Little Idiot wrote:We count types as fundamentally different. Like, say, 'mind' and 'matter' to quote the stereotypical division.
Undivided awareness is (in the mentalist model) the host of all the individual awareness, is a way akin to a single mind hosting all its separate ideas which are in one sense part of it, yet in another sense different from it.

That seems new and significant. Previously you have argued against UA being anything like an individual human mind. The properties you have described for seem very different indeed.

Is UA a single mind, or not?
What would it mean to be a single mind?

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

You said I was, now I defend your point?
O.k. I guess. Well mainly I was talking about the undivided awareness thing.

I'm not making an argument so I have no assumptions in this game. Very curious that you want your audience to chime in with you as you construct. Prior to seeing your argument. I think what you are reaching for is this:

"Awareness could be divided amongst us individuals or it could be a part of some bigger whole"

That would be YOU stating some premise for your argument. Now if you were a preacher on the pulpit you may desire that your audience say "Amen!" every few minutes but I fail to see why you need it here on RatSkep.

Now do note that if you put it like I put it up there, then you would admit at that juncture it would be an assumption either way. You would have to admit that it was your premise that it could be either/or as well. That would be you 'being clear' and I have little hope for that today.

Now on this matter of undivided awareness this caught my eye:

Little Idiot wrote:...
your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions
...

My 'awareness' of that color is what I would color a lovely blue. If we are undivided awareness, you and I together, then why do we divide on this lovely blue?

I would like 'the audience' to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awreness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made.
And it is obvious that I dont want to face the accusation that it contradicts known facts....

We subjectively experience the blue differently because as individual awareness-es we have our individual tastes. These differences in taste, opinion etc come down to genes and up-to-date conditioning.
We do experience as individual awareness-es in my model. We have another, normally hidden relationship with the undivided source which is important because it is our direct link to unmanifest reality.

But none of us agree with that and to figure out what we actually think about your undivided awareness we would have to have another very fat thread.

It would probably have a lot of things in it like why you and I can't meet up in unmanifest reality and iron out our feelings about this lovely color blue

Just fucking admit that it is one of your premises that it could be divided or maybe it could be something else altogether.

Now one further reason I would never admit to your ask about an assumption, besides it not being my argument and my having never made that assumption is this:

We have to have another very big fat thread about the issue where I am not even clear what awareness would be if I believed in it as something that could be meaningful in these kinds of statements. So even answering your question puts me out on a limb that I think is inherently rotten.

But why and the fuck are you asking us to say Amen? Not even our fucking argument. The best we can do is giving you nodding approval to go ahead and I assure you we are all hoping like hell that you can back this undivided shit up in some small way, LATER.

In short, you want us to agree with your FUCKING CONCLUSION, at the beginning of the argument, by mouthing YOUR MANTRA, to IMPLY that we are fucking wrong, about something we have never even stated.

Now this bullshit started at post 40 or so and here we are at 1000 with you still wanting us to say words that make you seem right with no reasonable argument given.

But hell, lets go at this for another 10000 posts. You still wont get us to say Amen.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well. You are still going on and on here trying to make us, your audience, admit to assumptions. You don't seem to get what an assumption is for in a logical argument. But then you waffle between your shit being a logical argument and not being one. You are waffling all over the place about reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

It's like a big pile of really fine feathers and every time you get the slightest critique the pile is blown up and comes down in a subtly different way. Are you playing here for post count or do you have other goals? Cuz I already kicked your ass on post count.

Well, since its a metaphysical discussion I dont see being clear about these things (red) is weakness;
reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions

your (yellow) logical argument and not being one - some parts are logical arguments, its good to be logical. But most of the metaphysics is reasoning, you know.

Your (orange) going on and on, as well as you waffle is well, I'll take going on, even waffle, if it pleases you.

So you see reasoning as not being logical argument?

You never answered this question LI. Or did I miss it?

World Mind : The Story So Far

World Mind is not just a metaphysical position but the metaphysical position
That is based on undivided awareness which exists outside of time and space

Even though outside of time and space is a nonsensical concept that does not really matter
What does matter is that objects may not be real and should not be treated as if they were

World Mind may be the metaphysical position but it is only a concept and so cannot be true
As no concept can actually be true although World Mind is more true than all other concepts

Any accepted fact which contradicts World Mind can be conveniently ignored
Even though the concept of World Mind means that it cannot actually be true

World Mind is simultaneously a concept and also the metaphysical position
This means it is more compatible with observed reality than physicalism is

newolder wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:...
I would like 'the audience' to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awreness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made.
And it is obvious that I dont want to face the accusation that it contradicts known facts....

Who made that assumption (awareness must be individual) and where?

Individual a....

That is a very good question. I would not make one of those statements either way or in any shape.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:We count types as fundamentally different. Like, say, 'mind' and 'matter' to quote the stereotypical division.
Undivided awareness is (in the mentalist model) the host of all the individual awareness, is a way akin to a single mind hosting all its separate ideas which are in one sense part of it, yet in another sense different from it.

