Yup, the unfortunate result of returning to earth after the wondrous transcendent is often an inflated ego the size of a small galaxy.

You are referring to experience, and the essential element of experience is emotion, which I would agree can not be described with intellect at all - it must be experienced - suggesting emotion is a force rather then a concept. To feel the force / emotion of ones body is the only way of knowing it. This is the hard problem of consciousness.

I wouldn't put to much emphasis on emotion myself, as it is a system within the vehicle of the body for the purposes of controlling behaviour, in a conditioned, or inherited and strategic way.

Likewise experience while being a fundamental property of being is also provided by the action of the body. If one is to distinguish the being from the vehicles through which it is hosted. One much identify the vehicles and their actions in this hosting and distinguish the spirit, or essence of being form the vehicle. Such knowing does require some practice, but as I have hinted, we do already know these things were we to but know it. To see the wood for the trees.

I think it does, Banno...

One much identify the vehicles and their actions in this hosting and distinguish the spirit, or essence of being form the vehicle. — Punshhh

This would be a dualism, whereas I am a monist. Once the wave passes, so dose the pattern that formed it, I believe.

I wouldn't put to much emphasis on emotion myself, as it is a system within the vehicle of the body for the purposes of controlling behaviour, in a conditioned, or inherited and strategic way. — Punshhh

What is controlling what / who? What is the strategy?

In biology we are the vehicles of DNA, but in some eastern philosophy we are the vehicles of a life force. We being nodes in a lineage of life. The conceptions are very close, and I have faith in them. Do you agree?

It looks like a pattern but it is not one. There's no horse in the clouds. — Olivier5

But there is, of course, a pattern we recognise as a horse-picture.

It's an illusion created be your perspective. It's only when seen from a certain angle that it looks a bit like a horse. If you see the same cloud from 100 km away it would look nothing like a horse. It's like the constellations, a matter of perspective.

It's an illusion created by your perspective. — Olivier5

Not unless you mistook it for a horse, which you didn't.

It's a pattern you recognised with particular ease from your perspective, but which you may then impose with ease from almost any other.

You have to assume there is a third state, and this would be immortality. — FrancisRay

Well, I think "never existed in the first place" isn't immortality.

Not unless you mistook it for a horse, which you didn't. — bongo fury

Who said I didn't?

Who said I didn't? — Olivier5

What, you mean in some very fleeting way, for a small moment, in some small corner of your mind?

Or were you able to maintain the mistake, in some subtle way? Art as illusion?

Yes, I was forgetting how entrenched that theory is.

So, for some such reason, you don't think pictures are generally patterns? Merely, illusions of patterns? Ok.

The wave existed, only during its "life". The pattern that corresponds to it is real, but non-existent.

Therefore reality contains that which exists, and patterns.

My problem with this scheme is that I think that saying that patterns are non-existent is just a shorthand; patterns are mental objects, and therefore they exist as some cerebral disposition of biological, chemical, physical matter. (There is no pattern of X aside from my mentalization about X).

In my words, the wave existed, only during its "life". The pattern that corresponds to it existed, only during the observer's life.

We end with all-pervasing death; death to that which is real and death to the pattern. Neat!

What, you mean in some very fleeting way, for a small moment, in some small corner of your mind? — bongo fury

I suggest you ask yourself why you don't expect anyone to mistake a horse-shapped cloud for a real horse. What is the essential difference between the two, you think?

This would be a dualism, whereas I am a monist. Once the wave passes, so dose the pattern that formed it, I believe.

Its only dualism from a certain perspective, or in other words, where does one draw the line between monism and dualism. From where I'm looking it's monism.
In reality we can't answer this question as we are in a position of ignorance.

What is controlling what / who? What is the strategy?

The organism of the body, so as to protect and nurture the body within a social colony. Before we developed larger brains and intelligence, emotion was more important in controlling behaviour.

In biology we are the vehicles of DNA,

I don't attribute such importance to DNA, as it is the source of the encoding of the structure of the body, rather than the control of the organism during its day to day life, or in experience. Therefore DNA is not involved the strategic, or social behaviour.

We being nodes in a lineage of life.

Agreed. I see the biosphere as an organism, likewise humanity as an a organism. Organisms which are divided into seperate units, or individuals.

I don't attribute such importance to DNA, — Punshhh

When I say DNA, I really mean epigenetics, or cellular consciousness. DNA seems to be the custodian of this. You see the biosphere as the main organism, and humanity as one of its components? What caused the biosphere ? How did it come to be?

When I say DNA, I really mean epigenetics, or cellular consciousness.

I can agree with that.

DNA seems to be the custodian of this.

I agree that DNA plays an important day to day role in cellular life.

You see the biosphere as the main organism, and humanity as one of its components?

Yes, also individual cells likewise.

What caused the biosphere ? How did it come to be?

Both questions are not answerable from our current position. I'm not saying the answers are beyond our understanding, but are not, perhaps within our area of knowledge. It's possible that someone has got a right answer, but how could this be verified? Also, there may be beings with us who know the answers but for some reason or circumstances are not telling us.

Also, there may be beings with us who know the answers but for some reason or circumstances are not telling us. — Punshhh

Do you mean beings living within us? I think our cells are a sort of being that collectively create us.
Is this insight part of a school of thought, or is it your own construction?

Do you mean beings living within us?

I don't know, it's speculation. My point was that there may be beings in the biosphere with knowledge of this existence, while we are in ignorance.

I think our cells are a sort of being that collectively create us.
Is this insight part of a school of thought, or is it your own construction?

It's Theosophy which is derived from Hinduism. Some of it is my own thinking, I've lost track of where one ends and the other begins.

the wave was not destroyed, it was transformed. I cannot die ( be destroyed), not because I do not exist, but because death is not destruction but transformation. The pattern is not destroyed but transformed into a new pattern. Energy alters form yet remains, so to shall I.

:up:

Those who identify with something anthropocentric surely must die. But those who identify with the universe cannot possibly die! How can they? I think it is a much healthier paradigm. :smile:

It's Theosophy which is derived from Hinduism. Some of it is my own thinking, I've lost track of where one ends and the other begins. — Punshhh

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

Waves are not alive. They are not born. They don't live. They are just water in motion, and when a wave crashes, it does not die. The water relocates.

Actually, patterns do very much exist, and they can’t die, either. The laws of quantum theory tell us that information is preserved, and patterns are information. The importance of information in physics cannot be overstated.