In a popular nursery school rhythm, "Row Row Row Your Boat", there is an embedded philosophical thought, right at the last line which had/should provoke(d) deep thinking of folks who want to understand the nature of reality and self. "Life is but a dream" is the philosophical subject in the poem. Short and precise, major scholars in the past from different backgrounds and cultures have attempted to register their viewpoint on the subject; a major example is Albert Einstein who stated that Reality is only an illusion.

Dream is a succession of images and sensations that usually occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep. These sensations, emotions and images from dreaming are real and inseparable from perceptive reality of wakefulness. Adding, realities from dreaming and wakefulness depended on the brain which as such, according to René Descartes, cannot be trusted.

Master Zhuang, a prominent scholar in Taoism, wrote an exposition on the subject of dream and self in his book - The Zhuangzi:
"Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly, there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.”

The butterfly dream of Zhuang Zhou indicates there are two personalities involved in the paradox. One appears as butterfly in the dream, while the other represent Zhang himself. He, however, could not identify which is real among the two personalities. Plato’s allegory of the cave and Descartes’ doubt-sowing demon, both expanded on Zhuang dream paradox.

Away from the west and distant East, African philosophy, especially Yoruba philosophy as detailed in Ifa, punctured on the subject through the concept of Ori. Ori, can be loosely translated as head, it connotes the principle of personality, essence of self, and the bearer of destiny. Ori rules, controls and guides the life and activities of a person in the material world. According to Ifa;
Ori eni nii ba nii s’aye eni
Eda aba-waye, ohun l’ori eni
(One’s Ori directs and runs one's life
The creature that accompanies one to the world is his Ori)

Yoruba account of the creation of the human person holds that the human body (ara) was moulded by Obatala (the arch divinity). It is thereafter that the lifeless body is infused with emi (animating force or breath of life) by Olodumare. The body at this stage becomes activated with life and then goes to Ajala (deity responsible for making Ori) to select an Ori. Afterward, the person proceeds to Aiye (material world) where he will be given birth to. The Ori is very much like blueprint which the course of physical existence of the person would depend on.

Ori is separated from physical head by been tagged Ori-inu. There is a popular prayer among the Yorubas that goes thus; Ori inu mi ma ba ti ode mi'jẹ́ (my inner head should not destroy my outer head). This prayers postulate, much like the Zhuang's dream, that there are two personalities (self) within the existence of being. One is the ori ita, while the other is ori inu. The former is connected and depended, like an umbilical cord, on the later.

The destiny clause (Ori Apeere), a component of the Ori's concept, explains that Ori-inu is the chief pilot of human existence but it is not the sole player in the control room. The role of Ori-inu is depicted in Ola Rotimi book, The Gods Are Not to Blame. In the book, destiny is inalterable as illustrated in the character Odewale, who eventually killed his father and marrying his mother, as was predestined in spite of all efforts made to forestall the fulfillment of these events.

A verse in Ifa from Ose méjì goes thus;
Inu bibi o da nnkan, suuru baba iwa;
Agba t’oni suuru, ohun gbogbo l’o ni;
Dia fun ori, a bu fun iwa.
T’iwa nikan lo soro;
Ori kan o buru n’ile Ife; t’iwa nikan lo soro.

(Anger does not bring forth anything good, Patience is the best of character;
A patient elder has everything;
It was divinely revealed to Ori, it was divinely casted to Iwa;
Nurturing as well as exhibiting good character is difficult;
No destiny is bad in Ife;
It is only nurturing and exhibiting good character that is difficult.)

The verse above indicates separate components of human persons; Ori and Iwa. Ori/ori-inu is the spark of consciousness, ori ita represent the spark of Iwa (character).

Using an espoused woman allegory, Ifa explains that it is a woman's Ori who guides her to matrimonial home, it is however, her character that keeps her therein. A verse narrating the allegory goes thus;
Obinrin so iwa nu,
O ni oun o mu ori oko wa’ye
[A woman loose her character,
She claims to not bring matrimonial aspect of Ori to the world].

The enquiry this thread is trying to fetch is within. The true/original self is not known, just like Zhuang Zhou couldn't pin it either on the butterfly or himself. The distinction between Ori-inu (inner self) and ori ode (outer head) is Ori Orun (Ori in heaven) also known as Iponri. Ori inu is inseparable from the reality and activity of Iponri (our perfected higher self) which exists in the eternal mind of Olodumare. Ori-orun/Iponri mirrors on Ori-inu which also bears reflection on Ori-ita. Who am I, what is existence, and what is reality?

1. Who am I; and who is the man in the mirror?
2. What is it that the 'I', thinker of the René Descartes' proposition - "I think therefore I am" based on? Using Descartes dualistic nature of man, is the "I" in the quoted expression based on mind (independent consciousness) or body (electro-chemical interactions of neuron)?

3. Zhuang's butterfly dream is typified in the Autumn Flood which contrast with Vanity and Hopelessness theme of Man existence in Ecclesiastics 5:18,19. We exist within existence, our existence changes nothing, but what is existence and the nature of existence?

4. The physical world appears solid, but physics indicates its all empty space, nothing is really out there, therefore what is reality?


Budaatum, MuttleyLaff, lordreed, vaxx, Maximus69, pastoraio, pagan9ja, macof

Following.

gensteejay:
Following.

Will love to see your inputs concerning the OP

FOLYKAZE:
In a popular nursery school rhythm, "Row Row Row Your Boat", there is an embedded philosophical thought, right at the last line which had/should provoke(d) deep thinking of folks who want to understand the nature of reality and self. "Life is but a dream" is the philosophical subject in the poem. Short and precise, major scholars in the past from different backgrounds and cultures have attempted to register their viewpoint on the subject; a major example is Albert Einstein who stated that Reality is only an illusion.

Dream is a succession of images and sensations that usually occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep. These sensations, emotions and images from dreaming are real and inseparable from perceptive reality of wakefulness. Adding, realities from dreaming and wakefulness depended on the brain which as such, according to René Descartes, cannot be trusted.

Master Zhuang, a prominent scholar in Taoism, wrote an exposition on the subject of dream and self in his book - The Zhuangzi:
"Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly, there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.”

The butterfly dream of Zhuang Zhou indicates there are two personalities involved in the paradox. One appears as butterfly in the dream, while the other represent Zhang himself. He, however, could not identify which is real among the two personalities. Plato’s allegory of the cave and Descartes’ doubt-sowing demon, both expanded on Zhuang dream paradox.

