimes, then that collection of mental activies within the spacetime is what people call us, or the experiencer?

Rational thought doesn't come into it. Rational thought is in itself an experience.

What I was trying to clarify with the rock example was that experience is not what you think about things that happen, but how they affect you. Capacity for thought is not a requisite. Nor is memory. A pile of rubble may be a building that has experienced a bomb...

0 Replies

No offence taken Cyracuz, Smile

Quote:

A pile of rubble may be a building that has experienced a bomb...

I'd say, non-phenomenal-observing-Consciousness, though not an observed or observable 'observer' or 'experiencer' is the only presence (as experiencing).

That's the that in Though are That........Non-being.

0 Replies

Yes, Tat tvam asi (from the vedanta portion of the Upanishads). If "that" is "me" and "I" am "that" then there is no duality of subject and object.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

If "that" is "me" and "I" am "that" then there is no duality of subject and object.

From reading that my thoughts embrace the idea of causality. Causality is the only experience and the only experiencer. Action to reaction, but repeated action brings altered reaction, as experience is accumulated, not in the reacting nor the acting part, but in the interaction, since "that is me and I am that, and there is no duality of subject and object".. Smile

Twyvel, I couldn't get my head around that last post of yours. What do you mean by "non-phenomenal-observing-Consciousness"?

0 Replies

Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know