You have no proof that the mind is anything but a concept. Unless you can prove it beyond its existence as a concept.

I just refuted you. Deal. — Bartricks

No. Science refuted you.

Mental processes occur in brains. Again, no brain => no mental processes. Fact.

Thinking is a brain process. No brain => no thinking. Fact.

@Bartricks

You claim that an actual infinity does not exist. Does an actual mind exist?

Then, I am unable to respond to your satisfaction.

Is that what you've got from all the explanations I've given?

You still haven't answered the question. — Bartricks

I have. I've given you an event which encompasses our past, present and future.

Unless you show me the deficiency in the answer, I don't know what else to say.

The record of events in your experience can only be as you allow for them.

For me, while there are events which are characterized into pasts, presents and futures, there are also those events beyond such designations due to their capacity to exceed such limitations depending on perspective, case in point, this year (this moment of our earth's revolution cycle).

For me, this year is already in the past, present and future in as much as its moment of occurrence, from my perspective, encompasses all those designations.

So you think that if an event if present, it is also future and past? — Bartricks

No. I'm saying that an event just is.

Allow me to answer your query with another sort of query:
Is the current year (2020) past, present or future?

My point is, there are certain events which defy the limitations of time we attempt to stamp onto them.

Time is a marker, a point of record, of an event with respect to other events. For us, humans, it exists within our memory relations, primarily as a sequence marker.

Like I've said, it's about perspective. If you choose to experience multiplicity and differences with respect to time relations, then that is what you will experience. All I'm saying is that, there is a perspective where time relations are not part of the experience because they are too limited.
For example, here inside this planet earth, we have day and night. Immediately outside of it, they cease to be experienced because that phenomena is limited to the relation between the rotation of the planet with respect to the sun. (And perhaps it affects other planets and satellites within solar systems.)
Also, I said what we refer to as past, present and future is dependent upon our 'refresh' rate which, as I explained, is determined by the variations operating in our consciousness (awareness-response mechanism) and through our application of intelligence.

For example, how long is a present moment according to you? A second? A millisecond? A microsecond? More? or less?

Personally, from what I've observed, a moment for most people is when the attention of their consciousness is directed towards their memory. That is, when they are aware of the record of mental images (the percepts and concepts). Therefore, a moment would still be abstract in its definition even if it got imprinted with other tags and labels, and which would not really delineate any discernible character/aspect from its mysterious/unknown identity.

I get your perspective.

Perhaps, instead of modern contemporary philosophy, try explaining it to the present modern you. If you can explain it to yourself, then it is philosophy.

Well, the present isn't the past, is it? The past is the past. The present is the present. And the future is the future. They're mutually incompatible properties.

Something that exists now, is in the present. It may have existed in the past - but that's not the same as saying that it exists now. — Bartricks

Past, present and future, or linear time as I have learnt to call it, is fundamentally dependent upon our 'refresh'-rate. That is, how many times we need to do (perform) or relay influence over our faculties for perspective to be generated, developed/cultivated and permanently set (crystallized) within us. The intelligence which operates within reality is continuous throughout infinity/eternity. That is, for reality (the absolute or God), everything is one continuous active moment of intelligent application. For us, humans, the 'refresh' rate is quite short. For example, we cannot endure more than a few minutes without oxygen or a few days without sleep, we cannot carry memory from the first moment of our breaths to our last, to cultivate any kind of discipline within us takes many cycles of repetitions, we have a life cycle of about 100 years, and so on. So, it may be said that, in terms of application of intelligence, the greater the 'refresh' rate the lesser the intelligence a particular point of reality applies.

Think about it this way, why do we say that our reptilian brain governs our survival mechanism. Perhaps, it's because, in one perspective, the reptilian mechanism of physical life is superior to any others. Even today, reptiles are some of those with the longest life-spans. So, it could not be coincident that, through all our life evolution, that part has been maintained.

Anyway, my point is this, we have a past, present and future, or whatever other designation of time, because the processes of intelligence which we apply need to be reset every so often. This way, when we sleep, nature's intelligence (mechanism) takes over, and when we wake, our activities are a combination of nature's intelligence and ours. For us, time is a better marker of relativity and activity than our memories.