Away from the west and distant East, African philosophy, especially Yoruba philosophy as detailed in Ifa, punctured on the subject through the concept of Ori. Ori, can be loosely translated as head, it connotes the principle of personality, essence of self, and the bearer of destiny. Ori rules, controls and guides the life and activities of a person in the material world. According to Ifa;
Ori eni nii ba nii s’aye eni
Eda aba-waye, ohun l’ori eni
(One’s Ori directs and runs one's life
The creature that accompanies one to the world is his Ori)

Yoruba account of the creation of the human person holds that the human body (ara) was moulded by Obatala (the arch divinity). It is thereafter that the lifeless body is infused with emi (animating force or breath of life) by Olodumare. The body at this stage becomes activated with life and then goes to Ajala (deity responsible for making Ori) to select an Ori. Afterward, the person proceeds to Aiye (material world) where he will be given birth to. The Ori is very much like blueprint which the course of physical existence of the person would depend on.

Ori is separated from physical head by been tagged Ori-inu. There is a popular prayer among the Yorubas that goes thus; Ori inu mi ma ba ti ode mi'jẹ́ (my inner head should not destroy my outer head). This prayers postulate, much like the Zhuang's dream, that there are two personalities (self) within the existence of being. One is the ori ita, while the other is ori inu. The former is connected and depended, like an umbilical cord, on the later.

The destiny clause (Ori Apeere), a component of the Ori's concept, explains that Ori-inu is the chief pilot of human existence but it is not the sole player in the control room. The role of Ori-inu is depicted in Ola Rotimi book, The Gods Are Not to Blame. In the book, destiny is inalterable as illustrated in the character Odewale, who eventually killed his father and marrying his mother, as was predestined in spite of all efforts made to forestall the fulfillment of these events.

A verse in Ifa from Ose méjì goes thus;
Inu bibi o da nnkan, suuru baba iwa;
Agba t’oni suuru, ohun gbogbo l’o ni;
Dia fun ori, a bu fun iwa.
T’iwa nikan lo soro;
Ori kan o buru n’ile Ife; t’iwa nikan lo soro.

(Anger does not bring forth anything good, Patience is the best of character;
A patient elder has everything;
It was divinely revealed to Ori, it was divinely casted to Iwa;
Nurturing as well as exhibiting good character is difficult;
No destiny is bad in Ife;
It is only nurturing and exhibiting good character that is difficult.)

The verse above indicates separate components of human persons; Ori and Iwa. Ori/ori-inu is the spark of consciousness, ori ita represent the spark of Iwa (character).

Using an espoused woman allegory, Ifa explains that it is a woman's Ori who guides her to matrimonial home, it is however, her character that keeps her therein. A verse narrating the allegory goes thus;
Obinrin so iwa nu,
O ni oun o mu ori oko wa’ye
[A woman loose her character,
She claims to not bring matrimonial aspect of Ori to the world].

The enquiry this thread is trying to fetch is within. The true/original self is not known, just like Zhuang Zhou couldn't pin it either on the butterfly or himself. The distinction between Ori-inu (inner self) and ori ode (outer head) is Ori Orun (Ori in heaven) also known as Iponri. Ori inu is inseparable from the reality and activity of Iponri (our perfected higher self) which exists in the eternal mind of Olodumare. Ori-orun/Iponri mirrors on Ori-inu which also bears reflection on Ori-ita. Who am I, what is existence, and what is reality?

1. Who am I; and who is the man in the mirror?
2. What is it that the 'I', thinker of the René Descartes' proposition - "I think therefore I am" based on? Using Descartes dualistic nature of man, is the "I" in the quoted expression based on mind (independent consciousness) or body (electro-chemical interactions of neuron)?

3. Zhuang's butterfly dream is typified in the Autumn Flood which contrast with Vanity and Hopelessness theme of Man existence in Ecclesiastics 5:18,19. We exist within existence, our existence changes nothing, but what is existence and the nature of existence?

4. The physical world appears solid, but physics indicates its all empty space, nothing is really out there, therefore what is reality?


Budaatum, MuttleyLaff, lordreed, vaxx, Maximus69, pastoraio, pagan9ja, macof

Please stop including me in your discussion, i am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and we are in search of the sheep belonging to our God Jehovah.
So after you and i have resolved our differences, it is obvious there's nothing more to discuss with you. You can continue with other Nairalanders but as for me (Maximus69) please count me out of your discuss!

Thanks!

Maximus69:


Please stop including me in your discussion, i am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and we are in search of the sheep belonging to our God Jehovah.
So after you and i have resolved our differences, it is obvious there's nothing more to discuss with you. You can continue with other Nairalanders but as for me (Maximus69) please count me out of your discuss!

Thanks!

Apologies Homie Max.
But you shouldn't have quote the whole OP. Doing that will make the thread hard to navigate. Pls do edit sit.

Erm, is the purpose of life not a subject worth discussing in JW? Oops, you didn't see that is the angle of question 3 is all about? Compare with Ecclesiastics 1:3...

FOLYKAZE:


Apologies Homie Max.
But you shouldn't have quote the whole OP. Doing that will make the thread hard to navigate. Pls do edit sit.

Erm, is the purpose of life not a subject worth discussing in JW? Oops, you didn't see that is the angle of question 3 is all about? Compare with Ecclesiastics 1:3...

According to you, you've studied with us before and you can't find anything worth living for in our beliefs, so once you find a JW all you need to find out is whether such a person is interested in discussing outside what he believes which you did in your post about historicity and i made myself clear that i'm not interested.
So there is no reason inviting the same person to come and start arguing all over again with those who don't believe in the existence of God.
If you have interest in knowing what we believe on the topic of the purpose of life, ask JWs in your neighbourhood, my brothers there will give you a brochure that treat the subject and they can even volunteer to study it with you.
But inviting us for a public debate/argument when you're not interested in a God that's revered by his adherents is pointless, a waist of time, energy and resources to JWs!

FOLYKAZE:


Will love to see your inputs concerning the OP

Okay, will do that when I'm less busy. Hope your baby and the mother are fine.

FOLYKAZE:


1. Who am I; and who is the man in the mirror?

I think that the self is a gestalt, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Individually, none of the constituent parts can create the perception of seeing yourself in the mirror.

2. What is it that the 'I', thinker of the René Descartes' proposition - "I think therefore I am" based on? Using Descartes dualistic nature of man, is the "I" in the quoted expression based on mind (independent consciousness) or body (electro-chemical interactions of neuron)?

I is the label we give to individual gestalts. I don't think the mind is an independent construct, it arises I would say from all the bodily processes. We say a hungry man is an angry man, why? Because we have recognised that mental States are affected by bodily processes. Our emotions derive in part from hormonal levels.

3. Zhuang's butterfly dream is typified in the Autumn Flood which contrast with Vanity and Hopelessness theme of Man existence in Ecclesiastics 5:18,19. We exist within existence, our existence changes nothing, but what is existence and the nature of existence?

Existence is what we call the sum total of our ability to experience and the objects of our experience.

