• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you believe it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness?

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
Delicious irony....

From this, I'm confident that we agree completely on the concept despite The fact that I see your articulation as circular, by conceptualizing the natural as the understood. To borrow your fence analogy, what we've pieced together thus far (science) is the 640 acres, whereas 'natural law' is the whole damned solar system.

To state it plain, ghosts exists, the fact that science can't (yet) explain them does not justify calling them supernatural, to my mind.

But I think, with those differences acknowledged, the ideas behind the opposed articulations are near identical.
Very good. Yes, the fence is a natural law as we currently understand it. The river is the reality.
 

Indira

Member
Yeah, I just get annoyed when people try to mass market things they clearly don't appreciate.
I try not to judge motivation and intentions of others..it's wasted energy and pointless.
I'm a tactile synaesthete. Any visualization is difficult to the point of being counterproductive, as it requires such intense effort simply to conjure the image that I can't spare the distraction of meditating upon it. Still, there are several bits I might adapt.

I'll research your process when time permits. Namaste Storm
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
"Yeah, that's great, you should do that. But first you have to do something completely different that you don't enjoy one bit for a really long time."

Not necessarily, it's just finding the right frame of mind, finding a way to do it that is interesting and enjoyable. So with meditation I usually start by "resting in the present", relaxing, letting go - it's nice!
 

Indira

Member
Not necessarily, it's just finding the right frame of mind, finding a way to do it that is interesting and enjoyable. So with meditation I usually start by "resting in the present", relaxing, letting go - it's nice!
Trying to hard is bound to cause a block for me..
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Imprecisly! Ultimately observable (directly or indirectly) and understandable in terms of natural phenomena (no magic, miracle, or super-nature).

We cannot observe consciousness directly. So, by your definition of naturalism, it qualifies as supernatural because it beyond direct observation.
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
I wonder if we could consider the sense of self as a seventh perception. You can even shut that down and then there is Sunyata. No identity, nothing to anchor awareness on. No sense of time or space, no separation, no oreintation. What is awareness when there in nothing to be aware of?

That's a good question. It is a state of consciousness in which awareness is only aware of itself. Yet, paradoxically, it is also a state of unconsciousness in which there isn't any awareness of anything. On the one hand, one could argue that the subject of consciousness and the object of consciousness are one and the same. Yet, on the other hand, one could also argue that there is no subject of consciousness or object of consciousness.
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
The state of being that you are talking about is when you become the pure observer that is not observing anything. You have no attachment to the observed and no awareness of self but that the observer exists as a conscious moment. Pure observer with no baggage :) . From there you can step outside of the box (that that we perceive as creation) and explore the reality that is outside of creation, or you can reenter creation as an "enlightened", or you can shut yourself totally off and ceast to exist.

"To be or not to be? That's the question." - Shakespeare
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'll research your process when time permits. Namaste Storm
Synaesthesia is atypical neurology, not a process. Pretty interesting stuff, but mine is lexical/ tactile, and most literature focuses on more common variants like chromesthesia, the synthesis of color and sound. If you'd like to discuss it, you're welcome to ask me whatever you like. :)
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Not necessarily, it's just finding the right frame of mind, finding a way to do it that is interesting and enjoyable. So with meditation I usually start by "resting in the present", relaxing, letting go - it's nice!
That's exactly the distinction I was making - passion and discipline. ;)
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
What do you mean by indirectly? Also, how is it understandable in terms of natural phenomena?
A very simple example, when you look at a microscopic organism under a microscope, that is indirect observation. When you look at stars through a telescope that can't be seen with the naked eye, that is indirect observation. When you see a footprint, that is indirect observation of the cause of the footprint.

When you are in a cave, and there is a fire burning behind you, and you cast a shadow on the wall of the cave, and observe the shadow, that is an indirect observation of the fire and yourself.

It is understandable in terms of natural phenomena when we realize the shadow is not a supernatural spirit, but a consequence of natural phenomena.

Does that help?
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
A very simple example, when you look at a microscopic organism under a microscope, that is indirect observation. When you look at stars through a telescope that can't be seen with the naked eye, that is indirect observation. When you see a footprint, that is indirect observation of the cause of the footprint.

