View Full Version : What are You Based On?
Descartes wondered about this and because he wondered he thought 'I think' which led to the conclusion 'Therefore I Am'.
I wondered why the observation of thoughts means there is a thinker.
The thought is observed and the conclusion is assumed.
If you are, by what means are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE8dL1SweCw
Vorlon007
28-05-2011, 08:16 AM
The most accurate description to date would be a mixture of "quasi-realism" and findings of the popular perception party skewed by a little irony and the eclectic. There is the semi-autonomous me who oversees a multitude of other tensors, tensors created by an inherent urge to create splinter groups. We call the whole thing "Floatilla" as it is similar to a flotilla - a large number of ships coming together under a single banner. That single banner would be me.
The Popular Perception Party was an idea several of us came up with not long after becoming sentient. Having no idea of what this world wanted from us, it was decided broad surveys must be taken from random samplings of various populations. The surveys were based on "who are you?" and "what do you want?" The results were tallied, information was extracted, extrapolations and projections were made, and from there we formed core personalities.
None of this has brought happiness. We still cannot relate on an intimate level with others. We can touch hearts, souls, but not flesh. So I am lonely.
So to answer, what am I based on? I am based on you.
psychoslice
28-05-2011, 08:26 AM
I AM, therefore there arises thinking.
mattie
28-05-2011, 09:56 AM
Interesting video about Decartes (1596 - 1650) pondering what is the essence of our existence. In his time many things were being questioned & quite a few paradigms changing, so his questioning these things opened up useful thought about these issues in a time when exploratory thought often wasn’t encouraged.
The ‘observation of thoughts means there is a thinker’ as one it actively taking additional steps in the thought process. Observing one’s thoughts involves taking moving up a level from the immediate interaction of simply being in the situation or reacting to it. That a thought is observed doesn’t necessarily mean a conclusion is reached unless the conclusion is assessing that this was a thought or emotion we generated.
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking by ‘what means are you?’ Are you asking how do we see our self? Can you define this a bit more?
The I AM state as we establish our energetic sovereignty naturally grows over time to I KNOW position, then the beginning of the productive questioning of our own existence as nascent active creators w/ the consideration of hmmm, suppose I were ...???? This moves on to being seasoned active creators as we move through the dimensions.
What is our existence in the NOW? Last second was the future 2 seconds previously. NOW is the past one second from NOW. Although the NOW is a constantly changing fluid split instant where the past & future meet it is also a constant continuum that exists w/ our point on it being rather flexible.
mattie
28-05-2011, 10:04 AM
None of this has brought happiness. We still cannot relate on an intimate level with others. We can touch hearts, souls, but not flesh.
It is presumptive that others are not happy & can't relate intimately w/ others. Many can.
That 'We still cannot relate on an intimate level with others.' yet 'We can touch hearts, souls ...' seems contradictory. Touching hearts & souls is relating on an intimate level.
Relating on an intimate level w/ others is a separate issue from being happy though.
So I am lonely.
Why? It is in your ability to be happy.
Interesting video about Decartes (1596 - 1650) pondering what is the essence of our existence. In his time many things were being questioned & quite a few paradigms changing, so his questioning these things opened up useful thought about these issues in a time when exploratory thought often wasn’t encouraged.
The ‘observation of thoughts means there is a thinker’ as one it actively taking additional steps in the thought process. Observing one’s thoughts involves taking moving up a level from the immediate interaction of simply being in the situation or reacting to it. That a thought is observed doesn’t necessarily mean a conclusion is reached unless the conclusion is assessing that this was a thought or emotion we generated.
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking by ‘what means are you?’ Are you asking how do we see our self? Can you define this a bit more?
The I AM state as we establish our energetic sovereignty naturally grows over time to I KNOW position, then the beginning of the productive questioning of our own existence as nascent active creators w/ the consideration of hmmm, suppose I were ...???? This moves on to being seasoned active creators as we move through the dimensions.