4. The physical world appears solid, but physics indicates its all empty space, nothing is really out there, therefore what is reality?

Reality is what we experience. It really doesn't matter what the nature of reality is, that we experience it is what is most important.


PS: I hope mother and baby are doing well and you have resolved things satisfactorily.

LordReed:


I think that the self is a gestalt, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Individually, none of the constituent parts can create the perception of seeing yourself in the mirror.

Carefully observe that I used the word 'I' and not 'self'. This is to construct a larger premises so we can both understand ourselves.

Firstly, the 'I' is a content of subjectivity of a conscious experience. All the whole and the greater sum of the body system are irrelevant to subjective experience. The alteration of any part of the whole body, and including the brain, either through accidental or natural causes do not affect consciousness. Stroke or anesthesia or decapitation can render some parts of the body useless and nonfunctional, but it doesn't the 'I'. Therefore, I is beyond gestalt or whole body system.

There is also the man in the mirror. Michael Jackson song talks about it. We sense and react to it...

The question is retained, who am I, and who is the man in the mirror?

LordReed:
I is the label we give to individual gestalts. I don't think the mind is an independent construct, it arises I would say from all the bodily processes. We say a hungry man is an angry man, why? Because we have recognised that mental States are affected by bodily processes. Our emotions derive in part from hormonal levels.

Well actually, the mind according to Descartes, is independent of the body. I found a scientific document this morning supporting that.

However, simply put, is the 'I' based on what exactly, brain or mind?

LordReed:
Existence is what we call the sum total of our ability to experience and the objects of our experience.

Ok, let me jig in;
Is Carl Johnson in GTA series an existing personality?

LordReed:
Reality is what we experience. It really doesn't matter what the nature of reality is, that we experience it is what is most important.

Reality is what we experience and perceived as real. Note the word 'perception'. Can we ever get the better nature of reality when our experience is based on perception?

LordReed:
PS: I hope mother and baby are doing well and you have resolved things satisfactorily.

Oh they are doing just pretty well. Thanks

FOLYKAZE:


Carefully observe that I used the word 'I' and not 'self'. This is to construct a larger premises so we can both understand ourselves.

Firstly, the 'I' is a content of subjectivity of a conscious experience. All the whole and the greater sum of the body system are irrelevant to subjective experience. The alteration of any part of the whole body, and including the brain, either through accidental or natural causes do not affect consciousness. Stroke or anesthesia or decapitation can render some parts of the body useless and nonfunctional, but it doesn't the 'I'. Therefore, I is beyond gestalt or whole body system.

There is also the man in the mirror. Michael Jackson song talks about it. We sense and react to it...

The question is retained, who am I, and who is the man in the mirror?

I addressed the nature of I subsequently, I hope you didn't over look it. I wanted to focus here on experience because your examples were essentially about experience. Looking into a mirror is an experience.

I think it is "incomplete" to say that the loss of a body part has no effect on the I. It has been severally demonstrated that the loss of body parts affects how one perceives oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?q=https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1371%26context%3Dhonors_theses&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjK0I_cw9vqAhVJ1BoKHbN6DYUQFjAMegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw38Wf6Un3yyHd3xCkztFHhX]LINK[/url]
I can even attest to that through a health challenge I had.

Well actually, the mind according to Descartes, is independent of the body. I found a scientific document this morning supporting that.

However, simply put, is the 'I' based on what exactly, brain or mind?

Descartes was not a neurologist nor was he a specialist in any neurological field so his opinion is only philosophical. I would like to see this scientific document.

I already said what I think the "I" is. There is no I without mind and no mind without body, its a gestalt.

Ok, let me jig in;
Is Carl Johnson in GTA series an existing personality?

In the sense of being real? No because it is merely a fictional construct made active through the functioning of programming subroutines. In the fictional context however Carl Johnson is a personality.

Reality is what we experience and perceived as real. Note the word 'perception'. Can we ever get the better nature of reality when our experience is based on perception?

We try using instruments to get a better understanding of what we are experiencing, some of those instruments are much better than our perceptions but actually they only add to our perceptions so by necessity we will always be limited by our perceptions as to the nature of reality.

Oh they are doing just pretty well. Thanks

That's good to hear.

First, let me say, I love Descartes failure to prove what he wanted to prove, which was God, but his immense work trying leaves us with a tool for self scrutiny as I point out here.

FOLYKAZE:
Who am I?

I am buda. No more. No less.

FOLYKAZE:
what is existence, and what is reality?

Existence is that which is subject to space and time. Things that occupy space and time are in existence. Things that do not occupy space and time are inexistent. Note the English headache!

FOLYKAZE:
1. Who am I; and who is the man in the mirror?

I am buda, and the image of buda is in the mirror.
The image in the mirror is not buda for you will find it does not think which after all is the ultimate conclussion of Descarte's often ill-translated "I am thinking, therefore I exist".

P.s. I declare that I have Heidegger's Being and Time on my birthday list but its unfortunately a day late. His "being" is about things that are or have been in existence.

gensteejay:

Okay, will do that when I'm less busy. Hope your baby and the mother are fine.

He had a baby? Know wonder he's thinking about existence lol!

Congrats FOLYKAZE.

LordReed:


I addressed the nature of I subsequently, I hope you didn't over look it. I wanted to focus here on experience because your examples were essentially about experience. Looking into a mirror is an experience.

I think it is "incomplete" to say that the loss of a body part has no effect on the I. It has been severally demonstrated that the loss of body parts affects how one perceives oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?q=https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1371%26context%3Dhonors_theses&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjK0I_cw9vqAhVJ1BoKHbN6DYUQFjAMegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw38Wf6Un3yyHd3xCkztFHhX]LINK[/url]
I can even attest to that through a health challenge I had.

The nature of 'I' could be understood best as 'inner self' or 'transcendental self' rather than simply 'self'. You would have understand better if you look into the OP critically.

Firstly, the 'I', like I said earlier, is the content of subjectivity of conscious experience. That is the individual experiencing. On the other round, awareness of one's conscious experience is known as self-awareness. Therefore, simply saying self is a gestalt is ambiguous when you ain't pinpointing on what you imply by self.

The 'I' rather is straight to the point, and can be better understand as consciousness. While rather, self-awareness is a process of recognizing oneself. These are two separate things. A robot could be aware of itself but can never be conscious. link

Decapitation of the body could affect self-awareness, while rather, it doesn't affect consciousness. Read up that bro.

LordReed:

Descartes was not a neurologist nor was he a specialist in any neurological field so his opinion is only philosophical. I would like to see this scientific document.

I already said what I think the "I" is. There is no I without mind and no mind without body, its a gestalt.

