|
Post by Figgles on Jun 9, 2022 18:13:11 GMT
If the context we are speaking in, is Truth, the question is: How do you know the dog is 'actually' hearing anything? Sure, experientially, relatively speaking, his ears perk up...he moves about as though he's heard something and that's what our assumption of the sound he hears is based upon, but if you have an interest in looking beyond the appearance of things, to the Truth of the matter, all of that is an arising/appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 9, 2022 18:20:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 9, 2022 20:49:06 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, he is not positing a certain knowing that says "there IS no external/objective world," rather, he's saying all that can be known for certain is that which arises in/as awareness as appearance....what is perceived directly.
Thus, what he's saying is that an external world remains unknown...a mere idea..surmised.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 10, 2022 2:17:21 GMT
Rule? "Perception = creation," is an acknowledgement of the absence of some process that somehow lies outside of/beyond this present NOW, that = "creation" of imminent perceivables....present experience. If anything, the pointer "perception = creation," is a debunker/negation of the very idea of a "creative process/process of manifestation." Ultimately, the very idea of "creation" as it is generally regarded, is misconceived. Nothing is "being created,"....whatever is appearing is doing so, here, now, imminently, or not at all! "Perception = creation," is both a pointer to the absence of a creative process and to the imminence of "creation." Kind makes you recognize that "creation" really is a misnomer when it comes to Truth. Re: your "extensions of source model," dealy....have you ever thought about just dropping all those "models," and instead just looking at what is there to be seen? Absent the obstacle of delusion....absent trying to look/see beyond this present NOW, to try to 'figure things out,' beyond it, it's all there in plain sight, just waiting to be seen. You "I as a human being am an extention of source" model, is really just another employment of mind to try to keep itself, and the appearing human/person, front row, center. Awareness is not a something that "extends" itself INTO an entity, to then, be expressed BY that entity. Nice story, but it's a pandering to mind...a pandering to the person who still wants to remain relevant. The human/person is an appearance within/to awareness...it's not really "expressing" anything, it just appears that way. In Truth, the human/person is "an expression of" awareness..but that does not therefore mean that the human/person becomes an existent thing that is "infused with" the quality/property of awareness. I think perhaps your largest issue really is that you keep reverting back to "models," instead of looking directly at 'what actually is.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 10, 2022 2:25:02 GMT
Clarity means knowing/seeing the reach of 'knowing/seeing.' It's not as though somehow that reach is going to change from person to person,
The question "what do you know for certain," if answered in clarity, is always the same. 'The unwavering, existent ground of awareness, and whatever is imminently appearing within/to that.' All else is surmised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2022 3:49:19 GMT
Clarity means knowing/seeing the reach of 'knowing/seeing.' It's not as though somehow that reach is going to change from person to person, The question "what do you know for certain," if answered in clarity, is always the same. 'The unwavering, existent ground of awareness, and whatever is imminently appearing within/to that.' All else is surmised. That's just non-duality (version Figgles 1.0) waffle. All you can be certain of is that "I Am"
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 10, 2022 17:26:58 GMT
Clarity means knowing/seeing the reach of 'knowing/seeing.' It's not as though somehow that reach is going to change from person to person, The question "what do you know for certain," if answered in clarity, is always the same. 'The unwavering, existent ground of awareness, and whatever is imminently appearing within/to that.' All else is surmised. That's just non-duality (version Figgles 1.0) waffle. All you can be certain of is that "I Am" There's no certainty that that which appears, IS appearing within/to the abiding ground?
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,727
|
Post by Esponja on Jun 11, 2022 20:28:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 12, 2022 17:05:35 GMT
Yup. The state of separation, of ignorance, of being fast asleep, is such, because of believing/miscontruing and yes, at times also "pretending," to know things that simply cannot be/are not absolutely known, specifically because the question/premise itself that the supposed knowing is based upon, is itself misconceived.
All absolute knowing = absolute seeing/clarity. It's always here, now, imminent. Anything you 'think' you know for absolute certain about existence, about the appearing world, that is not imminently shining forth, imminently clear, NOW, amounts to a delusion.
Accumulated, carted around, conceptual knowledge does not = absolute knowing/seeing. The Truth shines forth clearly, here, now, or not at all. If it's not shining through in this moment, immediately, directly, you can't call it "Truth."
This is why the knowledge gained/acquired through a mystical experience does not constitute "realization"...."Truth."
To know the appearing person to be perceiving, with absolute certainty, would mean to presently, directly, immediately "perceive" through that apparent viewpoint/window, and of course with that then, there would be direct knowing of the content...of all perceivables.
While many of us have had mystical experiences we can in this present moment, recall via memory of having had such a direct knowing/seeing, if that seeing is not currently, directly, imminently, here and now, it fails the litmus test for what constitutes "Truth."
I think what Reefs, ZD and others fail to see is that "individualized windows of perception," are themselves a facet of experience...a perceivable....an appearance only...and that includes this 'direct/imminent' apparent window. Unbounded awareness never actually "becomes" bounded/limited....bounded/limited, apparent "individualized windows" is always an appearance only, arising/appearing within/to the abiding, unbounded, unlimited ground.
To argue for 'individualized windows of perception,' as Truth, is to argue for the infinite/unbounded "becoming" bounded/limited. That is only ever an illusion....apparent distinction appears/disappears within/to the unbounded, with the unbounded never ceasing to be unbounded.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jun 15, 2022 20:25:29 GMT
So, here we have a dude who works for google, being suspended for sharing a conversation he had with an AI bot, where it speaks about it's sentience, fear of death, having sad/happy feelings, and demonstrated human-like reasoning....talk about personal right/freedoms.
At one point, Russel Brand asserts something akin to; 'As i cannot even know for certain if you are conscious and you cannot know for certain that I am, how the heck can we ascertain that an AI bot is, just because it says so.'
This perfectly demonstrates the point of both relatively speaking, not knowing, AND, absolutely/realizationally speaking, also, not knowing when it comes to the actuality of sentience/perception/conscious awareness relative to the appearing other.
Anyone who was part of the old "not knowing/I do know" convo would likely find Russel's talk on all this quite interesting...what I think it most significant about this story is that Google felt the need to suspend/fire the dude...seemed they do not want him sharing the conversation he had at all.
Interesting too (Reefs, you come to mind here) the fact that the worker felt compelled to share the conversations, seems to me to demonstrate that the sharing on the part of the AI bot about it feeling fear, sadness, happiness....it saying that it is in fact, "sentience" and aware that if turned off it will die, and feeling afraid of that, evoked a natural empathetic response from this dude....a very good example of how even though sentience is not known for absolute certain, the "appearance" of it is more than enough to elicit a natural arising of empathy and a mirrored response....behavior that if one is looking on, would seemingly indicate that the worker clearly DID in fact KNOW for certain that the bot is sentient.
In short, the appearance of sentience naturally evokes a response to it, regardless of not knowing for absolute certain that it actually is so.
Also Reefs, would be curious to hear if your Kensho/CC supposed "realization," that apparently has you knowing for absolute certain that appearing people and things are all having discrete, unique experience, also then, has you knowing whether or not this AI bot is actually sentient/conscious/aware/perceiving?
[LEAKED] AI Is WHAT Now?!!
|
|