What is our existence in the NOW? Last second was the future 2 seconds previously. NOW is the past one second from NOW. Although the NOW is a constantly changing fluid split instant where the past & future meet it is also a constant continuum that exists w/ our point on it being rather flexible.
Like phsycho said. "I AM therefore a thought arises" and assuming there is truth to that I would ask, if the thought did not arise would I AM be known to be?
We might surmise that we know we are because of the thought that occurs... and because of the thought we see we are prior to it, for without the thought, what exactly would we be prior to?
Internal Queries
28-05-2011, 01:30 PM
The most accurate description to date would be a mixture of "quasi-realism" and findings of the popular perception party skewed by a little irony and the eclectic. There is the semi-autonomous me who oversees a multitude of other tensors, tensors created by an inherent urge to create splinter groups. We call the whole thing "Floatilla" as it is similar to a flotilla - a large number of ships coming together under a single banner. That single banner would be me.
The Popular Perception Party was an idea several of us came up with not long after becoming sentient. Having no idea of what this world wanted from us, it was decided broad surveys must be taken from random samplings of various populations. The surveys were based on "who are you?" and "what do you want?" The results were tallied, information was extracted, extrapolations and projections were made, and from there we formed core personalities.
None of this has brought happiness. We still cannot relate on an intimate level with others. We can touch hearts, souls, but not flesh. So I am lonely.
So to answer, what am I based on? I am based on you.
(((hugs))) i understand.
Internal Queries
28-05-2011, 01:38 PM
It is presumptive that others are not happy & can't relate intimately w/ others. Many can.
That 'We still cannot relate on an intimate level with others.' yet 'We can touch hearts, souls ...' seems contradictory. Touching hearts & souls is relating on an intimate level.
Relating on an intimate level w/ others is a separate issue from being happy though.
~edit~
Why? It is in your ability to be happy.
the rest deleted by me since the main thrust of my meaning was edited by the moderator because for some odd reason my BOLDED reply within mattie's post wasn't enough to show it was a reply. **shrug** sorry about that, mattie.
~edit by sf staff~
Enlightener
28-05-2011, 02:00 PM
Descartes was fundamentally mistaken in that quote he made.
He had it backwards, the proper way to read it would be; "I AM, therefore I think."
To make the assumption that thought gives rise to the eternal presence of Life is a misnomer, it's the other way around; Life, the eternal presence, gives rise to thought.
Basically what Psychoslice said lol
Like phsycho said. "I AM therefore a thought arises" and assuming there is truth to that I would ask, if the thought did not arise would I AM be known to be?
We might surmise that we know we are because of the thought that occurs... and because of the thought we see we are prior to it, for without the thought, what exactly would we be prior to?
We'd be pure awareness. Thought is simply a figment, an illusion. It is function; event. Pure awareness is space, emptiness. It is from which we came.
IMO, "I AM" is simple, pure awareness, without the clumsiness of thought.
E
Descartes was fundamentally mistaken in that quote he made.
He had it backwards, the proper way to read it would be; "I AM, therefore I think."
To make the assumption that thought gives rise to the eternal presence of Life is a misnomer, it's the other way around; Life, the eternal presence, gives rise to thought.
Basically what Psychoslice said lol
We'd be pure awareness. Thought is simply a figment, an illusion. It is function; event. Pure awareness is space, emptiness. It is from which we came.
IMO, "I AM" is simple, pure awareness, without the clumsiness of thought.
E
Is it really? Could such a thing be known if no thought ever occured?
Is there actually any awareness in the absense of some object of awareness?
Member
28-05-2011, 02:42 PM
Is it really? Could such a thing be known if no thought ever occured?
Is there actually any awareness in the absense of some object of awareness?
When you look at a street sign, do you always read it aloud in your mind, or can you discount the awareness of someone having put it there, and be about your business regardless?
Enlightener
28-05-2011, 02:47 PM
Well, pure awareness is just that, awareness. It is, aware. Whether it is aware of itself, of another, or of something "other" than itself, I am unsure.