[url=https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/spirituality-special-interest-group-publications-nevillehodgkinsongoodnewsyouarenotyourbrain.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D42288db9_2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwisscG329zqAhUksaQKHSifBUAQFjAFegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw29Jz_Yw2I9paOftXdsZlgf]Link[/url]

LordReed:
In the sense of being real? No because it is merely a fictional construct made active through the functioning of programming subroutines. In the fictional context however Carl Johnson is a personality.

What we have here? You said Existence is what we call the sum total of our ability to experience and the objects of our experience....

You admitted that Carl Johnson is an active being. That he is functioning (experiencing) to the virtual world (object of experience); then turn around to say he is fictional. Fictional in what sense? And how are you different from CJ? Broken down to DNA, you are much like a computer code just like CJ. Can we also assume you don't exist, using your own definition of existence?

LordReed:
We try using instruments to get a better understanding of what we are experiencing, some of those instruments are much better than our perceptions but actually they only add to our perceptions so by necessity we will always be limited by our perceptions as to the nature of reality.

Living within the world created by our brain. Shouldn't this provoke one to accept that we are simulations, much like CJ, and do not exist?

budaatum:
He had a baby? Know wonder he's thinking about existence lol!
Congrats FOLYKAZE.

Thanks

budaatum:
First, let me say, I love Descartes failure to prove what he wanted to prove, which was God, but his immense work trying leaves us with a tool for self scrutiny as I point out here.

He actually was successful helping human understand that knowing oneself makes one a God.

budaatum:
I am buda. No more. No less.

I am me. Yes we know buda is buda. We are actually talking on the nature of 'buda', if he is independent consciousness or electro-chemical function of the brain.

budaatum:
Existence is that which is subject to space and time. Things that occupy space and time are in existence. Things that do not occupy space and time are inexistent. Note the English headache!

Does space and time really exist?

budaatum:
I am buda, and the image of buda is in the mirror.
The image in the mirror is not buda for you will find it does not think which after all is the ultimate conclussion of Descarte's often ill-translated "I am thinking, therefore I exist".

How did you know the man in the mirror is not thinking?

While doing that, can you please explain the nature of buda. It is important. In doing such, you can help us understand your viewpoint on consciousness, also called Ori.

budaatum:
P.s. I declare that I have Heidegger's Being and Time on my birthday list but its unfortunately a day late. His "being" is about things that are or have been in existence.

Will check link prolly tomorrow

FOLYKAZE:

He actually was successful helping human understand that knowing oneself makes one a God.

That wasn't what he set out to do, nor is that what he wrote or he'd have been vilified by his audience. His ontological arguments were in fact trying to prove God's existence, which he failed at, but the consequence of his conclussion as understood today does accomplish what you state above but with a small 'g' god.

FOLYKAZE:
I am me. Yes we know buda is buda. We are actually talking on the nature of 'buda', if he is independent consciousness or electro-chemical function of the brain.

Trust me when I say, buda is buda, because anything else is a description of a part of buda and not buda.

I'll explain. buda is independent, as in, buda is an entity in itself and no other person. buda is obviously conscious or buda will not be aware to independently respond to you. buda is electro-chemical function of the whole being, and I'm talking as a person with dodgy plumbing due to electro-chemical malfunction. And as to buda's nature, that, thankfully you can tell for yourself and don't need me lying about it because it really is expressed in 1000s of words on NL. All of these are however part of buda and not the whole of buda, because despite Descartes, no one completely knows buda, not even buda who has spent every single minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year with buda. Just today I'm finding something new out about buda!

FOLYKAZE:
Does space and time really exist?

Of course space and time exists. If I sit in a space that you at the same time occupy I will be sitting on top of your head because of space and time. And it would have definitely taken time for me to fill this space with words and more time for these words to be in a proximate space to you. Space and time is a permanent nuisance in fact. Without it, I'd be thinking the words in my head and they'd instantly be comprehended in your head but space and bloody time seems to be in the way of our mind's melding.

FOLYKAZE:
How did you know the man in the mirror is not thinking?

Well, the image in the mirror - for it is not a "man" just as a photograph of a woman is not the woman - is like a puppet of me. When I raise my arms its arms are raised up, and when I sit down it sits. But I find that when I eat my dinner in front of the mirror there is still only one plate and not two, so I'm assuming my thoughts stay in my head especially since the image is just an image of me who does the thinking including deciding what image is in the mirror.

Seriously! Soon you'd be asking if my mirror image goes to work for our daily bread while I remain asleep in bed! Lol!

FOLYKAZE:
While doing that, can you please explain the nature of buda. It is important. In doing such, you can help us understand your viewpoint on consciousness, also called Ori.

I can't explain the nature of buda, to be honest because buda is a combination of so many different aspects that to talk any one one is to diminish others. I'd only be describing the image I see in a mirror, as in that which I am conscious of, and who's to say that my eyes work that well or that I am conscious to all that buda is?

You might understand what I mean if I were to attempt to say what the nature of Folykaze is. Everything I say would seem like a part of Folykaze to you, assuming I'm right that is, but everything I say would not be Folykaze because I would not be including any knowledge of Folykaze's thoughts or processes. Now imagine the parts of the elephant I would be describing if I tried to describe the nature of buda that I've experienced all my life. You'd think I should know buda so well considering all the time I've spent with buda, but do I really know all of the constantly evolving in space and time buda not to talk of know the words to describe buda to someone else?

Know thyself? Keep learning about myself, more like.

FOLYKAZE:


The nature of 'I' could be understood best as 'inner self' or 'transcendental self' rather than simply 'self'. You would have understand better if you look into the OP critically.

Firstly, the 'I', like I said earlier, is the content of subjectivity of conscious experience. That is the individual experiencing. On the other round, awareness of one's conscious experience is known as self-awareness. Therefore, simply saying self is a gestalt is ambiguous when you ain't pinpointing on what you imply by self.

The 'I' rather is straight to the point, and can be better understand as consciousness. While rather, self-awareness is a process of recognizing oneself. These are two separate things. A robot could be aware of itself but can never be conscious. link

Decapitation of the body could affect self-awareness, while rather, it doesn't affect consciousness. Read up that bro.

I don't understand, are you asking me to accept your evaluation of what the self is or are you asking me for my opinion? I was under the impression that the latter was the case but now it seems you want me to accept your own evaluation.

You also seem to reading meanings into what I said. I said nothing about consciousness. I said missing body parts affects the "I", I didn't say it affects consciousness. Take for example if your legs for some reason get amputated, if you were subsequently asked to run your answer will be "I can't run". You would correctly evaluate your incapability and it would form a part of your identity. Under such a circumstance you'll never think of yourself as being able to become a marathon runner for instance. Very tellingly, people who undergo prolonged sensory deprivation go mad.

EDIT: You should read up on what a gestalt is.

