If both humansand rocks are made of consciousness,then why is humanbody so complex?

[Ibn Sina]

Let me elaborate the question more.
This is what I am asking. Many people here who have had awakenings ( specially Leo) say that every thing is consciousness. There is no difference between a rock and a human.

And my question is, if that's the case, then why is the human body so complex and not as simple as a rock or a carpet or a piece of wood. 
There are entire books about how the eye works, books about how the ear works, just the skin has volumes and volumes written on it. The machinary of human body is as complex as any AI machine.  
If both the rock and the human body are the same thing, then why is the human body so complex, it follows rules, laws, complex pathways. Just like engineers know how a machine works or operates, a doctor knows how a human body operates. 
If both rock and the human body were consciousness stuff, then humans may have been just like a bunch of sand particles with consciousness embedded on it whose functionings come directly from consciousness instead of a sophisticated machinary within.  ( Imagine you were  a pile of sand who could talk, how? just because you are a bunch of sand with consciousness.)
The way we get our vision,smell,taste,touch has a sophisticated machinary, it does not come directly from consciousness.
The way we are able to walk, talk,breath, respire, digest, excrete has a sophisticated machinary, it does not come directly from consciousness.
If it was pure consciousness, what is the need of this complex machinary that differentiates the rock from a human.

I repeat, what is the need? Why is it there? Is it just because boom consciousness gave rise to it and boom consciousness made human a certain way and rock a certain way and you can do nothing about it and consciousness could even make a rock talk loudand sing because there is no machinary, it is all consciousness and there is no need of machinary anything can happen in consciousness without any machineries. Is that the answer you all are going to give?

The consequence of everything being consciousness should imply that there should not be a complex mechanical machinary within that makes things operate, there shouldn't be a complex machinary behind a clock that makes it tick. If I see a ticking clock, and I see the reason that it does so is because of a complex machinary within it, then I am not going to say that this clock has consciousness. 
I am applying the same thing with the statement 'humans=rock=consiousness'. Scientists know how humans operate, from sight, to vision, to sound, to how things are stored and processed in the brain, it's worked out, the machinery has been explored deeply, so just like the clock example, it seems to argue against the claim of everything being consciousness.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[bejapuskas]

Do you realize that your body is built from bones, flesh, organs, neurons, bacteria etc... And all these things have different functions, like a bone is completely different from a heart, but also they work together you know. Also could you say that a bone is not alive, but heart is? (for whatever reason) Where is the boundary between life and not-life, between individuality and collective?

[Ibn Sina]

21 minutes ago, bejapuskas said:

Also could you say that a bone is not alive, but heart is?

Ask any doctor, the bone is as alive as the heart. It grows, as time passes (from children to adult hood), it changes, there is continuos calcium deposition and  absorption. It has it's blood supply,  the day it becomes dead is the dead it gets necrosed. You can get cancer out of your bones. You can't get cancer from dead wood.

 

21 minutes ago, bejapuskas said:

Where is the boundary between life and not-life,

There is a very clear boundary between boundary between life and non-life. Your bone example does not support this claim. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

49 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Many people here who have had awakenings ( specially Leo) say that every thing is consciousness. There is no difference between a rock and a human.

If both the rock and the human body are the same thing, then why is the human body so complex

You are essentially asking "If there are no differences, why are there differences"?

You can construct distinctions. You can also deconstruct distinctions. What happens if you deconstruct all distinctions such that there are no longer any distinctions? How could you tell the difference between a rock and a human body without distinctions?

You are assuming that distinctions are objective reality. 

[Ibn Sina]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are assuming that distinctions are objective reality.

I have not written any where distinctions or x  y z is objective reality,  I am not making any claims about what objective reality is.

I am saying, rock and humans are distinct , the rock has no machinary, the humans have a complex machinary that makes it operate, a clock has a complex mechanical machinary that makes it operate, but all 3 are consciousness, my question is, why would they even need this machinary if they  were consciousness? A human would be just be sand who talks, a clock would move without any apparent reason. If they were consciousness, then why do they have these complex machinaries? This is what I am asking. 

