:up:

↪Chet Hawkins You are misattributing the words to me. I said "Quoting the description of the book". I don't know who wrote the description - maybe it was the author of the book or maybe it was someone else. The description was quoted from the Amazon website.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

How do you know that your claims are true? — Truth Seeker

We cannot possess knowledge or truth at all. We can only believe or not.

I am NOT saying that one belief cannot be better justified than another.

There are thousands of reasons why I believe THAT belief. Together they collectively inform my belief as stated.

A short justification for the belief that is summary in nature is this:
Because emotional balance has the characteristics it does, and because I have reason to believe that reality is only consciousness, I then believe that what works in the emotional realm shows clearly that nature itself, and colloquial physical reality, is only possible because that balance between emotions is profound.

What is the result of that balance? The result is that an infinitesimally small amount of the motivating force of will, that which we might call 'choice', is all that is ever needed to do something. Of course we all complain about this so immorally that it is ridiculous because we are so lazy. That stupidity notwithstanding, the balance points to one core truth of the whole universe, free will is the only thing happening.

It's much more profound and well thought out than that, but, that is a good start with it.

It is the elusive and unattainable aspect of perfection, the objective GOOD, that cause Pragmatists to throw their hands up in frustration. They are first afraid they cannot attain perfection (easily), and that is correct. Then they start making short cuts to justify 'knowing' AS IF, which is delusional and wrong. In realizing they cannot attain perfection they cut bait, instead of fishing. That is the Pragmatic failure. The other paths have their failures which are less in evidence in this thread as the subject matter being discussed.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

You realize I too disagree, right? I'm not attacking. Just clarifying. — ENOAH

No worries. I didn't think you were attacking. I didn't even think you were necessarily expressing your own view. Just saying I'm not in that category.

It came about naturally, through nature, through natural processes. It couldn't be otherwise.
— Patterner

So did a beavers dam, but the beaver doesn't falsely identify it as a real extension of its body; but better, so did Mickey Mouse and Oliver Twist but we recognize they are Fictions. — ENOAH

I get very annoyed when I make an analogy, and people immediately point out its flaws. Of course an analogy is flawed. The only thing that could be a perfect comparison for x is x. The point of an analogy is not its flaws, as there certainly will be some. The point of an analogy is the common ground, despite the differences.

All that being said, I'm not going to try to pick apart your analogies. Reason being, I don't understand the point you're trying to make with them. I just cannot understand what you mean by illusion. I know you've tried to explain a few times, but I'm not getting it. I don't blame you if you decide you're done trying.

I will say two things about the idea that it is an illusion, both of which I've said in the past, here and there. I realize I may not be addressing the word in the sense that you mean it.

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer. When a magician does a card trick, the cards and hands do not view what is going on as an illusion. The audience watches, and is delightfully surprised to see something happen that cannot have happened. The audience, of course, needs to be able to recognize an illusion. A tree doesn't recognize illusions.

If consciousness is an illusion, where is the viewer of the illusion? How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious?

All of that may be a clear sign that I don't know what you mean by illusion.

What's the difference between self and consciousness? — Truth Seeker

The self is what is referenced in such various views as Hume's bundle, Metzinger's Ego Tunnel, Tononi and Koch's system of integrated information, systems' theorists predictive modelling of reality (a la @apokrisis), these things are instantiated by brains in humans and constitute a loose functional identity. When this functioning ceases, say in sleep or under anaesthesia, the self ceases for that time.

Consciousness is, at minimum, what makes doing all these functions feel a certain way. Recently I've starting thinking that consciousness may be uniquely causal, so that nothing at all could happen without it.

So then "consciousness" is impersonal? For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? — 180 Proof

It's a good question, if I understand it, which I'm not sure I do. I'll take an awake, functioning human as being a central case of a person, and it seems to me that both the functioning complex referred to above and the presence of consciousness are necessary for personhood (although there are other senses of 'person' I'm glossing over). So a person aware of their own consciousness is an aware functioning-complex aware of their awareness. So, if I've understood your question properly, consciousness abstracted from any functioning system is indeed impersonal, in that sense.

(But, inevitably, sometimes people (particularly the religious or spiritual) use 'person' simply to indicate the presence of consciousness in the abstract. Sometimes the distinction between 'self' and 'Self' is made, which I guess corresponds to the difference between the functional-complex and consciousness, but I'm no expert on that.)