Another consequence of the refresh rate in our application of intelligence is the size of our consciousness (awareness-response mechanism). For example, I'm currently alone in my study. Suppose, one of the people I know dies right now. By the time I'm informed about it, the event would be in the past. And, before being informed, the concept of that life would still be in my present, eventually to be revised much later after the fact. However, if a significant part of your body dies, you will be in the know throughout the whole process of its demise. But, the intelligent mechanism making that possible is one designed by nature (reality) for us.

Therefore, it is our limitations that organize sequences of events linearly through pasts, presents and futures. And, it is possible, with unlimited application of intelligence and, consequently, an unlimited consciousness (awareness-response mechanism), to conceive of reality (in its absolute sense) as only having a now. Because all activities are contained within that single enduring moment.

It is just a concept, a predominantly metaphysical one. But then knowledge of reality would have to be constructed predominantly on metaphysical (beyond our physique/physics) blocks. There are books with such ideas, try books on spirituality, yoga, esoteric, etc. However, beyond books, it is possible for someone, if diligent enough, to work out reality for themselves since it is something they are. The idea is to know thyself and it's the best way to learn (see Sadhguru).

Yes.

For an absolute being, everything exists and will always exist NOW.

For those with limited perspectives, it will always take time for cause and effect to manifest and express. The law of cause and effect is instantaneous but the limitations of the situations in which they are manifest and expressed simulate the multiple variants of time and perspectives. For example, for a lazy, obese, totally physically unfit human, the difference in moments from when the will (intent or impulse to action) is actualized to the moment the hand is raised in an attempt to sucker punch a bully whose dissing them, is far greater than if the intent were generated by the current heavy weight boxing champion of the world.

For an absolute being, lacking any limitations means that everything is at this moment because everything is actualized right now. Yes, your arms are too short to box with GOD. :wink:

Linear time => life activities are arrayed along a sequence of past, present and future. (Hint: 3D perspective)

Circular Time => involves repetition of activity over and over again, even though the succeeding cycles are variants of the first and there is some awareness of similarities and analogies despite the inability to get out of the rat race because it is believed to be necessary and integral to those life activities. (Hint: 4D perspective)

Spiral Time => involves repetition of activity as in circular time but with the capacity to learn the greater lesson (the fundamental principle) and therefore develop the capacity to move on to greater dimensional awareness, perception and activity. (Hint: 5D perspective)

Spherical/All-encompassing Time (All/Absolute Time) => Life is being. Time is only generated when one chooses to perform an activity whose perspective is limited in comparison to the whole of being. Therefore, time relations are generated through the perspective of multiplicities within the whole. The whole itself is not limited by time and only uses it as a tool for counting and keeping of records (relating, translating and expressing) within a certain dynamic. (Hint: Much higher than 5D perspective)


Life is perspective. What you see is what you get.

The idea that there can be a simulation that is separate from reality is the least thought out idea. A simulation has to be projected from somewhere. And no matter how many gradations we conceive of towards the simulation we choose to consider, the fundamental origin will always be reality. And, the reality and simulations are connected and influence each other. For example, a painter, the art and the canvas describe each other mutually, each according to its connection with the other. The same applies to video games, the console, the electricity, the players, etc. Ultimately, everything exists in, and is connected to reality. Differences and separations only exist in perspective. And what is perspective outside of consciousness, of awareness? Nothing.
So, a simulation is a limited activity of some consciousness/awareness which ultimately must belong to a greater consciousness/awareness because nothing can exist outside of consciousness/awareness. Therefore, consciousness is perspective (e.g. a simulation, a concept); it is also existence, as well as reality, and is ultimate.

From what I get outside of mathematics, the word infinite set or set of infinite 'anything' is an oxymoron. Because infinity or an infinity of anything contradicts with the meaning of set, which implies a kind of definiteness (and a kind of limitation). However, infinite set as used in mathematics is a way of expressing a concept which isn't realizable (factual).

That means, infinity is a concept, whether actual, potential or other.

Your premise of infinity lacks one major factor. That is, continuity.

Infinite also means non-stop (endless). Even before the addition and division which you mention, the collections must have been constantly progressing in size and, possibly, in as many progressions as is possible e.g. arithmetic, geometric, logarithmic, exponential, etc.

Mathematics works with defined limits, so when it encounters an undefinable 'process' (theoretically), it shows how immune it (the undefinable process) is to any of its defined (limited) operations.

What is 'I'?

If 'I' is the identity of a human, then it is not eternal. Humans are mortal => human lives end.

Thanks. This ITP is taking my mind places.