I am not saying x y z is objective reality.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Ibn Sina said:

I have not written any where distinctions or x  y z is objective reality,  I am not making any claims about what objective reality is.

You didn't make any claims about it. That is why I said you are assuming it. You are unaware of it.

We can create distinctions of complexity and examining underlying complexity. Some people are really interested in that. 

[Ibn Sina]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You didn't make any claims about it. That is why I said you are assuming it. You are unaware of it.

But still it doesn't answer my question.

Okay, may be the answer would be, having the nondual experience where I see that there is no difference between the complex machinery that humans have and the simplicity of a rock.

But still, it remains unanswered.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[bejapuskas]

@Ibn Sina  Ok, you are right, but your muscles would be useless without bones and you couldn't live as you live now. Also you could deconstrust the bone further and further and you could do this with everything. Also you aren't conscious about most things in your body, your head would explode.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by bejapuskas

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

But still it doesn't answer my question.

It doesn't answer it in a way that is satisfying to you.

From one perspective you are asking "There are differences. How can there not be differences when there are differences?". You are assuming those differences are objective reality.

25 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am saying, rock and humans are distinct , the rock has no machinary, the humans have a complex machinary that makes it operate,

You are assuming it is objective reality that there is an entity called a rock that has no machinery and an entity called a human that has complex machinery.

25 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

 If they were consciousness, then why do they have these complex machinaries?

Consciousness as Everthing comes prior to these "complex machinaries" your mind is creating.

If Everything is Consciousness, there is no separate "they" to have complex machinery. You are adding in separation and distinctions. There is nothing wrong with that, yet that orientation will not help in realizing Everything is Consciousness, because there is an inherent assumption that everything is not consciousness.

From a relative perspective, I think mechanisms of complexity is super interesting. I spend time everyday thinking about this. Yet, you seem to be conflating absolute and relative a bit here.

 

 

 

 

[Ibn Sina]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

We can create distinctions of complexity and examining underlying complexity. Some people are really interested in that. 

Okay, so if we can create such complexities then why are these complexities found only in complex things (like living beings AI) and not so much in less complex things like elements, rocks, sands etc. 
Why do all mammals have a lung and a liver, which work on basically the same principle, but no carbon atom has it? And the biochemistry of mammals and living beings seem to be similar, just like a machine, and they work with precise rules and laws instead of a hapazard way which would be the case if consciousness was the cause. 
Atoms and molecules also work in a particular way, like a machinery. If it was consciousness, then all these complexities, like a clockwork working, should be absent. But every where I see is clockwork after clockwork. Apples falling, which pushes the next lever, pushes next lever and so on. Consciousness does not seem to come in the picture, where to fit is in unknown , except when we go through a nondual experience. But in duality, all I see is lever pushing levers, consciousness or ' creating complexities' as you put it is not coming anywhere

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Consciousness as Everthing comes prior to these "complex machinaries" your mind is creating.

If Everything is Consciousness, there is no separate "they" to have complex machinery. You are adding in separation and distinctions. There is nothing wrong with that, yet that orientation will not help in realizing Everything is Consciousness, because there is an inherent assumption that everything is not consciousness

Okay I get it. At the end it's all about having the nondual experience. There is nothing more / new to add.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Danioover9000]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Okay, so if we can create such complexities then why are these complexities found only in complex things (like living beings AI) and not so much in less complex things like elements, rocks, sands etc. 
Why do all mammals have a lung and a liver, which work on basically the same principle, but no carbon atom has it? And the biochemistry of mammals and living beings seem to be similar, just like a machine, and they work with precise rules and laws instead of a hapazard way which would be the case if consciousness was the cause. 
Atoms and molecules also work in a particular way, like a machinery. If it was consciousness, then all these complexities, like a clockwork working, should be absent. But every where I see is clockwork after clockwork. Apples falling, which pushes the next lever, pushes next lever and so on. Consciousness does not seem to come in the picture, where to fit is in unknown , except when we go through a nondual experience. But in duality, all I see is lever pushing levers, consciousness or ' creating complexities' as you put it is not coming anywhere

    Are you feeling under threat that the justifications you're making about consciousness could be wrong?

