If there's only the now... how can we perceive pitch (frequency)?

[LastThursday]

@Princess Arabia consciousness (noun) is exactly the same thing as "conscious of" (verb), they're just two linguistic ways of saying the same thing. Newton says: to every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. But it's not that there are two actions in that phrase, no, it's just one action. It's just that language confuses things.

[Princess Arabia]

14 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

@Princess Arabia consciousness (noun) is exactly the same thing as "conscious of" (verb), they're just two linguistic ways of saying the same thing. Newton says: to every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. But it's not that there are two actions in that phrase, no, it's just one action. It's just that language confuses things.

Yes, I was going to add in my statement that sometimes it's just a matter of words, semantics, language. All depends on what's being pointed to and the meanings behind the words used. Some used interchangeably and can sometimes be misunderstood. That's the challenge with language and meaning, it's relativistic and carries different meanings to the one perceiving. 

[Mixcoatl]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Nothing can just pop up and be observed without the appearance of time and space either. That still requires the appearance of both for you to even see it there. What is being said here is that space is also popping up and time is also popping up - using your language.

This explains a lot.

It’s such a strange thing to grasp—if it can even be grasped at all.

I’m starting to think it’s not really about understanding with the mind, but about experiencing it directly.

There were moments where I felt like I had touched some kind of truth… like I had reached a glimpse of “enlightenment.”

But now, I realize: that was just the beginning.

The path ahead is still long—maybe infinite—and I’m just starting to walk it with open eyes.

Thanks for the time and your explanations. I really appreciate them.

 

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

.Leo and most says that consciousness is fundamental but I'm still working on that because I can't see how that is when it implies someone to be conscious of something when that is duality. 

On this matter—if I may—I’d say it doesn’t imply duality.

Experience doesn’t need an “other” to be experienced.

Experience experiences itself.

That’s one small truth I can speak of, not from theory, but from direct knowing.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Leo and most says that consciousness is fundamental but I'm still working on that because I can't see how that is when it implies someone to be conscious of something when that is duality.

Consciousness does not imply that. That implication is a bad assumption from the materialist worldview.

Consciousness is just an infinite field that exists by itself for itself. It does not exist for anyone. Consciousness is not happening to anyone. There is no creature or entity that "has" consciousness or "is" conscious. There is just Consciousness, period. Consciousness is not happening to you. Consciousness has no observer or witness. Consciousness is just Consciousness, like space is just space.

Stop thinking of Consciousness is something a creature has and start thinking of it as a fluid that just exists, like an ocean. An ocean just exists. An ocean is not happening to some creature. A fish does not "have" an ocean. The ocean is not a biological process. The ocean is prior to the fish.

Fish don't have consciousness. Consciousness has fish.

Edited Wednesday at 07:51 PM by Leo Gura

[Princess Arabia]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness does not imply that. That implication is a bad assumption from the materialist worldview.

Consciousness is just an infinite field that exists by itself for itself. It does not exist for anyone. Consciousness is not happening to anyone. There is no creature or entity that "has" consciousness or "is" conscious. There is just Consciousness, period. Consciousness is not happening to you. Consciousness has no observer or witness. Consciousness is just Consciousness, like space is just space.

Stop thinking of Consciousness is something a creature has and start thinking of it as a fluid that just exists, like an ocean. An ocean just exists. An ocean is not happening to some creature. A fish does not "have" an ocean. The ocean is not a biological process. The ocean is prior to the fish.

Fish don't have consciousness. Consciousness has fish.

Gotcha. 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Fish don't have consciousness. Consciousness has fish.

Consciousness has fish, consciousness has people, people have eyes, fish have eyes, eyes see only what is in front of them, what their eyes see is limited, it's a limited point of view. Do you agree?

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Consciousness has fish, consciousness has people, people have eyes, fish have eyes, eyes see only what is in front of them, what their eyes see is limited, it's a limited point of view. Do you agree?