[url=https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/spirituality-special-interest-group-publications-nevillehodgkinsongoodnewsyouarenotyourbrain.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D42288db9_2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwisscG329zqAhUksaQKHSifBUAQFjAFegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw29Jz_Yw2I9paOftXdsZlgf]Link[/url]

I read this and he does the things I have developed a dislike about, make assumptions that are not sufficiently backed up by evidence and also does the fallacy of appeal to authority. He does not present any scientifically backed study that says consciousness is independent of the body instead he presents what Deepak Chora and Donald Hoffman said. Deepak is known for misappropriating science for his "woo" loaded statements while Hoffman is seriously thin on evidence for his assumptions. How do these provide any certainty that consciousness is independent of the body?

The study of NDE he presents said that 4 out of 5 of the people studied did not experience NDE so how does that give any kind of definitive statement that consciousness is independent of the body?

What we have here? You said Existence is what we call the sum total of our ability to experience and the objects of our experience....

You admitted that Carl Johnson is an active being. That he is functioning (experiencing) to the virtual world (object of experience); then turn around to say he is fictional. Fictional in what sense? And how are you different from CJ? Broken down to DNA, you are much like a computer code just like CJ. Can we also assume you don't exist, using your own definition of existence?

I did not admit that Carl Johnson is an active being nor did I say he is experiencing the virtual world, read what I wrote again.

Are you seriously asking me if Carl Johnson is fictional? Are we now blurring the line between what is fictional and what is real? because I don't understand why that is even a question.

DNA is not like computer code. DNA is a chemical, allusions to computer code is just simplification for layman understanding. Any attempt to project that allusion into it being the same as a computer run software only presents a serious misunderstanding of what DNA is. So no I am not like Carl Johnson, a FICTIONAL computer generated construct.

Living within the world created by our brain. Shouldn't this provoke one to accept that we are simulations, much like CJ, and do not exist?

While some people do arrive at that conclusion, I am not one of them. I don't see why saying that perceptions are flawed should lead to that conclusion. It is a fact for instance that we don't see all the electromagnetic spectrum, only the visible part of light so when watching the images projected through a TV we are not seeing all that the TV is actually producing however it doesn't mean that the TV is not producing the images we are seeing. That limitation has nothing to do with the true nature of reality and to me does not affect it.

On another note, the energy required to create a simulation of such magnitude, if one is to consider it, is staggeringly enormous. To me its an indication that the simulation hypothesis is dead in the water.

FOLYKAZE:

3. We exist within existence, our existence changes nothing, but what is existence and the nature of existence?

It is not true that our existence changes nothing! You can easily confirm this by letting us know how much has changed by the new existence you recently brought into the world which has changed your entire being.

FOLYKAZE:
4. The physical world appears solid, but physics indicates its all empty space, nothing is really out there, therefore what is reality?

Certain aspects of the physical world not only appear solid, as in, is physical, but it is also solid, which is why we call its study physics. But that's not the whole world. When one uses the tools of physics to study the gaseous aspect of the world for instance, one indeed finds a space that is empty, but if it were really empty you'd find it difficult to breath.

The reality you seem to be talking about is the Perception of Reality, as in what people say reality is, and what they do not see does not exist. I say blindness or not looking in the right direction, are viable explanations for their error because reality is that which is real, whether there is a person to observe it or not.

LordReed:


I don't understand, are you asking me to accept your evaluation of what the self is or are you asking me for my opinion? I was under the impression that the latter was the case but now it seems you want me to accept your own evaluation.

You also seem to reading meanings into what I said. I said nothing about consciousness. I said missing body parts affects the "I", I didn't say it affects consciousness. Take for example if your legs for some reason get amputated, if you were subsequently asked to run your answer will be "I can't run". You would correctly evaluate your incapability and it would form a part of your identity. Under such a circumstance you'll never think of yourself as being able to become a marathon runner for instance. Very tellingly, people who undergo prolonged sensory deprivation go mad.

EDIT: You should read up on what a gestalt is.

Can two walk together unless they agree? Definitely Negative.

You don't understand the question nor understand the premises from which the question is deducted, and when I am trying to explain it to you, you won't just accept my explanations. The linked document from you gave you away. I read it overnight and saw it is talking about emotions rather than personhood/selfhood. These are two different things.

The question is; who am I, and who is the man in the mirror. I told you earlier, 'I' in that context is not just 'self' or gestalt as you called it. The 'I' is rather the essence of self, or better still the inner self.

Good and fine, I will never be a sprinter if I lose my legs, but I will never lose my 'essence of self' even if I lose all my body to paralysis. A mad person behaves abnormally, which is as a result of abnormalities in the person mental conditions; this does not eliminate the mad person's consciousness.

The essence of self is what I called consciousness. The religious folks call it soul. Much as we know, losing a part of the brain through ailment like Stroke or surgical knife does not eliminate this oneself, subjectivity of existence. Gestalt does not equate soul, or consciousness. These are the two words that represent the 'I'.

I implore you read this

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself, such as thoughts, feelings, memories, or sensations. It has also been defined in the following ways: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive-control system of the mind. At one time, consciousness was viewed with skepticism by many scientists, but in recent years, it has become a significant topic of research in psychology and neuroscience.""
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/introduction-to-consciousness/

Look at the emboldened statement above, it doesn't correlate to gestalt as you implied. And even if you paralyse the body system, it does not stop the executive-control system of the mind or subjectivity or sense of selfhood from existing. You can open the link above and read up in consciousness and or oneself.

LordReed:

I read this and he does the things I have developed a dislike about, make assumptions that are not sufficiently backed up by evidence and also does the fallacy of appeal to authority. He does not present any scientifically backed study that says consciousness is independent of the body instead he presents what Deepak Chora and Donald Hoffman said. Deepak is known for misappropriating science for his "woo" loaded statements while Hoffman is seriously thin on evidence for his assumptions. How do these provide any certainty that consciousness is independent of the body?

The study of NDE he presents said that 4 out of 5 of the people studied did not experience NDE so how does that give any kind of definitive statement that consciousness is independent of the body?

This is getting funny. You crawl out of the hole all by yourself.

If the 'I' is based on body, and not mind, what part of the body is involved in NDE?

LordReed:

I did not admit that Carl Johnson is an active being nor did I say he is experiencing the virtual world, read what I wrote again.

Are you seriously asking me if Carl Johnson is fictional? Are we now blurring the line between what is fictional and what is real? because I don't understand why that is even a question.

DNA is not like computer code. DNA is a chemical, allusions to computer code is just simplification for layman understanding. Any attempt to project that allusion into it being the same as a computer run software only presents a serious misunderstanding of what DNA is. So no I am not like Carl Johnson, a FICTIONAL computer generated construct.

You missed the OP right? Life is but a dream. Einstein claim reality is simply an illusion. All these implies what we perceived as real is only real in our head, it is all fiction and big simulations.