It means the OP is under some sort of suppositional or imaginary scenario rather than based on the fact. When you say "It is possible that", it must have some degree of plausibility with the factual evidence for being real life cases. Without it, "It is impossible that" has the same plausibility too. — Corvus

I disagree. No matter how implausible something is, it is nowhere near the same thing as saying something is objectively impossible. That again partakes of a dangerous misunderstanding of what perfection is. Perfectly impossible is probably just that, as in do not talk about it at all because (re-read this sentence until you get it).

But even immeasurably small chances are nowhere near impossible, finally. In fact, saying they are slightly plausible is infinitely more plausible than objectively impossible.

Just had to jump in and steer that one back on the rails.

Thank you for answering my question.

I will say two things about the idea that it is an illusion, both of which I've said in the past, here and there. I realize I may not be addressing the word in the sense that you mean it. — Patterner

And in that one sentence you just described the accurate definition for the term, 'illusion'. Not addressing some perception in the sense that it was meant ... is the definition for illusion.

If you wish to speak on the physical phenomena that cause an illusory perception in others, THAT THING IS NOT the illusion. The illusion is the mistaken perception.

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

I completely agree. The imagination produces images that are real. They are in the world. They are not physically instantiated in the world. But that IS NOT RELEVANT to the proper use of the word, 'real'. In many cases therefore, the word 'real' is itself too ambiguous to be used. In each case we should make it clear what is being discussed.

Or we can instead discuss any concept as real merely because it is a concept. It has meaning. That is fine with me and it seems that is fine to some extent with you also.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer. — Patterner

No, it does not.

The unity principle states that perfection is ALL. The unity of all things is a perspective, and perhaps the only accurate one, perfection. As such, the thing observed and the thing observing are the same thing. Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

At any point in the scope of examination, there can be and arguably should be an assumed observer that is the same as ALL or as 'the thing being observed' as self-aware.

Truth is unchanging. Self-awareness is thus an intrinsic part of the universe. It's realization may take some time depending on how much granularity we use to define it. That is not relevant. The relevant point is that self-awareness is a property of all reality.

When a magician does a card trick, the cards and hands do not view what is going on as an illusion. The audience watches, and is delightfully surprised to see something happen that cannot have happened. The audience, of course, needs to be able to recognize an illusion. A tree doesn't recognize illusions. — Patterner

So, speaking to the awareness of certain limited scopes of reality IS NOT the same thing as cannot. In others choice is infinite. The standing awareness that a tree is not self-aware is ... wrong. It is (self aware). And therefore it CAN detect illusion, but, due to its current state, that choice is super hard for a tree. It is so hard for that tree, that it is represented by the mathematical impossibility of the limit as x approaches infinity with infinity being the possibility.

Yes, this is a radically different interpretation of reality than most. Animism is effectively true and has always been true. Nothing we 'know' denies that possibility.

If consciousness is an illusion, where is the viewer of the illusion? How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious? — Patterner

That is trivially easy. Consciousness is ALL. So it is both the observer and the observed. It also is that which allows for the confusion via poor choice. Delusional choice based on fears or desires or even anger is what causes the belief in the separation of the observer and the observed.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer.
— Patterner
No, it does not. — Chet Hawkins

If I am alone practicing a card trick, there is no illusion. I know and see exactly what is happening with the cards. The illusion only exists when there is an audience who does not see the way the card gets from A to B, and sees it seemingly do the impossible. The table and walls don't see the illusion.

Trees along the road do not see the heat waves coming off the road on a hot day and think it looks like water. The car I'm driving does not think it looks like water. You need a person to see the illusion of water. (Possibly other animals can see it. I don't know.)

I disagree. No matter how implausible something is, it is nowhere near the same thing as saying something is objectively impossible. That again partakes of a dangerous misunderstanding of what perfection is. Perfectly impossible is probably just that, as in do not talk about it at all because (re-read this sentence until you get it). — Chet Hawkins

"It is possible that " is based on guessing, illusion, unfounded optimisms of low probability of the cases manifesting in reality. "It is impossible that " is based the empirical experience on the cases backed by the highest probability of something not happening in reality.

They are at the opposite end of the scale in the statements. The point was that "It is impossible that" has far more plausibility than "It is possible that".