Mathematics is indeed a product of human thought, hence independent of human experience for its rules, but is nonetheless always dependent exclusively on human experience for its proofs. Depending on where one stands between the extremes of empiricism and rationalism, the case can be made that math isn’t appropriate to the objects of reality so much as the objects of reality are appropriate to math. Especially nowadays, when the theoretical predictions are strictly mathematically grounded, which requires our experimentation to be set up in accordance to that which the math determines we should discover. — Mww

The point is that mathematics is used creatively as well as empirically. I'm not advocating for one against the other. Like Einstein, I've just realised that mental conception (creativity) has much greater potential to knowledge processes than I had been applying.

I already see the beginnings of the circularity which infects most philosophical discussions and which is often a product of the different meanings we assign to the words we use. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with your arguments though they seem to want to be counter-facts to mine. In reply, I would simplify my original statement to the following:

Knowledge extracted solely from experiential and practical information is much deficient than that which has been imbued with creativity. Higher human intelligence constantly endeavours more towards creative processes of knowledge (through insight and intuition) than mere translation of experiences. And as Einstein puts it, it's because the creative processes are not as limited as those dependent on experience or empiricism.

Our knowledge (and perspective) always seeks to expand. Therefore, fundamental to that need is a faculty that cannot be limited in its expansion. Unfortunately, and as with all resources under human management, with great power comes great responsibility, and many a man has fallen victim to their own lack of discipline towards mastering their creative abilities. As I see it, it is the only reason to want to distinguish between conceptualization and imagination, or in a much simpler parlance, to distinguish between the man of high intelligence and the daydreamer. It's not a question of different faculties but of mastery or appreciation of its utility. (The daydreamers are analogous to the perpetual drunks getting wasted in the name of fun while the man of high intelligence is a connoisseur of fine alcoholic drinks. Both drink, but in different ways and to different ends - just as we all conceptualize (imagine) but differently.)

Albert Einstein is also quoted as having said,

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein (From the lecture, 'Geometry and Experience').

If individual rights are not part of the greater good, then there's a degree of primitivity that the society needs to overcome.

The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions. — Possibility

This is just what I said. Whatever the process of human causation (initiating of actions), we (humans) reference it as willing.

By outside, I mean regardless of one’s position within it. This is how we’ve determined our relative position on a spherical Earth, in the Solar System, the galaxy and the spatial structure of the universe. It’s how we’ve determined our relative position in human civilisation, the evolution of life and the unfolding of the temporal structure of the universe. It’s how we determine our position within our social groups and a global humanity, and why we struggle to acquire an accurate view of our position within both the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe. — Possibility

How is any of the above without regard for time when time is one of the fundamental references for all those relations you've pointed out?


As to my perspective, it is neither heliocentric nor specific relative to any other reference point. I would describe my perspective as comprehensive or, at least, an attempt at it. To be able to extrapolate anything about reality as a whole, I must attempt to embody everything within me and see everything as parts of me as well as see myself as the unity of everything - in imitation of the reality I wish to understand.

The biggest problem with the Newtonian perspective is that it removes all reference to the ‘self’ as a position within that reality. The problem this creates is similar to the problem solved by acquiring a heliocentric structure to the solar system: by positioning our perspective at a point within rather than central to the structure, we get a more accurately objective view. That’s all I’m attempting to do, really. — Possibility

Whether the perspective is heliocentric or at a point within the structure, it would still be relative (to some other points). The only way to reference the whole of reality is to have a perspective that embodies all perspectives. To that end, our conception and examination of reality as a whole is such an attempt. Within reality, all its components (humans included) are subject to relativity. Time is inescapable for all those components because it is an emergent property of that relativity. The only way to be outside of time is to be beyond relativity (as the absolute whole). Therefore, only reality in its absolute sense is outside of time because there is nothing beyond it or which causes it to be relative. For us (humans), and every other 'thing' within reality, time is inevitable.

Energy, for instance, has activity without form. Potential energy has influence with neither activity nor form. Likewise, cause and effect have activity without form, but will has influence with neither activity nor form. — Possibility

Energy, cause and effect, will, etc are not identities (or existences). Rather, they are aspects (or perspectives) of existences/identities. All forces/influences are contained within (or interact through) forms, just as all forms are configurations/structures of forces, and both forms and forces are in constant expression and interrelation hence perpetual activity.