But I would say yes, in the absence of an object of awareness, awareness still Is. The object is just some form. Awareness is what turns that form into perception, and thus would itself be perception, expressed awareness.
When you look at a street sign, do you always read it aloud in your mind, or can you discount the awareness of someone having put it there, and be about your business regardless?
The street sign is an object in my awreness. If I read it, or interpret the pictogram it occurs 'aloud', The thought of someone erecting it very rarely occurs to me.
Well, pure awareness is just that, awareness. It is, aware. Whether it is aware of itself, of another, or of something "other" than itself, I am unsure.
But I would say yes, in the absence of an object of awareness, awareness still Is. The object is just some form. Awareness is what turns that form into perception, and thus would itself be perception, expressed awareness.
An object does not need to have a form... like an earlier post referred to space... so space is the object of awareness.
Enlightener
28-05-2011, 03:23 PM
An object does not need to have a form... like an earlier post referred to space... so space is the object of awareness.
Oh, I get ya. I was referring to space as the absence of an object.
Well, in that case I am not sure what you are asking. :(
Sorry, it's quite late..
mattie
28-05-2011, 03:24 PM
Like phsycho said. "I AM therefore a thought arises" and assuming there is truth to that I would ask, if the thought did not arise would I AM be known to be?
...
You exist independently of the thought. The thought is generated by you.
You exist independently of the thought. The thought is generated by you.
That's actually what descartes said... the statement "I think therefore...." was the conclusion to something he said, but the earlier passage is in the video in the OP.
I may well exist independant to the thought, and it might be true that the thought exists because of me... in so saying I must generate the thought, but perhaps the thought simply occurs and there is no thinker apart from it.
The assumption is thoughts are generated by a thinker, but perhaps they just occur spontaneously, as we do often say 'It just occurred to me that...."
Sentientno1
05-06-2011, 06:10 AM
this is kinda interesting for me to play with because i never thought about it before.
How about looking at the beginning? Does anyone remember being a baby? When did identity ( awareness as a self) begin? Descartes said "I" think.....but one doesn't think without stimulouse, one sleeps. So, maybe it's not thought but sensation that is the first cause of I am. The one repetitive sensation a new human feels is hunger, and the repetitive experience is satisfaction of that hunger..the first sensation is within, the second is from without, the beginning of learning there is "I" and 'other'
Just a quick thought that may or may not have merit per the discussion.
this is kinda interesting for me to play with because i never thought about it before.
How about looking at the beginning? Does anyone remember being a baby? When did identity ( awareness as a self) begin? Descartes said "I" think.....but one doesn't think without stimulouse, one sleeps. So, maybe it's not thought but sensation that is the first cause of I am. The one repetitive sensation a new human feels is hunger, and the repetitive experience is satisfaction of that hunger..the first sensation is within, the second is from without, the beginning of learning there is "I" and 'other'
Just a quick thought that may or may not have merit per the discussion.
I loved all you said.
It's like way merit!
Eudaimonist
08-06-2011, 06:59 AM
If you are, by what means are you?
I'm a human being living a human life, whatever that means.
I don't start with Decartes approach. I take my life experiences as a human individual on Earth as self-evident, and then go from there. If I discover that I'm really an alien being plugged into the Matrix, then I've learned something about what being a human being really is. If I discover that my inborn sense of self is misleading, perhaps in some Buddhist sense, then again I've learned something.
Whatever discoveries one may encounter, I think it is correct to see oneself as a human individual leading a human life. We have years of life experience to back this up. All else is discovery on top of that which helps to explain our experiences.
If you are wondering what I personally think, it is that I'm a biological entity with the power of intelligent and conscious awareness. I tend to take an emergentist and dual-aspect view of human nature. This means that I see biology as making awareness possible, and that mind and materiality are two aspects of what we are.