Second, an illusion needs a viewer.
— Patterner
No, it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
If I am alone practicing a card trick, there is no illusion. I know and see exactly what is happening with the cards. The illusion only exists when there is an audience who does not see the way the card gets from A to B, and sees it seemingly do the impossible. The table and walls don't see the illusion.

Trees along the road do not see the heat waves coming off the road on a hot day and think it looks like water. The car I'm driving does not think it looks like water. You need a person to see the illusion of water. (Possibly other animals can see it. I don't know.) — Patterner

Well that is interesting. You draw the line on this oddly (to me) especially when you also said:

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

So, this statement would tend to show that you value and view the realm of ideas as meaningful and that means (to me) that the standard (boring) and traditional barriers to understanding that come into play with having only physical things be 'real' would include such standard (colloquial and boring) interpretations that seem to separate humanity in its various abilities from lower life forms first and then not even living, otherwise accepted as 'inanimate' objects.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?

"It is possible that " is based on guessing, illusion, unfounded optimisms of low probability of the cases manifesting in reality. "It is impossible that " is based the empirical experience on the cases backed by the highest probability of something not happening in reality.

They are at the opposite end of the scale in the statements. The point was that "It is impossible that" has far more plausibility than "It is possible that". — Corvus

No it does not.

To partake of the infinite nature of impossible, is a lower chance in all cases than to partake of some small chance.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct? — Chet Hawkins

That is not correct. We could not be conscious if the possibility of consciousness was not present in all things, and from the beginning. We are, after all, made of the same particles everything else is made of. My guess is that all particles have the mental property of proto-consciousness, in addition to the physical properties like mass and charge. I think proto-consciousness is simple experience, which, when matter is arranged in certain ways, combines to form consciousness.

But that doesn't mean a rock or tree knows what can normally be done with cards, and is surprised when someone skilled at sleight of hand does something that makes it look like a card is floating in the air without any means of support, reforms after being torn into tiny pieces, or passes through a solid wall. They do not know such things, do not have the sensory apparatus to perceive things visually (necessary for visual illusions), and I'm not aware of any reason to believe they have the intellectual capacity to experience such illusions even if they did have eyes. Dogs have eyes, but they don't seem impressed by David Copperfield or Penn & Teller.

I get very annoyed when I make an analogy, and people immediately point out its flaws. Of course an analogy is flawed — Patterner

Me too. I too use analogies as "a finger pointing at the moon," not at all purported to be the moon itself.

I wasn't actually saying your analogy is flawed (though I can see why you'd think I was). I'm actually using your analogy. Coupled with mine, I'm making (trying. always read "trying" between my lines) the point that things can be constructed out of Matter, but as constructed "things" besides the matter they are made out of--to which their form is irrelevant; like a snowdrift wouldn't "think" itself anything apart from snow--they are empty of Reality, Being, what some want to call essence or substance. They are becoming, never present, never (contra Dasein) there. They are becoming, incessantly and only and necessarily being constructed, not Real Being, like a beavers dam apart from the trees and grasses, fictional.

I am also saying that, though Fictional, they serve a function. In fact all of our joy and suffering is constructed out of or, at the very least, sifted through the emptiness. It exists, alright. But it is not Real.

And I'm not as sure about what follows, as I am about what preceded, but I suspect that because it is functional--our joy and our suffering (empty signifiers coding unnamable feelings, really)--we have adapted this powerful real feeling which is triggered by the code, and which the Signifier world knows as "attachment," to the Signifier world, the beaver's dam! The Fiction. That's the "illusion" everyone here is getting almost mutually hostile over. A poetic dialectic to watch, but to have the privilege of being a part of! That too is the illusion! So what? We never try to deny the Fictional nature of the Mona Lisa (here's a gd analogy, see? They role off our tongues with nothing but the best of intentions towards our neighbors, then they complain.) and yet we glorify its effect upon our Real natures.

. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

I truly agree that our ideas are impactful both upon our nature and in furthering "themselves" our ideas. History is constructed entirely out of our ideas. Not only does it function, but like our individual Narratives, It moves forward in time! And I get why we want to call that real. But it's not. You are correct, I think (remember. also trying) when you say "ideas". They are empty of Reality, though they bear upon Reality by affecting our bodies, and the earth (like when rock is made into Iron or steel manifesting as the Eiffel Tower etc.etc-- that kind of illusion.

an illusion needs a viewer. — Patterner

Right. That's the real "you" that organism with sensations, inner feelings, image-ing ability, storage ability. The Observer displaced by the illusion. Now note. That Body IS conscious. But whereas presumably for other organisms aware-ing takes place in and of nature, for us, that aware-ing has been ineluctably distracted by the illusions its image-ing and memory have constructed.