*will is just the human analogy to cause.

I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe. — Possibility

What more is there? Please share.

And both potential energy and will exist and have influence outside time, enabling us to predict, imagine and initiate activity. — Possibility

What does 'outside time' mean?

I would think that anything within the human realm of perception and participation is within the bounds of time. So, how have you arrived at outside time?

The language around energy and ‘doing work’ disguises the reality that energy is not exactly caused, but rather manifests from its own potential in relation to the potential of interacting events. — Possibility

I think we have the same idea but are expressing it differently. I claimed that the principle of cause and effect and the principle of energy (vibration) are all-inclusive to all components of reality. That meant that they were fundamental to reality. In short, reality is energy. And, reality is cause and effect.
Energy is cause and effect - That which causes is energy. That which is effected is energy. The only difference is perspective. Fundamentally, all absolutes are identical. Cause and effect is primarily a perspective with regard to activity. Energy is primarily a perspective with regard to force. Both force and activity are integral to reality.


Also, NOTHING IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME. If anything exists then it must have form (a configuration), force (influence) and activity. Where there's form, space is inevitable; where there's activity, time (relativity) is inevitable. And because form and activity are fundamental to reality, space and time are inescapable.

Nothing (implying no thing or lack of anything) is a misnomer with respect to identity (existence). We can't deny the existence of something which we constantly affirm. Words like nothing are mental constructs we use for comparative thinking. They are mental mirror-images of what we reflect upon. Nothing (or no thing) is mental slang for inverted/reversed thing-ness.

How is potential energy manifest? — Possibility

It is manifest in the way we perceive and/or understand it. Why would energy be potential? Because it is assigned a certain degree of probable capacity for work. Therefore, the potential of any energy is manifest with respect to activities and the conditions they take place in.

What you’re doing here is reducing potential energy to energy and energy to vibration, by stating that it is “only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards”. This is a common move for physicists/physicalists (not assuming either), where the ‘potential’ or ‘potentiality’ is only considered relative to the actual, rather than the other way around. This error of correlation (in my opinion) is why quantum mechanics is so difficult for many to understand outside of the calculations. — Possibility

No, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that potential energy is not actual energy; it is. Potential energy is actual energy. However, its potentiality is relative. For example, both kinetic and potential energy are energies; but the difference is with respect to the state in which they are manifest. 'Potential' and 'kinetic' are expressions of the conditioning of the energy, and thus potential energy can translate to kinetic and vice-versa. In both cases, it is impossible to negate the aspect of them as being 'energy' even when the conditioning changes. My point is, the perspective of reality as energy is all-inclusive, because it can be applied to all components of reality.

The principles of cause and effect and vibration refer to a reality that is four-dimensional: relative to time and space. But what is real or true is not necessarily bound by time, or by cause and effect. Potential energy, for instance, is not an ‘effect’ and has no ‘cause’ - and yet we understand it to be real/true. It is a truth that exists in relation to value and meaning, but has no defined temporal or spatial aspect. The principle of cause and effect does not apply to potential energy, and neither does the principle of vibration. — Possibility

Firstly, as you have already accepted, "potential *energy*" is energy. Secondly, it is only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards. And, in that work, cause and effect cannot and will not be avoided. So, to me, the principles of cause and effect and energy/vibration are all-inclusive no matter the perspective or paradigm of reality one takes into consideration.

I think these principles need to be more inclusive than cause and effect or vibration in order to operate through and enfold ALL of reality despite relativity to space, time, value or meaning... — Possibility

More inclusive... ? In what way? And, how are the principles of cause and effect, and vibration (energy) limited?

So what is truth, then? — Bartricks

Truth is an expression of 'what is'.

By 'what is', I don't mean facts. I mean reality in its absolute unchangeable perspective or identity. That's because no matter how much 'things' (within reality) change, reality as an identity remains the same.

So far, I think the best way to express truth is to express the principles through which it manifests (this is based on the perspective that we, humans, and everything else, are a manifestation of reality - therefore, truth is expressed by the principles which operate through everything, despite the relativity, and which also enfold everything).

I believe we can extrapolate a few of such principles, for example, the principle of cause and effect, the principle of vibration (or energy) - in that, all is vibration (or energy), etc, etc.