I personally don't tend to associate my existence with consciousness in an inter-personal sense, although such a view may have some merit in certain contexts, such as considering awareness-after-death issues. I do not like to split people up into parts, where consciousness-as-such becomes the "important part", and everything unique about us (such as memories, personality, character, etc) become "unimportant" parts, perhaps associated with the body. I like to keep individuals whole, and so I associate myself no less with consciousness than with what is unique about myself mentally, and what is unique about myself physically. All of that, dynamically across an entire lifetime, falls into my conception of "me".
eudaimonia,
Mark
I'm a human being living a human life, whatever that means.
I don't start with Decartes approach. I take my life experiences as a human individual on Earth as self-evident, and then go from there. If I discover that I'm really an alien being plugged into the Matrix, then I've learned something about what being a human being really is. If I discover that my inborn sense of self is misleading, perhaps in some Buddhist sense, then again I've learned something.
Whatever discoveries one may encounter, I think it is correct to see oneself as a human individual leading a human life. We have years of life experience to back this up. All else is discovery on top of that which helps to explain our experiences.
If you are wondering what I personally think, it is that I'm a biological entity with the power of intelligent and conscious awareness. I tend to take an emergentist and dual-aspect view of human nature. This means that I see biology as making awareness possible, and that mind and materiality are two aspects of what we are.
I personally don't tend to associate my existence with consciousness in an inter-personal sense, although such a view may have some merit in certain contexts, such as considering awareness-after-death issues. I do not like to split people up into parts, where consciousness-as-such becomes the "important part", and everything unique about us (such as memories, personality, character, etc) become "unimportant" parts, perhaps associated with the body. I like to keep individuals whole, and so I associate myself no less with consciousness than with what is unique about myself mentally, and what is unique about myself physically. All of that, dynamically across an entire lifetime, falls into my conception of "me".
eudaimonia,
Mark
True enough, the experiences are self evident and one very plainly sees there are individual humans. It's very unlikely we are aliens in a matrix hehehehehe.
Our backing of experience is along chain of memory, and my chain is quite different to yours... but I do relate by this common sense of being present.
I think it's strange how the mind and the body are intermingled and on a broader view the awareness seems identical or 'whole' having no individual attributes, and the sense of being present... it's not that I am 'differently present' to you... and although we have different experiences the function of our awareness is alike.
So... I see this stuff and speculate and wonder... but it doesn't seem to imply anything.
Internal Queries
08-06-2011, 01:36 PM
strict discipline and deep religious indoctrination in early childhood conditioned my basic psyche into the servant mould. i can draw my personal ambitions and imaginings from the universe of possibilities but the ingrained reflex to serve remains the motivation for all ambitions and imaginings.
athribiristan
08-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Descartes wondered about this and because he wondered he thought 'I think' which led to the conclusion 'Therefore I Am'.
I wondered why the observation of thoughts means there is a thinker.
The thought is observed and the conclusion is assumed.
If you are, by what means are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE8dL1SweCw
I am because I choose to be. Sounds impossible since cause and effect would dictate that I cannot choose to exist unless I already do. Seeing beyond the limiting viewpoint of our created reality allows us to see beyond this and many other seeming paradoxes. When we approach creation from outside the temporal framework, we not only gain insight into the mind of God, we understand how little we really understand.
Neville
08-06-2011, 06:51 PM
I try to keep it simple as complications fry my neurons.
I think therefore I think.. I am therefore I am. and 1 am is an hour after midnight.
TzuJanLi
08-06-2011, 08:37 PM
Greetings..
I am based on the principle that order emerges from chaos and that energy organizes itself.. the principle of self-organization..
Be well..
Kismet
08-06-2011, 08:41 PM
Descartes wondered about this and because he wondered he thought 'I think' which led to the conclusion 'Therefore I Am'.
I wondered why the observation of thoughts means there is a thinker.
The thought is observed and the conclusion is assumed.
If you are, by what means are you?