In your own words Carl Johnson is merely a fictional construct made active through the functioning of programming subroutines. If that is not active being in a functioning programming world, then I don't know what it is you would call it.

Now sir, I am not a programmer or know computer codes, also I am not a bioscientist or know much about genetic codes. However, little information I got from the internet reveals that the language of DNA is digital, very much like that of a computer, but only different because it is not binary. Binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with, DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A. The latest information at my disposal reveals that the DNA 4 Positions can be converted to binary codes and vice versa.

https://www.hsj.gr/medicine/dna-and-the-digital-data-storage.php?aid=24516

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00539.pdf

If the information above is anything to go by, Carl Johnson is an existing personality, very much like you. His existence, mine and that of yours is depended on computation and programming. And as such, existence is illusion or fictional if I may borrow your word.

LordReed:
While some people do arrive at that conclusion, I am not one of them. I don't see why saying that perceptions are flawed should lead to that conclusion. It is a fact for instance that we don't see all the electromagnetic spectrum, only the visible part of light so when watching the images projected through a TV we are not seeing all that the TV is actually producing however it doesn't mean that the TV is not producing the images we are seeing. That limitation has nothing to do with the true nature of reality and to me does not affect it.

On another note, the energy required to create a simulation of such magnitude, if one is to consider it, is staggeringly enormous. To me its an indication that the simulation hypothesis is dead in the water.

This perception from wakeful state is the same as that of the dream world. There is no differences. How come you see the wakeful reality as true while that of the dream world as unreal?

FOLYKAZE:


Can two walk together unless they agree? Definitely Negative.

You don't understand the question nor understand the premises from which the question is deducted, and when I am trying to explain it to you, you won't just accept my explanations.

Ah glad you cleared that up, I guess I was mistaken that my opinions were requested.

budaatum:

That wasn't what he set out to do, nor is that what he wrote or he'd have been vilified by his audience. His ontological arguments were in fact trying to prove God's existence, which he failed at, but the consequence of his conclussion as understood today does accomplish what you state above but with a small 'g' god.

He failed at proving God's existence, but consequences of his attempt successfully proved the existence of gods. What are you trying to say?

budaatum:

Trust me when I say, buda is buda, because anything else is a description of a part of buda and not buda.

I'll explain. buda is independent, as in, buda is an entity in itself and no other person. buda is obviously conscious or buda will not be aware to independently respond to you. buda is electro-chemical function of the whole being, and I'm talking as a person with dodgy plumbing due to electro-chemical malfunction. And as to buda's nature, that, thankfully you can tell for yourself and don't need me lying about it because it really is expressed in 1000s of words on NL. All of these are however part of buda and not the whole of buda, because despite Descartes, no one completely knows buda, not even buda who has spent every single minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year with buda. Just today I'm finding something new out about buda!

I seem not to understand your point here. The question is simple really. Is the 'I', also called Buda a product of body or mind?

budaatum:

Of course space and time exists. If I sit in a space that you at the same time occupy I will be sitting on top of your head because of space and time. And it would have definitely taken time for me to fill this space with words and more time for these words to be in a proximate space to you. Space and time is a permanent nuisance in fact. Without it, I'd be thinking the words in my head and they'd instantly be comprehended in your head but space and bloody time seems to be in the way of our mind's melding.

Ok... You've made the claim.. Can you please prove space and time really exist?

budaatum:

Well, the image in the mirror - for it is not a "man" just as a photograph of a woman is not the woman - is like a puppet of me. When I raise my arms its arms are raised up, and when I sit down it sits. But I find that when I eat my dinner in front of the mirror there is still only one plate and not two, so I'm assuming my thoughts stay in my head especially since the image is just an image of me who does the thinking including deciding what image is in the mirror.

Seriously! Soon you'd be asking if my mirror image goes to work for our daily bread while I remain asleep in bed! Lol!

Funny!

You subjectively thought, without evidence, that the man in the mirror is mimicking you. How did you possibly know the man in the mirror has no thought? How do you know you ain't the one mimicking the man in the mirror? How can you prove you control it?


The fun part aside, Michael Jackson said;
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change..

Read that lyrics with your 'thinking cap on'...who is the man in the mirror...?

budaatum:

I can't explain the nature of buda, to be honest because buda is a combination of so many different aspects that to talk any one one is to diminish others. I'd only be describing the image I see in a mirror, as in that which I am conscious of, and who's to say that my eyes work that well or that I am conscious to all that buda is?

You might understand what I mean if I were to attempt to say what the nature of Folykaze is. Everything I say would seem like a part of Folykaze to you, assuming I'm right that is, but everything I say would not be Folykaze because I would not be including any knowledge of Folykaze's thoughts or processes. Now imagine the parts of the elephant I would be describing if I tried to describe the nature of buda that I've experienced all my life. You'd think I should know buda so well considering all the time I've spent with buda, but do I really know all of the constantly evolving in space and time buda not to talk of know the words to describe buda to someone else?

Know thyself? Keep learning about myself, more like.

Simply tell us how you understand the word 'soul' or oneself. Thanks

LordReed:


Ah glad you cleared that up, I guess I was mistaken that my opinions were requested.

Lol....

Could you please do some reading?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/



See this from the link above
[[The topic is sometimes discussed under the protean term self. ‘Self’ is sometimes synonymous with ‘person’, but often means something different: a sort of unchanging, immaterial subject of consciousness, for instance (as in the phrase ‘the myth of the self’). The term is often used without any clear meaning and shall be avoided here.]]]

Do you see what I was saying, that personal identity isn't same as self.? You just need to up the game...

Thanks

FOLYKAZE:

He failed at proving God's existence, but consequences of his attempt successfully proved the existence of gods. What are you trying to say?

What you've written above is not what I said! More accurate would be: He failed at proving God's existence, but the consequence of his attempt showed how humans become the human version of gods.

His ontological arguments for God's existence, which is what he set out to prove, failed to prove the existence of God, but subsequent understanding of his work helped humans grow and develop.

FOLYKAZE:
I seem not to understand your point here. The question is simple really. Is the 'I', also called Buda a product of body or mind?

buda ia a product of birth, as in coming into being, or rather, of sex between mummy and daddy, as you have recently experienced bringing a being into existence.

buda exists as body and mind in time and space and will stop existing when buda's time is up at which time buda would be said six feet under and occupy time and space no more, except when buda occupies the time and space of others by which buda shall attain 'life' until no one breathes life into buda and buda is spoken of no more.

If you all mention buda for a thousand or so years, it shall be said that buda lives eternally in your minds.

Do note that it is not a simple question, as you claim, so its answer can not be simple as you expect. You must really really use your mind to comprehend the question and the answers it receives.

