RE: A Speculative Case for Eternal Life
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
You are still using 'we' as if you know everything that everyone knows. You do not.
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
You are still using 'we' as if you know everything that everyone knows. You do not.
This is an example of what I am talking about here.
You are making big claims based on what you perceive to be the state of the entirety of life that exists - but you do not have access to that and most likely, no-one does. After extensive exploration of the topics you are addressing here, I know for sure that:
a) a very small percentage of valid scientific experiments on these topics are ever made public. the power involved is too great for those 'in power' to want or allow that.
b) science is not something that can only be done in labs, with funding and that requires publication. the essence of science is fundamentally the essence of exploration in life and it is typically used by most people on most days to some extent. since you are addressing the fundamentals of being a living being here, that means that there is a massive wealth of experimentation and learning to draw on - far more than will ever be allowed to be published in 'journals'.
Consciousness is 'being aware' / 'noticing'. What do you need to prove about it? If you notice any detail about the situation, you have proved it exists. It seems that you are referring to non physical self by using the word 'consciousness' - is that right?
You can absolutely experience, explore and learn about/from your non physical parts/aspects. In my experience, I needed to do extensive detoxification and quite a bit of internal healing to do this. This includes the understanding that judgement itself is counter productive and holds away right understanding. Judgements are limiting thoughts which obscure actual truth.
Discussing this without the necessary direct internal experience is not enough.
That's a mischaracterization of what I did say. I didn't say anything about life, except that some of it demonstrates consciousness. My comments are about consciousness.
a) is speculation.
b) isn't factually correct. I'm not addressing the fundamentals of being a living being. I'm addressing consciousness, and in fact state we have no way of knowing that consciousness is limited to living things, but can only detect it indirectly because some living being take actions that demonstrate it. You're mischaracterizing my statements.
That's part of it. Consciousness is also a noun, and that's what I am referring to, which is obvious if you read what I've said without bias. A lot of the problem we have with wrapping our heads around consciousness is that we don't even have very good words to discuss it, because we know so little about it.
Our disagreements seem to be caused by bias. You are mischaracterizing my statements to create straw man arguments that you can knock down.
You explain your bias here. Also your confusion. How can you understand unless you can judge between what is factual and what is not? Without judgment there is no understanding.
We have different definitions of the words being used.
For me, judgement is a limiting form of thought that skips over depth of reality in order to form a decision on something - which then tends to take hold as if it is fact. Discernment is the replacement for judgement, which holds space open for new thoughts.
consciousness as a noun refers to: "the state of being aware of and able to think, perceive, and experience" - which we typically correlate to 'living'.
unconsciousness also exists.
both are states of the essence of self/god.
in my way of parsing reality, you are grappling with existence and calling it consciousness.
What we call unconsciousness isn't not being aware and able to think. It's simply being non-responsive. It is well proven our minds are active during periods of 'unconsciousness'. A lot of our apparent disagreements are at least exacerbated by the very poor language we use to describe consciousness, likely because we have no idea what it actually is.
Are you saying you don't have neurons and aren't part of the group that has neurons?
You're wrong. I'm not claiming to know everything, and you mischaracterize my comments by saying I do. You are part of we the people. In discussions of we the people, all people are part of what's being discussed. It's silly to claim otherwise.
you are telling me I am wrong, without enquiring what I might know.
you are also stating repeatedly that 'we know this' and 'we don't know that'. regardless of whather I am part of 'we the people' or not, you do not know what all of 'we the people' knows. this is surely obvious, no?
You have stated that I think I know everything, and you are wrong.
I never made any such statement. You don't address the point I make above that we have neurons, so using the word we to refer to the group that has neurons isn't inaccurate, and certainly doesn't claim to know what those neurons are doing.
You're putting words in my mouth that don't go there.
If you phrase your ideas in ways such as "But the claims some people make about continuing to have consciousness after dying aren't able to be confirmed, can't be tested, nor quantified in any way."
You are stating as if you know this to be a fact and that you know what everyone else has ever done or knows. It has taken me most of my life just to even identify the various groups of thinkers in this world who all explore quite differently to each other - outside of the mainstream. Actually understanding the depth of their knowledge is a full time job. The mainstreams scientific people repeatedly deny the possibility that such groups know more than they do, yet when these scientific people often reach the same conclusions years later, they then usually continue their denial. Instead of crediting these other groups with knowing something before they did, they act as if the other groups don't exist and then try to take credit and power/status as a result.
I'm not saying you are doing this. I am saying that it has been a major hurdle in human evolution / healing / balancing and I want people to notice it and stop feeding in to it.
I understand empirical evidence. Anecdotes do not meet that standard. Such reports cannot be other than anecdotes, because they're incapable of being undertaken experimentally under controlled conditions. How does that mean I know everything? You're just making that accusation up out of nothing. Nothing I said has anything to do with that claim you're forcing into my mouth.
Stop that.
You're claiming to know everything everyone else knows.
Stop projecting your claim to understand everything everyone knows on me. I make no such claim, and you are the only person I have ever spoken with that does.