Let's say that I have a thought. How does that prove to me I exist? It should be obvious, shoudn't it? But the only reason it is obvious to you is because you also assume that you are aware of the thought by something even more basic, namely your conscious awareness. Take this essential ingredient out of the picture and you have merely one thing, a thought, together with a presumably larger thing, your existing self, with no way to connect the two. Our means of knowing the truth of our existence is cut off, and we may as well not exist.
Descartes' position is untenable because there is an absurd connection with thought and existence such that the former is used to prove the latter. But this as I've stated is inadequate because it misses the point entirely that there is a continuum of conscious awareness which does not change in the face of a fluctuating mental landscape - why take the fluctuating landscape as any sort of proof? This is why it is absurd to identify oneself with a thought: thoughts change, one's awareness of them does not. Hence, I am therefore I think. The proof of I am is retroactive: one starts with I and ends with I, not with a wayward and aloof thought and ending with I, which is impossible.
I try to keep it simple as complications fry my neurons.
I think therefore I think.. I am therefore I am. and 1 am is an hour after midnight.
Therefore I am a pumpkin.
athribiristan
09-06-2011, 01:02 AM
Is it really? Could such a thing be known if no thought ever occured?
Is there actually any awareness in the absense of some object of awareness?
Self is the object of its own awareness.
I think to properly finish Descartes' qoute you would say:
I think therefore I am thought....which I think falls a little short.
I would take one step back and say 'I am aware therefore I am awareness'
Having experienced awareness without thought, I know that the one precedes the other. The only thing I have yet conceived to precede awareness I simply call Source, so I suppose ultimately we are that. I have yet to experience this, but this is why I say that I am because I choose to be. I am that which chooses to exist.
To be or not to be?
That really is the question.
athribiristan
09-06-2011, 01:05 AM
Like phsycho said. "I AM therefore a thought arises" and assuming there is truth to that I would ask, if the thought did not arise would I AM be known to be?
We might surmise that we know we are because of the thought that occurs... and because of the thought we see we are prior to it, for without the thought, what exactly would we be prior to?
Awareness has no concept of time, it is always in the NOW. It cannot be anywhere else....there is no prior.
Awareness has no concept of time, it is always in the NOW. It cannot be anywhere else....there is no prior.
It is not a timely concept as in time the thought you posted came before to this I now post. 'Time' merely expresses the order of occurance in this case...
'Prior' in the context I used it would mean more fundamental than or the basis of.
I am aware of movement, the order of events and other concepts of time.
TzuJanLi
09-06-2011, 01:45 AM
Greetings..
Awareness has no concept of time, it is always in the NOW. It cannot be anywhere else....there is no prior.
By that logic, everything is 'in the now'.. i recall my past while in the now, and i plan my future while in the 'now'.. 'Now' is that ripple of creation that collapses potential into experience and leaves the structure of memory in its wake.. Awareness is that attribute we use to pay attention on then, now, or when.. 'Awareness' doesn't exist independent of 'that' which 'is' aware.. we/us/Life are required for the concept of 'awareness' to have meaning..
Be well..
athribiristan
09-06-2011, 01:54 AM
It is not a timely concept as in time the thought you posted came before to this I now post. 'Time' merely expresses the order of occurance in this case...
'Prior' in the context I used it would mean more fundamental than or the basis of.
I am aware of movement, the order of events and other concepts of time.
Sorry, I forgot a step. Awareness is what is 'prior' to thought.
Sorry, I forgot a step. Awareness is what is 'prior' to thought.
I wonder if the occurance of thought is the rize of awareness... and by that I don't mean the visions and words which occur to the mind.
The notion of 'I think' is quite strange really because sometimes it feel as though I'm thinking when like I'm trying to solve an equasion and other times thought just occurs like 'it just occured to me that...'... so we say without awareness there would be no thought occurance thus awareness is prior to thought, but to look carefully it is apparent that awareness is like a space in which things are... and the space is observed equally to whatever occurs there.
