Thread: Mobile Awareness

Oh I am quite sure you could bend that spoon... if you had nerves running to it, and the nerves attached to muscles around the spoon. You see, that is how I lift my finger, but you seem to do it with telekineses, because bending a spoon is build on the same principle according to you.

About telekinesis: there is a difference between moving an object by the thought and thinking it is moving....though your brain can't see the difference (put it this way: if you don't exist anymore, nothing exists....for you)...(oups this may be off-topic)

About not being the "I": I personally don't think our mind/soul is separated from our body.....only: our brain can conceive this fact....
Remember: the brain is the most complex thing in the universe....and it's just behind our nose....

Originally Posted by anomanderis

but the presence of our awareness that deceives us into thinking that we are located only in our physical bodies.
[/b]

It's not a trick really. For most any lucid dreamer, it should be obvious in the long run that our minds, our consciousness (this very awareness) are independant of our bodies. However, since we do exist in a physical realm, since we do have the three dimensions and five senses at our disposal to experience our actions and events around us in this life, surely enough our mind will be positioned within our bodies while we're awake and want to use it.

Where as when we dream, our consciousness isn't exactly within our body. It doesn't do to say that it shifts somewhere because the concept of physical position has no place associating with the mind/consciousness. So all together, there's not much point in thinking about "where" the mind is. It just is and we're all the better off with it being capable of serving its purpose both in the waking physical state and in the dreaming state. As well as whatever other states people strive for and reach (from the astral plane to whatever else).

Originally Posted by krookedking

About telekinesis: there is a difference between moving an object by the thought and thinking it is moving....though your brain can't see the difference (put it this way: if you don't exist anymore, nothing exists....for you)...(oups this may be off-topic)

About not being the "I": I personally don't think our mind/soul is separated from our body.....only: our brain can conceive this fact....
Remember: the brain is the most complex thing in the universe....and it's just behind our nose....
[/b]

But do you not think that with enough concentration and what buddhists call samadhi( or the flow in psychology), thoughts can become reality? So really, we should not draw distinctions between thinking about moving objects and moving them.

I did not say i was not I, in fact everything considered, i said i most definitely was the I, but with the implication that the I transcends the borders of our physical universe ( string theory - many universes - the I should be in one of them, but the awareness of the I is situated in this universe)

Originally Posted by krookedking

It's not a trick really. For most any lucid dreamer, it should be obvious in the long run that our minds, our consciousness (this very awareness) are independant of our bodies. However, since we do exist in a physical realm, since we do have the three dimensions and five senses at our disposal to experience our actions and events around us in this life, surely enough our mind will be positioned within our bodies while we're awake and want to use it.

Where as when we dream, our consciousness isn't exactly within our body. It doesn't do to say that it shifts somewhere because the concept of physical position has no place associating with the mind/consciousness. So all together, there's not much point in thinking about "where" the mind is. It just is and we're all the better off with it being capable of serving its purpose both in the waking physical state and in the dreaming state. As well as whatever other states people strive for and reach (from the astral plane to whatever else).
[/b]

I agree with your point, but in my opinion we are leaving something unchecked that could possibly be of infinite potential. Should we manage to achieve an awareness of our "real" I without the limitations of our universe, what is to say we will not be one with everything?

Originally Posted by anomanderis

I agree with your point, but in my opinion we are leaving something unchecked that could possibly be of infinite potential. Should we manage to achieve an awareness of our "real" I without the limitations of our universe, what is to say we will not be one with everything?
[/b]

We're already aware of ourselves. We simply don't have ultimate knowledge and ultimate power. We're limited in this life in order to experience it. Existing in ultimate existence - with ultimate power and knowledge, has no meaning; with it everything is meaningless and pointless. Thus, a life with limits is best for experiences of meaning.

And relaying the above question to this: it's certainly not the best idea to seek ultimate knowledge and power because power corrupts, knowledge corrupts; thus, ultimate power corrupts ultimately and ultimate knowledge corrupts ultimately. I, personally, wouldn't want to lose my current state of mind.

Why should living in ultimate knowledge and power be without meaning? It would only seem that way if we applied the same means of establishing somethings merit for ult. power and knowledge as we do for incomplete/flawed knowledge/power.
Though at the moment I would have to agree that I wouldn't want to be omniscient and omnipotent for a long time, I'd sure as hell like to experience it!

The same thing goes with the idea that power corrupts - you are basing your view on the fact that power and knowledge corrupts humankind, which in its essence is limited and flawed.

Originally Posted by anomanderis

The same thing goes with the idea that power corrupts - you are basing your view on the fact that power and knowledge corrupts humankind, which in its essence is limited and flawed.
[/b]

No, no, that's not the sense of "corruption" meant in that context. Ultimate knowledge corrupts ultimately - gaining it would corrupt your ego, you would cease to be yourself. Same with power - being capable of absolutely anything, one would lose any relatively lesser goals that seemed the most important before the attainment of ultimate power.

Also, ultimate existence is without meaning for the obvious reason of what it is. There are no new experiences, nothing of true meaning to do. Only in a life within a world limited in different ways can one experience things with meaning.

I still think you are basing your opinion on your current condition (aka being human), but don't take into consideration that it would be far fetched to achieve ultimate power and knowledge without being enlightened first and losing ones ego entirely.

So what you are saying is basically that we are not immortal because it would be lame?
I think what you're saying could be true, but we still wouldn't know without experiencing it, which i am striving for.

You simply don't understand the meaning of what I'm saying but perhaps that's for the best. No point in discussing it further anyway.

i'm thinking the same Lets just agree to disagree