I agree that you are dreaming all that.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I agree that you are dreaming all that.

I can also be dreaming that I'm on a vacation with my GF (imaginary of course) and we go to one of those tourist places where you can see through binoculars. Then when I see through them, my GF asks "what do you see?". And I answer: "mountains, birds, and also the Empire State building". Then when my GF sees through them, I ask her what does she see. She answers "I see mountains, birds and, yes, there is the Empire State building". 

Now, was I dreaming all that as infinite consciousness? Sure. Was it only me who saw the Empire State building? No. Was it only me who experienced the Empire State building? Probably no. If this is the case, it's very weird to say "other people don't experience anything" (which I don't know if you've noticed, people like to say). You can say it's all dreamed up, but that the dream should stop at my eyes, that's just odd.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

but that the dream should stop at my eyes, that's just odd.

Yup. God is very odd.

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo Gura Solipsism is not true because when I sleep and have dreams there I've never had a dream where a person from that dream tells me that what I dream is imaginary and not real or that it is a dream, on the contrary, I've dreamed people that I never ever met IRL and none of them talked about solipsism in my dreams! So here we have the ultimate proof that solipsism is false! Hahaha  if solipsism was true not a single ilusory being shall realize their imaginary nature

Edited Thursday at 04:37 AM by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

And why everyone is imaginary except me? I think even if solipsism is true I should be as imaginary as all the other stuff from reality! I should be as imaginary as all the other beings and things! 

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yup. God is very odd.

I'm a solo-clown-ist: I don't believe you can fit two clowns in a clown car. Why? Because I just drew that arbitrary distinction. That's what solipsism looks like to me.

If I believe that I'm infinite consciousness dreaming up reality, I wouldn't use that to draw very particular conclusions about the finite. The infinite is infinite, that's it. And if I want to make statements about the finite, I would do that based on other finite things, like observation, intuition, logic, rationality. And then I would concede that I'm stepping out of the infinite in order to make statements about the finite (for the sake of understanding the finite). And when I do that, stopping at my own eyes also seems odd.

Edited Thursday at 05:15 PM by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

And why everyone is imaginary except me? I think even if solipsism is true I should be as imaginary as all the other stuff from reality! I should be as imaginary as all the other beings and things! 

Yeah.

[kavaris]

Even better is to recognize the direction that happens when we realize consciousness as being/not-being, nor having—as a symbol that directs thoughts away from the ideas about what we assume is us, talking, or being or doing any actions, its like... To recognize a center pointer is to acclimate more and more to one of the more rougher patterns in the smoothest, the spectrum and how it may or may not go on to flourish, and to temper the... what would you call it? iuno, its hard to say anything beyond what i feel as myself, but its just like, iuno, not many ppl find ways to penetrate the very center, and then find ways to talk around it—not that i think theres a good reason to, but its like, actualized is a place where that might happen, and at that point its unusual compared to anything else you might do; and we may even find deeper holes within this hole, at which point we are finding something to talk about or realize inside of the kinked part of the loop, or finding more kinks along the loop, or however you want to look at it, doesnt matter.

[Max1993]

@Princess Arabia Exactly! Bingo! Nothing has ever happened or could ever happen. Trying to prove a happening is like trying to prove that the events in your dream last night truly happened and left a dent on you, but it didn't. 

[Princess Arabia]

11 minutes ago, Max1993 said:

@Princess Arabia Exactly! Bingo! Nothing has ever happened or could ever happen. Trying to prove a happening is like trying to prove that the events in your dream last night truly happened and left a dent on you, but it didn't. 

Yes

[Max1993]

@Mixcoatl Since nothing ever happens to awareness itself... nothing ever happens. Does this make more sense? 

[Mixcoatl]

@Princess ArabiaConfirming what you've said before: This forum is for the weirdos

[Mixcoatl]

@Max1993Makes even less sense. But I agree! Let me just integrate into my experience. thank you