That seems new and significant. Previously you have argued against UA being anything like an individual human mind. The properties you have described for seem very different indeed.

Is UA a single mind, or not?
What would it mean to be a single mind?

UA is the 'host' of all the individual awareness-es (ia).
Waves on the ocean. Nothing new there. Awareness is the water of both the ocean and the wave.

Fundamentally the same stuff, each ia is a limited part of UA, but different in magnitude and individual persective.
However, just as the ocean is not 'just' a big wave, and the salt is not 'just' a big NaCl molecule and so on, then in the same way UA is not 'just' a big ia.
Your question 'Is UA a single mind, or not?' - Yes, it 'is' unmanifest nonduality (one without a second), but as manifest it 'is' the multitude of individual awareness-es as an ocean is the multitude of waves. So it is not a simple yes/no answer.

To be a non-dual awareness means it is aware if all that is*, and it manifests all that is, without itself being manifest as any limited thing (which would be to limit it).
* including past, present and future, it is not limited to now as ia is limited to now.

If you keep calling me limited I am going to hit the report button.

UA seems to be nothing at all like "there is experience" . Experience outs all about the individual subject view and IA it's not. Nothing has been offered to connect IA to UA. The latter is an alien concept, something else. "There is experience" then "there is something other".

SpeedOfSound wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well. You are still going on and on here trying to make us, your audience, admit to assumptions. You don't seem to get what an assumption is for in a logical argument. But then you waffle between your shit being a logical argument and not being one. You are waffling all over the place about reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

It's like a big pile of really fine feathers and every time you get the slightest critique the pile is blown up and comes down in a subtly different way. Are you playing here for post count or do you have other goals? Cuz I already kicked your ass on post count.

Well, since its a metaphysical discussion I dont see being clear about these things (red) is weakness;
reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions

your (yellow) logical argument and not being one - some parts are logical arguments, its good to be logical. But most of the metaphysics is reasoning, you know.

Your (orange) going on and on, as well as you waffle is well, I'll take going on, even waffle, if it pleases you.

So you see reasoning as not being logical argument?

You never answered this question LI. Or did I miss it?

I didn't answer it, I went to eat.
I have no real interest in a 10 page sub-topic, but while I would agree there are common elements and similarities, they are not identical. I would suggest that a reasoned argument should not be illogical, but at the same time not all logically correct arguments are reasonable.

What I meant by the statement was that the majority of arguments are reasoned rather than logically structured.

But that distinction (logic - reasoning) isn't the only distinction between logic and mentalism when we include mystical philosophy which includes activity and mysticism in synthesis with mentalism to subjectively prove the mentalism.

SpeedOfSound wrote:If you keep calling me limited I am going to hit the report button.

We (except SoS) are all limited awareness.
Can I say you claim to be not aware?
Maybe ia* which is 'limited awareness-es, not to be confused with SoS'.

Little Idiot wrote:
I would like the audience to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awareness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made

I would like you to demonstrate that undivided awareness actually exists because if it does not then it can not contradict any known facts. It is a hypothetical concept not a real thing and so therefore non contradiction is not going to make it any more real than it already is. And so unless you can demonstrate it exists your argument is invalid

GrahamH wrote:UA seems to be nothing at all like "there is experience" . Experience outs all about the individual subject view and IA it's not. Nothing has been offered to connect IA to UA. The latter is an alien concept, something else. "There is experience" then "there is something other".

Like a shaker of salt and an NaCl molecule, or like a wave and an ocean - the question of like does not have a simple yes/no answer.

UA is 'like' ia in that as a large circle contains a smaller concentric circle, so ia is entirely hosted in every possible way by UA, there is nothing of ia that is not UA.
UA is unlike ia in that there are aspects of UA that are not ia.

UA is unlike ia in that ia experiences the apparent flow instant-instant-instant and thinks it has duration over time, exeriences flow of time, experiences things as-if separate from itself.
UA 'experiences' differently to how we experience, so much so that the word 'experience' is scarcely usable.

But since UA hosts ia, all 'ia experience' is not unknown to UA, all be it not as we experience things.
I don't think I want to go much further with that at this point.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I would like the audience to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awareness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made

I would like you to demonstrate that undivided awareness actually exists because if it does not then it can not contradict any known facts. It is a hypothetical concept not a real thing and so therefore non contradiction is not going to make it any more real than it already is. And so unless you can demonstrate it exists your argument is invalid

Can you demonstrate individual awareness exists?
I know I have awareness, I am aware, but I may struggle to demonstrate it exists.

First define exists; I think most agree that to exist is to be in space and time, do you agree?
I am not sure how you would demonstrate your awareness is a thing in space and time.

I do not accept your point as valid because
1. undivided awareness is not a thing in space and time, and as far as I am aware to exist is to be in space and time. Unless you have a different version of exist that I am unaware of I do not claim undivided awareness exists.
2. undivided awareness is God, so you want me to demonstrate God exists so that I may begin to present my argument for my metaphysics. I am not entirely convinced you have a case there ...

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:If you keep calling me limited I am going to hit the report button.

