What do you do when you encounter unequivocal first hand proof that you do not actually exist?
You stop believing. You stop playing the game and begin living.
If that is non-sensical to you, then you need to check and see if the evidence put forward to prove your non existence is in fact legitimate.
When that evidence is the structure of your own perception, it requires you to dig deep.
No this isn’t. Religion.
No, it’s not philosophy.
No it’s not a belief system.
It’s the rejection of belief based on direct evidence of the selfless structure of reality.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I consider Renee Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Everything you percieve, you can deny exists but you cannot deny that you are percieving it.
Here’s a little philosophy I have.
When we think of consciousness we think of awareness, self awareness, who we are, where our thoughts come from perhaps but I want to lay down what I believe. The meaning of life, as opposed to what gives each of our lives meaning, is simply to percieve or experience where previously there was no perception or experiences. This is because all life has perception to some degree, if you consider the simplest cells have a rudimentary sense that they react to light and dark. In humans, this perception has evolved from that rudimentary reaction to the senses we have, all part of the brain functions.
Now if you consider the states before life, matter and energy, they do not perceive or experience but they do display constructive relationships. If science explains this it is by technical terminology or mathematical equations, but you must admit it more than resembles a conscious compulsion. This leads me to theorise that consciousness is a fundamental, even quantum, principle to the universe. We also believe that consciousness is one for each of us, but I believe consciousness is one for all of us, for everything.
Awareness is linked to perception, but people hold that self-awareness is linked to consciousness, I hold that self-awareness is linked to sentience. Sentience is an emotional being that has, or at least displays, conceptual thought. Everything that exists is sourced of consciousness, energy, matter, even when you get to us with emotion and imagination. Thought is sourced at Consciousness but by the time it is processed, filtered and translated by our (an individuals) emotions, experiences/memories and imagination/creativity (brain functions), it is but a Chinese wisper of its origin at the consciousness, so that we barely understand each other and we have such varieties of idea. (Not sure how much imagination/creativity is brain function, perhaps it pierces the vail between brain and consciousness, kind of Man made in the image of God, type of deal)
So, constructive relationships and destructive forces exist down to the quantum, to a layman these are described as love and hate. These relationships and forces are sourced at consciousness, which is even more fundamental. That love/constructive relationships are the positive, hate/destructive forces are the negative and consciousness/the source is the neutral. This means that love and hate are not emotions exclusive to humans, residing inside us, but that we exist in them, the state of being even existence, we are sourced from them not visa versa.
If you consider beauty, it is a matter of perception of not only our senses, the asthetic, but emotional and conceptual also. We perceive love/hate in the same way, we have conceptualized it and we feel it in emotion, but that is because it is all encompassing, like time/space, perhaps in some manner it is time/space. Love/hate is sourced at consciousness and it would make sense that our emotions are sourced at love/hate.
@Stephen, the brain is the self, the brain retains experiences/memories, it has artistic and scientific side, it has imagination and emotion. You see, every atom of your brain is linked to the same consciousness, as is every atom in your body, every atom and energy in existence. The brain simply processes the stimuli coming forth from this source, the consciousness. Falibly, mind you.
You may be right about where they come from, I did say it is a theory. But the brain is what we use to translate it into an order that we can then communicate. Our thoughts are a product of experience/memory, emotion and imagination, but the end product of thought is after it has been through those 3 things, the original thought is from the consciousness of all things.
Yeah totally agree the brain does all of those things and does them well. I just don’t see how we are the brain. Are we the brain?
If you take very seriously the idea that the brain does all these things, but the brain is not the self what kind of conclusions do you come to?
Well we are sourced from the same place as everything else in the universe. The brain is where ego manifests, people have called that the self, but it is really the tool we use to communicate ourselves. Desires stem from ego and these influence that original thought from the consciousness in the same manner as emotion, memory and imagination. Probably more that ego and its manifestations are products of emotion, memory and imagination, but are not the source of the self, just a deviating influence on the original thought from the source. Really the source is the self, we all are the samething at that level because of its fundamentality.
Our emotions are probably identical, out imaginations are probably identical, out experiences, however, are completely unique to each of us. I believe it is our memories that shape our ego, our ego is the translator of the original thought, the ego is made up of memory, emotion and imagination. The memory is the wild card that affects every persons translation because memory/experience affects imagination and emotion. When those two are deviated by memory/experience, this ultimately results in us all being individuals.
The human is a physical being designed by the consciousness to interact on the material level but over time, due to the clarity of material communication, the communication between each being on the fundamental level of consciousness has become too inefficient, it is more suggestive than definitive. Humans need to communicate with much more specific language than impressions so communication was re-routed to the human language.
This means that the thoughts are translated through the ego tool and it means our awareness becomes far more focused on our ego being self than the original source. This makes us individuals with different resulting thoughts although our self and our original thoughts are one.
Well, fundamentally what I’m saying is that there is no self, it is a collective consciousness. It is the ego tool of communication, emotion and imagination affected by memory/experience, that makes us individuals, not the fact that we are seperate human beings.
When I think of ‘no self,’ it’s something beyond logical explanation or comprehension. Like if you think of the concept of nothingness, you have an image of nothing, which really is not nothing, it’s something. Dark empty space is something. Blankness is something. It’s a concept. So true nothingness, true ‘no self,’ lies beyond our mental perceptions. Pure awareness with no mental labeling or thinking. Nothing in the literal sense. Nothing in the sense that it can’t even be imagined or pondered. It has to be experienced and really cannot be explained in my opinion.
@wesker53r86, God and religion are irrelevant, there are 2 things only that are important enough to commit to memory 1) The choice to love or hate, because the sake of everything depends on it and 2) your passion in life, because it doesn’t nessecarily make life easier but it makes life worth it. That is what keeps you sane.
@Ray Butler, but this isn’t something I’m trying to debate. It’s beyond debate for me. It’s not a theory or what I believe to be true. Something can’t be confused with nothing, because I can’t “think” about experiencing nothing. It’s not a concept I can think myself into knowing, and isn’t a concept in itself. It’s pure awareness, which must be experienced.. no philosophy involved.
@Ray Butler, huh? As in am I too afraid to think about nothing? No. If you think about nothing, it’s a concept. Even if you come to some seemingly profound ‘conclusion,’ it’s still a thought, and a thought is something. So it’s impossible to think about nothing. It can only be experienced. thinking about nothing is superficial experience. @EliseTheAstronaut, are you talking about what I’m saying as a paradox?
Well, imagining is an experience in itself, but an atom does not experience but it is linked to the universal consciousness so it exists as an impression, but complete non-existence is a complete lack of experience or impression, the only way is not to imagine but go there, and that is…. (but going there is even suggesting there is somewhere to go, misconception)
@Ray Butler, detachment, non-identification, cessation of thinking, while still being aware. not trying to stop thinking, but actually not thinking. Because trying is a mental action itself. Unlike a theory or concept, t can’t be explained or comprehended in the same way that experience would give. So my explanation is very poor.