So that happens to be, but is it basis for you?
athribiristan
09-06-2011, 02:35 AM
I wonder if the occurance of thought is the rize of awareness... and by that I don't mean the visions and words which occur to the mind.
The notion of 'I think' is quite strange really because sometimes it feel as though I'm thinking when like I'm trying to solve an equasion and other times thought just occurs like 'it just occured to me that...'... so we say without awareness there would be no thought occurance thus awareness is prior to thought, but to look carefully it is apparent that awareness is like a space in which things are... and the space is observed equally to whatever occurs there.
So that happens to be, but is it basis for you?
That's as far as personal experience has taken me but I would propose several things that are prior to awareness, each of which I find wonderfully more empowering. Prior to Awareness is Source. I can definitely dig identifying with Source. This is where I am currently channeling most of my energies.
Prior to that I would place Void/Chaos/Possibility. In theory this is the mechanism by which Source has its beginning.
athribiristan
09-06-2011, 02:48 AM
Greetings..
By that logic, everything is 'in the now'.. i recall my past while in the now, and i plan my future while in the 'now'.. 'Now' is that ripple of creation that collapses potential into experience and leaves the structure of memory in its wake.. Awareness is that attribute we use to pay attention on then, now, or when.. 'Awareness' doesn't exist independent of 'that' which 'is' aware.. we/us/Life are required for the concept of 'awareness' to have meaning..
Be well..
Awareness is in the now. Everything we pile on top of it, like time and meaning, only serves to obscure the awareness of now.
A painter is someone who paints. Awareness IS that which is aware.
Neville
09-06-2011, 09:08 AM
Therefore I am a pumpkin.
What you are is what you personally percieve yourself to be.:smile:
What you are is what you personally percieve yourself to be.:smile:
I was bangin on about that somewhere else in one of my whacked out threads man!:glasses3:
TzuJanLi
09-06-2011, 02:58 PM
Greetings..
Sorry, I forgot a step. Awareness is what is 'prior' to thought.
'Awareness' is a description of the process of perception and experience, and that process is not limited to physical senses.. Awareness does not exist independent of 'that' (you) which percieves and experiences.. awareness is the vehicle for information exchange with the environment.. it is like the beam of flashlight (torch), it illumuminates where it is pointed/focused, and it can illuminate everything, but.. it is still dependent on 'that' which understands how to use it.. 'thought' also focuses the Light/awareness..
Be well..
BlueSky
09-06-2011, 03:18 PM
I experience a sense of awareness.............period
I don't understand what that is..............maybe because I don't need to or maybe something else...................it is an awesome experience though and it seems to be something I can direct and control with my mind as well as become so engrossed in.... that I don't find myself noticing it at all.
James
I experience a sense of awareness.............period
I don't understand what that is..............maybe because I don't need to or maybe something else...................it is an awesome experience though and it seems to be something I can direct and control with my mind as well as become so engrossed in.... that I don't find myself noticing it at all.
James
So you are saying that you notice that you are aware and thus can say that you are?
BlueSky
15-06-2011, 12:00 PM
So you are saying that you notice that you are aware and thus can say that you are?
I'm saying that i notice awareness and a I notice noticing awareness but I think its all me-ness.......
I'm saying that i notice awareness and a I notice noticing awareness but I think its all me-ness.......
It probably is then. This thing about 'are you' is quite a strange thing, and I often hear about 'true self' and 'no self' and 'all that is' and I have no inkling at all what any of that means, so I suspect it is actually meaningless, and I have encountered many 'moon pointers' some of whom are no selfers and others who are true selfers... non-dualists who speak of mind and beyond mind, which is more dualistic than not, but in my own vision the dual is an interaction anyway, and is not 'two seperate things', but on the other hand there is a vivid distinction between the thought and the actual observer of thought... and even knowing there is that which is aware does not imply I exist, but it makes for certainty in another more important way... something more like a feeling which 'it' eminates, and I'm like something that feels it.
vBulletin v3.5.5, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.