We (except SoS) are all limited awareness.
Can I say you claim to be not aware?
Maybe ia* which is 'limited awareness-es, not to be confused with SoS'.

Thank you.

Hope you guessed my name

Little Idiot wrote:
UA is like ia in that as a large circle contains a smaller concentric circle so ia is entirely hosted in
every possible way by UA there is nothing of ia that is not UA
UA is unlike ia in that there are aspects of UA that are not ia

UA is unlike ia in that ia experiences the apparent flow instant instant instant and thinks it has duration
over time experiences flow of time experiences things as if separate from itself
UA experiences differently to how we experience so much so that the word experience is scarcely usable

But since UA hosts ia all ia experience is not unknown to UA all be it not as we experience things

All this is meaningless unless you can demonstrate UA actually exists which you have so far failed to do

SpeedOfSound wrote:

newolder wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:...
I would like 'the audience' to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awreness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made.
And it is obvious that I dont want to face the accusation that it contradicts known facts....

Who made that assumption (awareness must be individual) and where?

Individual a....

That is a very good question. I would not make one of those statements either way or in any shape.

If undivided awareness is dismissed out of hand it is either 1. undivided or 2. awareness.
Maybe its a hypothetical 'reader'.

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:UA seems to be nothing at all like "there is experience" . Experience outs all about the individual subject view and IA it's not. Nothing has been offered to connect IA to UA. The latter is an alien concept, something else. "There is experience" then "there is something other".

Like a shaker of salt and an NaCl molecule, or like a wave and an ocean - the question of like does not have a simple yes/no answer.

UA is 'like' ia in that as a large circle contains a smaller concentric circle, so ia is entirely hosted in every possible way by UA, there is nothing of ia that is not UA.
UA is unlike ia in that there are aspects of UA that are not ia.

UA is unlike ia in that ia experiences the apparent flow instant-instant-instant and thinks it has duration over time, exeriences flow of time, experiences things as-if separate from itself.
UA 'experiences' differently to how we experience, so much so that the word 'experience' is scarcely usable.

But since UA hosts ia, all 'ia experience' is not unknown to UA, all be it not as we experience things.
I don't think I want to go much further with that at this point.

Because if you go further you will eventually end up at physicalism as I have put it. We are waiting patiently for you to get on board.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:If you keep calling me limited I am going to hit the report button.

We (except SoS) are all limited awareness.
Can I say you claim to be not aware?
Maybe ia* which is 'limited awareness-es, not to be confused with SoS'.

Thank you.

Hope you guessed my name

You, (like me, like all,) are Undivided Awareness!

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I would like the audience to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awareness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made

I would like you to demonstrate that undivided awareness actually exists because if it does not then it can not contradict any known facts. It is a hypothetical concept not a real thing and so therefore non contradiction is not going to make it any more real than it already is. And so unless you can demonstrate it exists your argument is invalid

Can you demonstrate individual awareness exists?
I know I have awareness, I am aware, but I may struggle to demonstrate it exists.

First define exists; I think most agree that to exist is to be in space and time, do you agree?
I am not sure how you would demonstrate your awareness is a thing in space and time.

I do not accept your point as valid because
1. undivided awareness is not a thing in space and time, and as far as I am aware to exist is to be in space and time. Unless you have a different version of exist that I am unaware of I do not claim undivided awareness exists.
2. undivided awareness is God, so you want me to demonstrate God exists so that I may begin to present my argument for my metaphysics. I am not entirely convinced you have a case there ...

So this is what I was talking about earlier. If we go out on that rotten branch you are happy to start sawing it off. Unfortunate for you is that you should be by the trunk when you start sawing like this. Not at the tippy-tip of the branch you are shearing.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:UA seems to be nothing at all like "there is experience" . Experience outs all about the individual subject view and IA it's not. Nothing has been offered to connect IA to UA. The latter is an alien concept, something else. "There is experience" then "there is something other".

Like a shaker of salt and an NaCl molecule, or like a wave and an ocean - the question of like does not have a simple yes/no answer.

UA is 'like' ia in that as a large circle contains a smaller concentric circle, so ia is entirely hosted in every possible way by UA, there is nothing of ia that is not UA.
UA is unlike ia in that there are aspects of UA that are not ia.

UA is unlike ia in that ia experiences the apparent flow instant-instant-instant and thinks it has duration over time, exeriences flow of time, experiences things as-if separate from itself.
UA 'experiences' differently to how we experience, so much so that the word 'experience' is scarcely usable.

But since UA hosts ia, all 'ia experience' is not unknown to UA, all be it not as we experience things.
I don't think I want to go much further with that at this point.

Because if you go further you will eventually end up at physicalism as I have put it. We are waiting patiently for you to get on board.

Its a field, as I told you. A self-aware field that is unmanifest yet can manifest all things.
Space, time, 'physical' things, 'mental things' they all form from and within it measured and known by it, not limiting it, their very being in and borrowed from its being, returning to it without replenishing it.
I dont see how that self-aware field could be 'physical'.

Maybe one day you will tell me.