Faith in permanent death

[idav]

What is the explanation?

Well there are things we know about it. When we go into a sleep state our conscious senses are physically put to rest and are likely not tapped into except in rare exceptions. We physically go into another level of consciousness and it seems that the subconscious holds a lot of information that we don't have the capacity to access when we are in a waking state. It isn't that our brain doesn't already have this information it is just that a sleep or trance state makes it easier to tap into.

 

[atanu]

Well there are things we know about it. When we go into a sleep state our conscious senses are physically put to rest and are likely not tapped into except in rare exceptions. We physically go into another level of consciousness and it seems that the subconscious holds a lot of information that we don't have the capacity to access when we are in a waking state. It isn't that our brain doesn't already have this information it is just that a sleep or trance state makes it easier to tap into.

Is the person who is sleeping different from the dreaming or waking person? In other words, what is the person's constancy through these three states?

 

[idav]

Is the person who is sleeping different from the dreaming or waking person? In other words, what is the person's constancy through these three states?

The constant is that it is us and our mind. We are able to tap into most of our brain but we are only able to tap into a smaller portion at once. In a state of meditation a trained person will be able to tap into more at once which is the case in a dream state because some things are shut down leaving room to use different portion of our brain not normally accessed in a waking state. Being aware that you are dreaming isn't normally possible because a portion of your brain is physically shut down preventing it.

 

[Tristesse]

Is the person who is sleeping different from the dreaming or waking person? In other words, what is the person's constancy through these three states?

When you sleep you are constantly dreaming. You may not remember all of your dreams, but you're dreaming.

 

[Acim]

The constant is that it is us and our mind. We are able to tap into most of our brain but we are only able to tap into a smaller portion at once. In a state of meditation a trained person will be able to tap into more at once which is the case in a dream state because some things are shut down leaving room to use different portion of our brain not normally accessed in a waking state. Being aware that you are dreaming isn't normally possible because a portion of your brain is physically shut down preventing it.

"Tapping into more" is a deliberate act no?

Even at subconscious level. The awareness of the deliberation may or may not be 'there,' but if understanding the process, it appears like intentional action.

Being aware that you are manifesting the physical (via interpretation / projection) isn't normally possible because a version of 'mind' (ego) is mentally attempting to shut down wakefulness, preventing it (if allowed, as defense mechanism).

Aka, one is asleep at the wheel.

 

[atanu]

We just build on the knowledge of others to a point where everything becomes more clear. -----

When you sleep you are constantly dreaming. You may not remember all of your dreams, but you're dreaming.

Can you prove objectively to anyone else that there are any others?

Can you prove that waking state is also not a dream?

The constant is that it is us and our mind. .

So, what is our true form?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is the person who is sleeping different from the dreaming or waking person? In other words, what is the person's constancy through these three states?

Of course they are, but I have no idea what you're looking for* when you're asking for the constancy. Hardware? Contents of memory? Some higher-level construction?

*Of course I do, but IMO, your conclusion is faulty. Why "self" and not something else?

So, what is our true form?

I don't find this question meaningful. :sarcastic What's the "true form" of 2?

 

[idav]

Can you prove objectively to anyone else that there are any others?

Can you prove that waking state is also not a dream?




So, what is our true form?

A book that was enjoyable "The Art of Dreaming" by Carlos Castanedas may lead one to believe the dream is the "real" realm. Though such ideas may lead one to psychosis. Perhaps a psychotic person is truly sane while us sane folk are really insane.

I'd advise not trying to lose grip of what is a dream and what isn't, like they say on the movie "Inception".

 

[atanu]

A book that was enjoyable "The Art of Dreaming" by Carlos Castanedas may lead one to believe the dream is the "real" realm. Though such ideas may lead one to psychosis. Perhaps a psychotic person is truly sane while us sane folk are really insane.

I'd advise not trying to lose grip of what is a dream and what isn't, like they say on the movie "Inception".

You have not answered the questions.

It is not a question of believing but it is a question of questioning the assumptions. And that is not psychosis. The assumption that questioning the prevalent concepts of science is psychosis, is the psychosis.

 

[atanu]

Of course they are, but I have no idea what you're looking for* when you're asking for the constancy. Hardware? Contents of memory? Some higher-level construction?

You mean the person who goes from waking to dream and then to waking and again to dream and then to sleep and them to dream are all different?

*Of course I do, but IMO, your conclusion is faulty. Why "self" and not something else?

If you think that your self is another, then I cannot help.

 

[idav]

You have not answered the questions.

Can I prove that we are not in matrix? Hardly. However one of the biggest difference from reality is that other separate minds are seeing this same reality and we can't see each others dreams. If we are in a matrix then it is a dream we are sharing which is more than can be said of our individual dreams.

 

[atanu]

However one of the biggest difference from reality is that other separate minds are seeing this same reality and we can't see each others dreams.

You have not answered. Can you prove objectively that you alone are not seeing all other seprate minds?

 

[Tristesse]

You have not answered. Can you prove objectively that you alone are not seeing all other seprate minds?

The default position is existence. I think you're the one who needs proof or evidence of your position.

 

[atanu]

The default position is existence. I think you're the one who needs proof or evidence of your position.

Yes. The existence is self evident. The self is self evident. But I am asking whether there is objective proof of others?

 

[Tristesse]

Yes. The existence is self evident. The self is self evident. But I am asking whether there is objective proof of others?

Why does there need to be? Because if I were to say that the confirmation from others is evidence, your typical response would be, "but you're using your senses to confirm that others exist." Or something along those lines.

 

[Acim]

If we are in a matrix then it is a dream we are sharing which is more than can be said of our individual dreams.

Only known / understood outside the dream. Well not "only" but perhaps "better." From within the night dream, it is plausible to realize it is dream I am participating in, and none of this is real, but is existing as manifestation / interpretation of consciousness.

Plausible to see this way in physical as well. Being wakeful to Self, rather than sleeping and caught up in dream of 'all around me is evidence that this is reality.'

 

[Acim]

The default position is existence. I think you're the one who needs proof or evidence of your position.

Thank you for making it subjective.

I subjectively agree with you that evidence exists. Said evidence is subjectively understood by me, and I believe we share understandings of this evidence, unless we don't. I believe we do. This belief can be / has been mistaken more times than I care to count, and 'correct' more times than I care to count.

 

[atanu]

Why does there need to be? Because if I were to say that the confirmation from others is evidence, your typical response would be, "but you're using your senses to confirm that others exist." Or something along those lines.

What do you mean? You mean that we should not enquire/inspect our basic assumptions?

 

[Tristesse]

What do you mean? You mean that we should not enquire/inspect our basic assumptions?

Thats not at all what I said. You're free to inspect all you want.

 

[Tristesse]

Thank you for making it subjective.

I subjectively agree with you that evidence exists. Said evidence is subjectively understood by me, and I believe we share understandings of this evidence, unless we don't. I believe we do. This belief can be / has been mistaken more times than I care to count, and 'correct' more times than I care to count.

If you agree and I agree, is it still subjective?