How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious? — Patterner

I know, right? And, yet

EDIT: I feel compelled to clarify. It requires a dark perspective to see "the 'self' is illusion," pessimistically.

It is not nihilistic. Remember there is still your real self, your body, your brain, and its aware-ing, which never goes anywhere, just gets its "attention" diverted.

Knowing it is constructed rather than emerging naturally, is "salvation," (I would imagine). All of life's karma, it's joy and suffering, it's this and that, need not define you. You are always (as theistic as this is about to sound) perfect in (your) Nature. If you are breathing, you are good. Remembering that might heal suffering in the illusion.

I wasn't actually saying your analogy is flawed (though I can see why you'd think I was). — ENOAH

Oh, no, I didn't mean that. I was just saying I wasn't going to try to pick apart your analogies. They didn't seem right to me, but I suspected the problem was my not understanding what you mean by illusions. I was just talking too much, confusing the issue further.

You are always (as theistic as this is about to sound) perfect in (your) Nature. — ENOAH

Here we are talking about illusions, and now you're reminding me of Richard Bach's Illusions.

I'll read your post a couple more times, and see if I can figure out what you're saying. I believe you're coming from a place I'm not familiar with.

Richard Bach's Illusions. — Patterner

I don't know it. Looked it up. It looks interesting. If it turns out to share my heretofore narrative, it wouldn't surprise me at all. There's probably hundreds of thousands of "contributors" wittingly or not, to any given "idea " Mind is One structure manifesting as History, and as billions of contributing individual stories.

see if I can figure out what you're saying. — Patterner

Let me try this analogy and then I'll leave you to it, sorry.

Assuming our "normal" human experience is Real, and unknown to you, you woke up wearing a Virtual Reality head set. That day (ignore the details and niceties, bumping into tables etc) you experience everything in VR. It all happens, it's there, the experience exists. But the next day would you say your experience was real or an illusion?

Richard Bach also wrote Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Illusions is excellent, and only takes me, a very slow reader, a couple hours to read.

Assuming our "normal" human experience is Real, and unknown to you, you woke up wearing a Virtual Reality head set. That day (ignore the details and niceties, bumping into tables etc) you experience everything in VR. It all happens, it's there, the experience exists. But the next day would you say your experience was real or an illusion? — ENOAH

Excellent!

If I thought I was operating in the Real world, my experience would be real. One of my favorite sigs I've seen is, If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?. (Another is, I spent a lot of money on booze and women. The rest I just wasted.). I would think and feel the same ways and things I would have if I hadn't had the headset on. From the standpoint of my consciousness, there's no difference. I would feel the same joys, angers, etc., I would have in the real world.

From the standpoint of the real world, of course, it isn't real. If I broke a mirror in VR, there is no real broken mirror. But, thinking it real, my grief over having broken my grandmother's antique mirror, given to her by her own beloved grandmother, is real.

After I learned I had been in VR, I would have some new experiences. I would be overjoyed that I hadn't broken my grandmother's treasured keepsake.

Nice!

Me too. I too use analogies as "a finger pointing at the moon," not at all purported to be the moon itself. — ENOAH

Analogies are like the clay of a vase, and words are its particular tall vase shape.

things can be constructed out of Matter, but as constructed "things" besides the matter they are made out of--to which their form is irrelevant; like a snowdrift wouldn't "think" itself anything apart from snow--they are empty of Reality, Being, what some want to call essence or substance. They are becoming, never present, never (contra Dasein) there. — ENOAH

I can tell you are in the same place as me. This is a deep corner of the cave where only the slightest hint of light is all you need to make a point.

But what I see here retains the presence of essence, as much and as often as it does becoming. I see both becoming and things becoming the same and only find illusion where one or the other is missing or overly reified.

We always need both to speak at all. Speaking is real, so no the becoming and essence is real.

They are becoming, incessantly and only and necessarily being constructed, not Real Being, like a beavers dam apart from the trees and grasses, fictional. — ENOAH

I see clearly that it doesn’t matter what the following words from your quote actually mean, because at the same time, they are present in every sentence we speak. You said “They” and you said “constructed” and you even said “not real being.”