I believe facts are just reports of events or situations we observe. Facts can change but the truth can't be anything else or any other way.

real life is a hallucination. but the mind has no other reality to compare it to that is more real in order to call this reality unreal. — OmniscientNihilist

Real life can't be a hallucination if there isn't anything else more real to compare with. A hallucination implies it is less real than something else.

Personally, life is real. Mental images and events are real because the mind or brain is real. It is the same with a storybook, the book is real and the story is real too. The story can only be fiction in relation to what we call factual records, otherwise it is real because it exists.

Imagine if you will a proto-human species with brains small enough that they didn't have the problems that we have with squeezing our baby heads through the birth canal. — Pfhorrest

Earlier human species had bigger skulls than we do.

Left: homo sapiens skull.
Right: Neanderthal skull.

Through evolution from neanderthals to homo sapiens, brain size increased while skull size decreased (jaws, teeth, etc, also decreased).

If you are interested in learning more about the soul (and spirit) though not necessarily according to christian teachings, read "The Spirits' Book" by Allan Kardec. It has an explanation (not scientific) on the situation of the soul/spirit with respect to mental deficiencies.

Theosophy also delineates an elaborate relation between our bodies, spirits and souls.

Christians often say that if we are ultimately one person than we can't love. I think this false because it forgets spiritual discernments. But if we are all one person, does this mean I either have or someday will literally live your life? I dont get how the dispersion works — Gregory

Hinduism, on the whole, has many teachings concerning who we are, now as humans and ultimately as life. I think only those Christians who aren't acquainted with those teachings do find any problems with them.

As to living others' lives, it seems unnecessary. Much easier to gain others' perspectives.

Is life sacred? In what way? I think it depends on the mode of appreciation (perspective).
Does life have intrinsic value? Aren't all or any values it could have intrinsic? Again, this depends on perspective (language/expression).

Personally, I think life is more complex and vast than the average understanding of humans. Most of the time, we (humans) like to think life begins with our appreciation of it. But what about before humans were on earth? We still had animal and plant life, right? Do they constitute life? Why? How?

While biology is a reasonable way to define certain aspects of life, it is still too deficient to designate what life is in its entirety. Organic, inorganic, living, non-living, etc, are just attempts at defining certain aspects of activity and interaction within life. And what about nature (with its ecosystems, genetic developments, creative expressions, intelligent operations, etc)? Another fact we don't often acknowledge is that we are a part of nature, we belong to it. And yet, human appreciation, while important to us, is not the only priority to nature. Nature has its own operation and appreciation (satisfaction, balance, interactive associations, etc) of itself and which is far superior to anything we could define. In fact, human understanding could be expressed as a replica of nature's appreciation. Though insufficient, it is ever progressing.

(A metaphysical approach to a subject such as life is inevitable since the fundamental premise of our knowledge of life entails considerations beyond mere experience of or contact with 'things', primarily because our perspective and language are limited with respect to the activities beyond what we designate as our selves. Therefore, it is inevitable that, in some ways, we must express ourselves symbolically/colloquially.)

Reality is life. Often, we express life as a perspective/part of reality.

What value does life need other than being life? Isn't life the fundamental of all meaning, significance, value, merits and demerits?

What I mean is that life is itself self-defining because it isn't defined by anything other than itself. Life gives meaning to its components not vice-versa. Merits, demerits, value and the lack thereof are all subjective to life.

To assign value to life is to imply it is subjective. Subjective to what? Subjective how? Merits and demerits are with respect to certain relations in life. And yet, with or without those relations, life can still unfold.

For example, plates and spoons cannot be said to be intrinsic to nutrition. Primarily because we can receive nutrition even without them. However, for most people, they (plates and spoons) are given a role in the larger process of nutrition but they don't confer any value, nutrition being a value in itself.
It's the same with life - human values and appreciation have their role in life but they don't define it. Life is value in itself.

Imo, life is the epitome of meaning. It (through us) confers values, merits and demerits. The reverse doesn't work.

Hey Brian what's your take on 'the stream of consciousness'? — 3017amen

For me, ultimately, consciousness is a connection/relation to the greater life; a link between me and everything. But our thoughts are not ultimate and neither are our memories. What we refer to as consciousness is like a hint in a story - through the hint we become aware of the possibility of a something but the hint is not the something. And yet, without the hint, we cannot infer the something. Furthermore, both the hint and the something are part of the unfolding story, each with its own place.

To me, random is an idea like 'nothing'. It is just a mental tool we use for comparative thinking.