FOLYKAZE:
Ok... You've made the claim.. Can you please prove space and time really exist?

You do know you are asking me to prove the obvious, right? Please follow the instructions in the experiment below.

Find a concrete wall that has been standing for at least ten minutes and stand ten steps from it. (You might first want to verify the wall has stood for ten minutes by standing in front of wall and allowing a suitable timepiece to measure out ten minutes). Now, very fast with your head pointed to the wall, run towards it without stopping. As in take at, least 12 running steps towards wall.

Pease describe the state of your head when it tries to occupy the space and time that the wall occupies.

FOLYKAZE:
You subjectively thought, without evidence, that the man in the mirror is mimicking you. How did you possibly know the man in the mirror has no thought? How do you know you ain't the one mimicking the man in the mirror? How can you prove you control it?

Easy. When I raise my hand, the hand of the image in the mirror is raised, and when I sit down it sits. And when I walk away from the mirror, the image disappears.

Damn, we learn this at two years old when we try to see our own image in a mirror while standing behind the mirror. Try it and tell me the thoughts of the image you see.

FOLYKAZE:

The fun part aside, Michael Jackson said;
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change..

Read that lyrics with your 'thinking cap on'...who is the man in the mirror...?

I'm thinking. I'm really thinking hard, but first I'll narrate an experience.

One day, I stood in front of a mirror and saw myself for the first time and was shocked. It was in a full length mirror which had been in bedroom which I'd groomed myself in front of many times, but this one day, I saw past the image in the mirror and sat their staring until starvation made me budge.

Is the answer to your question Michael Jackson? I would not be surprised if the image Michael Jackson saw when he stood in front of a mirror was that of Michael Jackson, especially if he saw with his mind, which it's safe to pressume since it tends to open one's consciousness to an awareness of the following a la Descartes:

"If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make that
(Take a look at yourself and then make that)
Change!"

FOLYKAZE:
Simply tell us how you understand the word 'soul' or oneself. Thanks

Can't say I can explain the word "soul" since its not a word I believe I use, though please do point me to where you've seen me use it so I can respond in context. "Oneself", is very like me, however, as in a word I'd use, though the shorter "one", as in, 'one might say that', to denote individuality as opposed to being part of a herd.

"Oneself" is like saying "I" as opposed to "us", "we" or "ourselves".

FOLYKAZE:


Could you please do some reading?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

Could you please put what you learnt from reading into practise!

Descartes began his investigation with his mind already made up and therefore failed at his attempt to become as a child and be reborn since he could not strip himself completely of his preconceived ideas. Subsequent readers of his work have however extended his effort and really become as children and become reborn.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#GodErr

budaatum:

What you've written above is not what I said! More accurate would be: He failed at proving God's existence, but the consequence of his attempt showed how humans become the human version of gods.

His ontological arguments for God's existence, which is what he set out to prove, failed to prove the existence of God, but subsequent understanding of his work helped humans grow and develop.

Well ok

budaatum:
buda ia a product of birth, as in coming into being, or rather, of sex between mummy and daddy, as you have recently experienced bringing a being into existence.

buda exists as body and mind in time and space and will stop existing when buda's time is up at which time buda would be said six feet under and occupy time and space no more, except when buda occupies the time and space of others by which buda shall attain 'life' until no one breathes life into buda and buda is spoken of no more.

If you all mention buda for a thousand or so years, it shall be said that buda lives eternally in your minds.

Do note that it is not a simple question, as you claim, so its answer can not be simple as you expect. You must really really use your mind to comprehend the question and the answers it receives.

The truck load of words does not explain anything. If I could pick anything, it would only this statement of yours: buda exists as body and mind in time.

The funny part, no one is disputing the dualistic nature of Man. It was properly illustrated in the OP. World renowned philosophers from Socrates and Plato in the west, to Siddhartha Gautama and Lao Ztu in the East, and back to Orunmila in Africa all attested to the dual nature of man. All these are known are well noted in the OP, and furthermore, I projected the concept of Ifa on Ori (spark of consciousness or self consciousness) and Iwa (spark of behaviour or sentience) which are both the components of human being.

The purpose of this thread is not about defining nature of man, but identifying the nature of personhood or selfhood.

Note, the 'I' used in the question is selfhood or content of subjectivity of a conscious experience. It only when you understand this that we can have a ride.

budaatum:
You do know you are asking me to prove the obvious, right? Please follow the instructions in the experiment below.

Find a concrete wall that has been standing for at least ten minutes and stand ten steps from it. (You might first want to verify the wall has stood for ten minutes by standing in front of wall and allowing a suitable timepiece to measure out ten minutes). Now, very fast with your head pointed to the wall, run towards it without stopping. As in take at, least 12 running steps towards wall.

Pease describe the state of your head when it tries to occupy the space and time that the wall occupies.

Is this a joke? How does this prove anything related to the existence of space and time?

If at all the experiment would prove anything, that would be electron and electromagnetic field. A high school student know this. It has nothing to do with space or time.

And if you had ponder about it at least for a minute before pushing the submit button, you would have understood that the so called space between a stationary wall and the observer is not really empty. There is light, proton, wave, dust, organisms, energy and so many particles between both stationed objects. The space is only in your head.

If there is a space and time, it only exist in your head, a maze which your brain simulated and thrown you into. Space and time does not exist during NDE, and that is another reality. As a matter of fact, the experience and sensations in the NDE world is more real than what your brain is conjuring to you here.

budaatum:
Easy. When I raise my hand, the hand of the image in the mirror is raised, and when I sit down it sits. And when I walk away from the mirror, the image disappears.

Damn, we learn this at two years old when we try to see our own image in a mirror while standing behind the mirror. Try it and tell me the thoughts of the image you see.

You are still saying the say as you said before using different words.

You claimed the man in the mirror is the puppet of you, and only responded when you move your body parts.

However, I am asking, how you arrive at the conclusion that the mirror image is not thinking, and it is not the one controlling you. Simply explain this.

budaatum:
I'm thinking. I'm really thinking hard, but first I'll narrate an experience.

One day, I stood in front of a mirror and saw myself for the first time and was shocked. It was in a full length mirror which had been in bedroom which I'd groomed myself in front of many times, but this one day, I saw past the image in the mirror and sat their staring until starvation made me budge.

Is the answer to your question Michael Jackson? I would not be surprised if the image Michael Jackson saw when he stood in front of a mirror was that of Michael Jackson, especially if he saw with his mind, which it's safe to pressume since it tends to open one's consciousness to an awareness of the following a la Descartes:

"If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make that
(Take a look at yourself and then make that)
Change!"

Simple. I wish you can just go straight to the point instead of bamboozling me with boring 'speeches'. I wish LordReed can see it too.