These are assertions of essence, not becoming. If all essence was not real, how is it we never say even “becoming” without fixing a distinct essence that makes becoming different from “not real being”? We need a distinction to hold in order to reflect the becoming of it. Essences become so they change; but I’ve already taken “essences” and “they” just as for granted as I’ve taken the “becoming” and “change” for granted in this sentence.

though Fictional, they serve a function. In fact all of our joy and suffering is constructed out of or, at the very least, sifted through the emptiness. It exists, alright. But it is not Real. — ENOAH

See this is why I think we are in the exact same place looking in the exact same direction. You say “emptiness” and balance “suffering” against “joy”.
And you say “It exists alright.” I would say these things about becoming.

We all are talking about the idea of “self” just like the idea of “joy” and some of us are saying how because these are constructed mental things they are not thing (real being) and are illusion.

This is a broader view - not just “self” but all mental fabrications.

But I don’t see as much difference between what you call the illusion of self or “joy” all sifted through emptiness, as what I call just an idea. The idea part is where the essence is found. But the idea now exists just like wherever it came from exists.

Let me use an analogy. A squirrel finds a hole in a tree and builds a burrow. A tulip stem reaches through springtime up from the dirt and builds a first flower. A man finds wood and builds a house. The man also sees the squirrel and sees his house and builds the idea “dwelling place”. This is an idea. Like the burrow, and the flower, “dwelling place” is just what the man produces, and once produced it exists and is as real as the burrow, or the house or the flower.

though Fictional, they serve a function. — ENOAH

The only way an idea would serve a function, a use, is by being in the real world. The only use, the only being of an idea is as it exists between two people (or as it exists to oneself in reflection).

Another analogy. I say to my son, “go get me four apples at the store.” “Four apples” is as illusory as the “self” as I think you see human idea-ing, but nevertheless “four apples” can serve a function. My son goes to the store and while he is there my idea of “four apples” as it is in my head is nowhere near the store - it can remain only in my head and an illusion to the world. But then my son gives my idea “four apples” meaning while my son is at the store. He sees the essence of “four” and the essence of “apples” in his head and picks out 4 apples and buys them. When he returns and gives me what was just an idea in my head, I see that my illusion (in your vernacular), or my idea (in my more neutral vernacular) has been passed through my son, to the store and back into my hands. “Four apples” an essence, works, serves a function, not only because of the becoming of apples to my hand (the real world), but now, through my son, because of the becoming of ideas such as “four” and “apples” in my son’s head (now back in my hand and the same real world).

We can’t see becoming unless we simultaneously see essences, or beings, that come to be, that become.

Applying this to the idea of “self” and you can take out my son and do it all in your own head, for your self, to your self. It doesn’t mean it isn’t real, it just means that through our minds we produce words pointing to ideas like plants produce flowers and squirrels produce burrows. These are all things in the becoming of things.

This conversation works because of becoming AND because of the becoming of things. We need both to have either. The becoming of an idea is just the becoming of a thing that only other minds can sense, can use. The squirrel might recognize the flower just as the man might recognize the burrow, but when it comes to ideas, which like the burrow and the flower is the production of some thing, unlike the other things, ideas exist only in minds, to oneself, or to each other, so though the squirrel might see my house or the flower produced, it will never see the “dwelling place” or other ideas like “real being” or “illusion”. Just because the squirrel can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t really exist.

None of that need be essentially illusion. We can just see ideas for how they are - human tools, but real as they are useful. We can have ideas that are illusions. Just like we can be hallucinating a squirrel. But while we have an idea, be it of real being or of nothing real, the idea itself still exists - the function of thinking is itself still real. And this is an essential quality to all thinking. This makes it difficult to talk about the idea of “self”. But the idea is not rendered indistinguishable from all else. It has essential differences that keep it distinct. “Four apples” is not “tulip flower” is not “joy” and they remain distinct to the extent they can be distinguished from “illusion”.

because it is functional--our joy and our suffering (empty signifiers coding unnamable feelings, really)--we have adapted this powerful real feeling which is triggered by the code, and which the Signifier world knows as "attachment," to the Signifier world, the beaver's dam! The Fiction. That's the "illusion" — ENOAH

“Signifier world” must be fixed and posited for you to say “attachment” and then join these two by an act of signifying, of becoming. You have to keep positing worlds to draw any distinctions between illusory worlds and real worlds.