When you are in a cave, and there is a fire burning behind you, and you cast a shadow on the wall of the cave, and observe the shadow, that is an indirect observation of the fire and yourself.

It is understandable in terms of natural phenomena when we realize the shadow is not a supernatural spirit, but a consequence of natural phenomena.

Does that help?

No, that doesn't help. We do not have any "pscyhoscope" to observe consciousness indirectly. The "cave" analogy was Plato's analogy to speak of an immaterial realm of ideal forms that we cannot observe directly or indirectly, but only can infer. We cannot explain consciousness in terms of natural phenomena (physical phenomena that we can observe directly or indirectly)
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
No, that doesn't help. We do not have any "pscyhoscope" to observe consciousness indirectly. The "cave" analogy was Plato's analogy to speak of an immaterial realm of ideal forms that we cannot observe directly or indirectly, but only can infer. We cannot explain consciousness in terms of natural phenomena (physical phenomena that we can observe directly or indirectly)
Are you saying you are not aware of your own consciousness? If you are aware, you have observed.Yes Plato used a cave analogy. I like to think we can adapt and build on the past.

Indirect observation of a phenomena, is the observation of effects of that phenomena without observing the phenomena itself. But this is all beside the point. If you lack the ability to observe consciousness directly or indirectly, as you seem to believe, then how does that lead you to reject a naturalistic cause?

In fact we can indirectly observe consciousness. All that is required is to attach wires to magnets and stick them on the head. All we have to do is look at the activity in the brain as one thinks, dreams, etc.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, that doesn't help. We do not have any "pscyhoscope" to observe consciousness indirectly.
Actually, we do, as FA pointed out. But we don't really need one for purposes of this discussion, since discussion itself is direct observation of consciousness beyond our own.

The "cave" analogy was Plato's analogy to speak of an immaterial realm of ideal forms that we cannot observe directly or indirectly, but only can infer.
One of the many great things about symbolic explanations like that is that they aren't limited to the original idea.

We cannot explain consciousness in terms of natural phenomena (physical phenomena that we can observe directly or indirectly)
So? How does ignorance rule out any explanation at all?
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Are you saying you are not aware of your own consciousness? If you are aware, you have observed.

I am aware that I am aware. And I can observe my own mental phenomena. As to whether I can observe my own subjectivity (awareness itself) is the question I posed in the OP of this thread. But whether I can or cannot, the point is that you can not observe my subjectivity or mental phenomena no more that I can observe yours.

Yes Plato used a cave analogy. I like to think we can adapt and build on the past.

To reiterate: Pato employed the "cave" analogy to argue for the existence of a transcendental, nonphyiscal, realm of Ideal forms and a divine mind. It's basically a theistic argument!

Indirect observation of a phenomena, is the observation of effects of that phenomena without observing the phenomena itself.

The point is that it does not qualify as an observation of the phenomenon itself. I can classify creation (the universe) as an effect and infer a creator must be the cause. But I haven't actually observe the creator.

But this is all beside the point. If you lack the ability to observe consciousness directly or indirectly, as you seem to believe, then how does that lead you to reject a naturalistic cause?

Because we are clearly conscious. And yet consciousness is not amenable to the natural sciences. (The natural sciences require that phenomena be observable from the third-person perspective (an objective perspective). Only physical phenomena are observable from the third-person perspective because they are objective. Mental phenomena are not. Mental phenomena are only observable from the first-person perspective (a subjective perspective) because they are inherently subjective, not objective. But whether subjectivity (the first-person perspective) itself is even observable from the first-person perspective is the topic of this thread.

In fact we can indirectly observe consciousness. All that is required is to attach wires to magnets and stick them on the head. All we have to do is look at the activity in the brain as one thinks, dreams, etc.

Wrong. We are observing neural activity, not consciousness. It is no difference than observing a facial expression and inferring the presence of consciousness. But observing a facial expression is not actually observing consciousness itself.

The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for the presence of consciousness.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for the presence of consciousness.
Ridiculous. Science is a good deal more than lab results.

You don't need a chemical analysis of the air you're currently breathing to have scientific evidence for the presence of oxygen when you're obviously not asphyxiating.
 
Top