There is nothing in the mirror, except light bouncing off and on the body and the mirror. Our eye absorb the light and transfer the signal to the brain do the job of interpreting this light reflections of one's self. This process is called self-awareness.

Now, we have consciousness (qualia, subjectivity, soul, selfhood, personhood, I, Ori) and self-awareness (mirror of I).

It is important to note that self-awareness is a result biological process (mental construct) which is illusionary or mirror in the head reflecting consciousness.

Isn't this simple

budaatum:
Can't say I can explain the word "soul" since its not a word I believe I use, though please do point me to where you've seen me use it so I can respond in context. "Oneself", is very like me, however, as in a word I'd use, though the shorter "one", as in, 'one might say that', to denote individuality as opposed to being part of a herd.

"Oneself" is like saying "I" as opposed to "us", "we" or "ourselves".

You are lost within yourself. Haba!

While you were bamboozling me with confusing words, telling me I is buda, I agreed and asked you to explain the nature of buda, and also drop your viewpoint on Consciousness or Ori or soul or oneself. The answer you provided was load of expensive shiit.... Lol, having no correlation to the question asked.

Consciousness is the same thing as Ori, Soul, oneself or buda. Copish?

FOLYKAZE:

If at all the experiment would prove anything, that would be electron and electromagnetic field. A high school student know this. It has nothing to do with space or time.

If there is a space and time, it only exist in your head, a maze which your brain simulated and thrown you into.

Pity you would not perform the simple experiment to discover the consequence of your head and the wall arriving at the exact same point in space and time. It makes it difficult to imagine you know enough about the more complex electron and electromagnetic field, or even Descartes, or consciousness, or ori. But forgive me. I don't particularly enjoy discussing with uncivil individuals, especially not on complex topics like these where civility and the need for immense effort to understand the other's point of view is required.

FOLYKAZE:

Consciousness is the same thing as Ori, Soul, oneself or buda. Copish?

No. Consciousness is not "the same thing as Ori, Soul, oneself or buda. Copish!"

Afterall, one does not say, "buda is a consciousness". One says, buda is a being that is conscious, as in, buda possesses a consciousness or an ori or and a soul.

Consciousness is the awareness of the notion that a being or thing (Ori, Soul, oneself or buda) exists. But none of those consciousnesses is Ori, Soul, oneself or buda.

Anyway, figured the following might interest you.
https://www.nairaland.com/6023861/being-time-martin-heidegger#92269314

budaatum:

No. Consciousness is not "the same thing as Ori, Soul, oneself or buda. Copish!"

Afterall, one does not say, "buda is a consciousness". One says, buda is a being that is conscious, as in, buda possesses a consciousness or an ori or and a soul.

Consciousness is the awareness of the notion that a being or thing (Ori, Soul, oneself or buda) exists. But none of those consciousnesses is Ori, Soul, oneself or buda.

Anyway, figured the following might interest you.
https://www.nairaland.com/6023861/being-time-martin-heidegger#92269314

Lol.

How come Buda, the enlightened one, doesn't know there is difference between being conscious and consciousness. Can I assume simply that this topic is way above what you can handle?

FOLYKAZE:


Lol.

How come Buda, the enlightened one, doesn't know there is difference between being conscious and consciousness. Can I assume simply that this topic is way above what you can handle?

It depends. All philosophers would tell you that's why terms must be defined.

Consciousness, is the word you used. One does not say a stone is conscious, nor does it have consciousness nor an ability to be conscious.
But you could you perhaps provide a definition that does not include it as a possession of a thing and not the thing itself and lets see.

budaatum:

It depends. All philosophers would tell you that's why terms must be defined.

Consciousness, is the word you used. One does not say a stone is conscious, nor does it have consciousness nor an ability to be conscious.
But you could you perhaps provide a definition that does not include it as a possession of a thing and not the thing itself and lets see.

Oh well it has been defined, that consciousness is Ori or oneself. So tell me exactly what is it you are driving at? Ori is human consciousness

A stone can be conscious, according to philosophy of mind called Panpsychism, it has the faculty of been conscious, and also possess the properties of consciousness. This is the idea according to Yoruba spirituality. Okuta possess ori. Base on physics, a stone is conscious, active and reactive, composes of energy which is ever vibrating and can ever react to it environment. We actually can not know mind outside ours. However, a stone is conscious and possesses content of qualia or properties of subjectivity of conscious experience.

Do you know what Ori is? Please don't tell us it's buda.....

FOLYKAZE:


Oh well it has been defined, that consciousness is Ori or oneself. So tell me exactly what is it you are driving at? Ori is human consciousness

A stone can be conscious, according to philosophy of mind called Panpsychism, it has the faculty of been conscious, and also possess the properties of consciousness. This is the idea according to Yoruba spirituality. Okuta possess ori. Base on physics, a stone is conscious, active and reactive, composes of energy which is ever vibrating and can ever react to it environment. We actually can not know mind outside ours. However, a stone is conscious and possesses content of qualia or properties of subjectivity of conscious experience.

Do you know what Ori is? Please don't tell us it's buda.....

A stone can be active, but not self conscious. Abeg don't propagate falsehood. If us self conscious beings cannot know a mind outside ours, how much less an inanimate, solid conglomeration of mineraloid materials? No dey give person fabu abeg.

*Unfollows thread

Ishilove:

A stone can be active, but not self conscious. Abeg don't propagate falsehood. If us self conscious beings cannot know a mind outside ours, how much less an inanimate, solid conglomeration of mineraloid materials? No dey give person fabu abeg.

*Unfollows thread

Oh darling please don't go yet.

It is good to know you admitted that a stone, solid conglomeration of mineraloid materials, isn't biological entity, but it is very active. Self-conscious is simply awareness. Something could be said to be aware or alert when it react to it environment. The reaction of a stone to it environment cannot be the same as that human to his environment, but it also react to some effects. How can you possibly react to something you ain't aware of? How can you be aware when you ain't self conscious? And how you tell the conscious mind of another person unless such person tells you?

Take a moment and reflect on a person in state of coma, would you say such person is aware of his environment? No because he is not responding to anything. However, people in comatose or near death do tell us their experiences, outside their body. These are documented in science achieve.

I know of a plant called Mimosa pudica or sensitive plant, which respond to touches. The process in the science world is called a thigmomorphogenesis. This is a sign of sensitivity, but would you say plant have brain to process it response? Brain is not needed to have sense or be aware of one environment. What matter is reaction. Even when other plants do not show this dramatic response like Mimosa pudica, it doesn't mean they ain't aware of the environment too.

Stone, not only alive, it reacts to it environment too, and as such could be classified as a conscious entity. Remember a stone and human brain are made up of matter and energy. The traditional spiritual system knew about these things and as such worship them. A philosophy of mind called panpsychism admitted this.

Thanks for checking by.