In the end, if all we are doing and saying is trading in illusions, we never say anything, we never communicate, we never connect with another mind, two minds joined by an idea, like two squirrels burrowing in the same tree.

The idea that because our ideas as mere copies of the world, constructions superimposed by minding “things”, just like my sense impression of the squirrel is never the squirrel-in-itself I still sense something real that I call a “squirrel; none of this makes those ideas and impressions not exist, not real, not something in-itself too.

We need essences in the becoming to have becoming of essences. (But this can lead to the facade where only the fixed idea is real). Just like we need becoming of essences to call essence illusion and have only the facade of becoming as real.

If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? — Patterner

Cuts both ways, for and against becoming (no essence) only, or essence (illusion /no becoming) only. If it functions, like a squirrel burrowing, like a conversation exchanging essences in minds, then call it real being or illusion, what difference is that to the fact of the conversation? I see this as a demonstration or experience of both becoming and fixed essences. At every turn, in every sentence we speak or experience we have or in every becoming moment.

A virtual reality headset is the same thing as eyes and ears. Sense perception builds a world for us just the same. That’s why we need ideas and essences to connect minds through this world.

In an odd way, it is easier to see the whole “real world” as an illusion before seeing the self that perceives this world as an illusion.

So, if I've understood your question properly, consciousness abstracted from any functioning system is indeed impersonal, in that sense. — bert1

Ergo the implication is that subjects are not conscious (or impersonal)?

Ergo the implication is that subjects are not conscious (or impersonal)? — 180 Proof

Not by virtue of their structure and function, no. But they are conscious. Consciousness is not structure and function. But a person has both structure and function and is conscious.

This is a deep corner of the cave where only the slightest hint of light is all you need to make a point. — Fire Ologist

In fact, the less the better; just enough so as to not form shadow paintings.

I see both becoming and things becoming the same and only find illusion where one or the other is missing or overly reified. — Fire Ologist

I've come to know that about you, my fiery friend. And I can respect that.

We always need both to speak at all. Speaking is real, so no the becoming and essence is real. — Fire Ologist

I say speaking is construction, becoming. It travels lightly through Time and vanishes instantly. Where is it "there"? When is it ever being?
... But I recognize you place reality in becoming too, so, for you it's not so significant that speech is fleeting, since that too, somehow*, is Real. *meant with sincere uncertainty, not rhetorical sarcasm

If all essence was not real, how is it we never say even “becoming” without fixing a distinct essence that makes becoming different from “not real being”? We need a distinction to hold in order to reflect the becoming of it — Fire Ologist

Because--and I sincerely hope this isn't depressing--difference, distinction, and your admirable desperation to square things off against it, are also (to stick to the Language of the OP and pay, at least a token apologetic homage) "illusions" based only in the evolved mechanism "difference", necessary for speech to flourish, a this and a that. The Self illusion is a branch of that in the evolution of Mind: a Me and a You.

Anyway, note that all that I say and write too, is Fiction: constructed out of the tools containing the this and that mechanism. It's ineluctable because the world in which our--and all--discourse takes place is Fiction. Dialectic, like the self, is a branch off of the this and that evolution. It is not Real and natural, but every movement of Human Mind from history to my decision to respond, and my response, is a dialectical movement of made up words and images. So called choice and so called knowledge are just temporary settlements in that autonomous dialectic.

Ah but I speak too much.

See this is why I think we are in the exact same place looking in the exact same direction. You say “emptiness” and balance “suffering” against “joy”.
And you say “It exists alright.” I would say these things about becoming. — Fire Ologist

Wait. Buddy. I am saying it about becoming. I'm saying these functions exist and affect even reality via the Body, but they are sourced in fleeting chains of nothingness, never there, never ever being, always becoming, not Real.

This is a broader view - not just “self” but all mental fabrications. — Fire Ologist

Completely.