[Forestluv]

 

9 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Okay I get it. At the end it's all about having the nondual experience. There is nothing more / new to add.

I try to be careful with opposites. If I say "at the end, it's all about having the nondual experience" - it implies there is an end and it's not about having the dual experience.

It is both One and Not One. A rock is the same as a human and a rock is different than a human. A great paradox that can't be solved intellectually, because intellect is within it.

 

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Are you feeling under threat that the justifications you're making about consciousness could be wrong?

No.

I know that if I take 5-DMT (or do 100000 hours of meditation), I will find that everything is consciousness.

I just want someone to give me a good answer to the question- If everything is consciousness then why do everything work by distinct machineries, laws, etc, which has nothing to do with consciousness.

Again, I know there will be - you are assuming these are just laws.

Which is a claim that is made, but is not proven, and is brushed off with- you should have the nondual experience and then you will know.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aeris]

4 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

No.

I know that if I take 5-DMT (or do 100000 hours of meditation), I will find that everything is consciousness.

I just want someone to give me a good answer to the question- If everything is consciousness then why do everything work by distinct machineries, laws, etc, which has nothing to do with consciousness.

Again, I know there will be - you are assuming these are just laws.

Which is a claim that is made, but is not proven, and is brushed off with- you should have the nondual experience and then you will know.

Did you study about the sub-atomic particles and what they are made of ?

Everything is consciousness means you're alone in the universe at a consciousness level.

Only your experience is a 'fact' what is in this experience is basic faith in science. Just like a religious blue believer. Maybe there is truth but probably nothing you hold by direct absolute experience.

 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Which is a claim that is made, but is not proven

It is not a claim that is dependent upon evidence and proof. It is prior to evidence and proof. 

I'm not saying that what you write is wrong. I am saying it is within something more fundamental. And you can realize this for yourself - you are the same source as every sage that has ever lived.

Another way to point. . . If it's all ocean, how can a whale be more complex than seaweed? . . These questions of complexity are super interesting, yet they are within something more fundamental. I am not saying there are no differences between a whale and seaweed. There are differences and the mechanisms of those complexity differences are super interesting. Yet there is also sameness because it is all Ocean.

 

[Ibn Sina]

Just now, Aeris said:

Did you study about the sub-atomic particles and what they are made of ?

Yes.

1 minute ago, Aeris said:

Only your experience is a 'fact'

Not proven by anything else except by ' having the nondual experience'.

 

2 minutes ago, Aeris said:

basic faith in science. Just like a religious blue believer

I disagree. Blatantly false. This is just Richard Dawkins territory, I am not a follower of Richard Dawkins, but I just disagree with with what you are saying. I am actually a follower of spirtuality so don't even think that I am your typical 'materialist science guy'

 

3 minutes ago, Aeris said:

Maybe there is truth but probably nothing you hold by direct absolute experience.

 

'May be' ___ , 'Probably' _____

[Ibn Sina]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

It is not a claim that is dependent upon evidence and proof. It is prior to proof

I get where you are coming from. I have watched hours of Leo's nonduality videos.

You gave new additions-

'It is prior to proof'

'saying it is within something more fundamental'

 'If it's all ocean, how can a whale be more complex than seaweed?'

We can move on 

If you want to add any more you can but still, I say , we can move on.

[zeroISinfinity]

@Aeris Meditation is the way. 

Do the work yourself. 

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

We can move on 

For sure.

Notice orientation in movement. . .