The idea part is where the essence is found. But the idea now exists just like wherever it came from exists. — Fire Ologist

Ok. This is exactly where we diverge. I'm not saying either of us is right. We are both necessarily wrong (ironically, if I'm right, haha). But I say you just believe the idea came from somewhere. That exactly is the illusion. It came from your mind! Yes the idea exists. But it is not Real. It was a fleeting manifestation of a construction out of Signifiers, pointers at the moon, not the moon.

dwelling place”. This is an idea. Like the burrow, and the flower, “dwelling place” is just what the man produces, and once produced it exists and is as real as the burrow, or the house or the flower. — Fire Ologist

Yes what the moon produced, even the materials, are all real. But neither the tulip nor the squirrel take that leap which places them upon a new layer with an unbridgeable gap from what they produced and the material they produced it with. None of them calls it a dwelling place and believes that that name is real, that the Signifier is the phenomenon or the experience. See? That's how subtle is the illusion. Not saying these aren't real. But human mind and its system of filtration, displaces their reality with name calling.

We can’t see becoming unless we simultaneously see essences, or beings, that come to be, that become. — Fire Ologist

That statement directly above, and your excellent four apples example: again, that the essence precedes the becoming is the "illusion." Mind is one, permeable between embodiments. That's how History moves and that's how local histories move. The following is oversimplified.

At some point in your minds development, Apple, 4, store, go, son, buy, me, etc. we're input, and over time processed, reprocessed, used to construct, reconstruct, and so on, thousands of times. So too for your son. This reminds me of Platos dialogue (Meno?) where Socrates marvels tgat an illiterate slave can draw a triangle. Of course he can, it was input into the Slaves mind in thousands of ways other than a geometry lesson. So when you crave apples, that real feeling, triggers to the surface, the construction--through a speedy and often imperceptible dialectic of battling code--out of sognifiers, son go get me 4 apples from tge store. You think you have manifested in words the essence, a marvelous idea. But the manifestation is the essence, both empty constructions which evolved to function. Now because your son shares Mind with you, and thr code had tge same effect on him, your body, the Real you, gets to eat apples. But Mind wrote a whole experience out of that. Displacing human organism pleasure food with hey son how about you go... That's the illusion.

You have to keep positing worlds to draw any distinctions between illusory worlds and real worlds. — Fire Ologist

You are absolutely right. For discourse to work, and why else do we do this but that we are built that way--it's not because we are pursuing truth; for gods sake, we don't have to pursue truth, we are truth, in our being--so yes, for discourse to work, I have and am constructing so much shit.

At the end of the day every philosophy, like every thing, will be judged on its function within the very specific locus in which it manifests. Because there is no way to judge upon truth, there is no truth in becoming; only in Being. The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.

still sense something real that I call a “squirrel; none of this makes those ideas and impressions not exist, not real, not something in-itself too. — Fire Ologist

That which you call a squirrel is real, so are you and your senses. But yes, while those ideas,(that it is a squirrel, that it is "real", that you sense it,) exist, they are not Real, not thing in itself; they are outside Fictions superimposed as if from above upon the thing in itself. They are representations placed, like labels atop of Reality, and we no longer see tge essence, we see only the label. That too is the self, a label, fictional, like Enoah, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible. — Chet Hawkins

Not making sense at all. "It is unlikely that" sounds you are lacking confidence on what you are saying, or just being evasive. "It is impossible that" sounds far more declarative and certain of what you are saying.

Consciousness is not structure and function. — bert1

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"? — 180 Proof

The capacity to feel.

"Consciousness is the capacity" =

structure and function — bert1

"to feel" ... so you're contradicting yourself :confused:

Because a capacity is a function? Or feeling is a verb, which means something has to be doing something, which is a function?

You have a very strange way of reading 180 Proof. Did bert1 say that "capacity" = "structure and function"? That's an odd interpretation, to assume that a capacity is a structure or function.

Expanding on my answer.

My experiences are real in all cases, all scenarios. If I knew I was experiencing VR, I would have a real experience of a reality that I knew was V. I might act differently. I wouldn't intentionality break my grandmother's heirloom, but I'd probably break a huge window to see how it sounds. :grin:

Dreams are real experiences. I wake up and realize i was not in the physical world, and my thoughts and feelings of my experiences adjust to that knowledge. Dreams that feel more "real" are very interesting. Sometimes I don't just remember one, I continue to feel the emotions I had experienced long after waking up. Ever wake up mad at someone you know, even though you know it's ridiculous? Or wake up missing someone you were intensity in love with?

Someone plugged into the Matrix for decades would not not have real experiences and a real life. Cypher understood, as did "nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects [who] accepted the program, provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level." If someone died of old age, knowingly or unknowingly having been plugged into the Matrix their entire life, they would have had a life.