@Omnedon I feel that the concept of existence is based on a superficial space/time/matter model of reality, a model needed for bodily survival but useless for understanding the foundation of reality.

@Omnedon Matter exists in our illusory reality of the senses, but examined more closely it is seen to be, not a thing but an interaction between covariant quantum fields.

Do waterfalls exist? Sure, we define certain recurring sensory patterns to be “things”, as in data compression. But what is a waterfall? It’s not the water—if it were the water every minute a new waterfall would be created. Topography with moving water? Look at the stream bed.and you’ll see that it is constantly wearing away. Waterfalls exist in our imagination.

The stuff of the world is mind stuff.

Sir Arthur Eddington:

“The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.

“We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness.

“The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs.“

@Omnedon That is only your opinion, one that I can not accept. Can you explain how conscious awareness can arise from the firing of neurons? Makes no sense to me.

@Omnedon Yes, and also my iPhone is involved in consciousness except when I turn it off.

@Omnedon Humans are only a part of the continuum of life. Life sprang from some sort of foundational basis, one that we can not understand or know on the sense level. Current human organic bodies cannot begin to explain the underpinnings of reality. To say that everything fell into existence on accident—that is a non-answer as useless as to say that God did it.

@Omnedon When I press a key, first there was intention—conscious awareness. The Apple programmers who set up the system were consciously aware, as were the creators of my apps.

I suspect that conscious awareness controls the brain part of the time. Our bodies are also on autopilot for most functions.

Assuming this is all true, and it may well be for all I know, is there some practical use for it, other than the general satisfaction of knowing?

@skado I would think that for normal day to day life that kind of awareness wouldn’t help you survive. Some individuals might experience a sense of joy or ecstasy along with motivation to live long and well.

I lean toward thinking that the idea is true, but even if it’s not there’s fun in thinking about it—like watching a TV drama or something.

@Omnedon Hey M8 you do you realize that you are trying to discuss reality with one who holds to the ideologies of Spirituality there.

@WilliamFleming Firstly William, and medically speaking here, you HAVE to be awake first to have any sign of detectable consciousness, ergo your conscious brain must be active.
There two distinct sectors of the brain/mind in human, the Conscious brain/mind and the Sub-Conscious brain/mind.
While the Conscious brain/mind is alert and active the Sub-Conscious brain is semi-dormant and vice versa.
During sleep phases the Conscious switches off and the Sub-Conscious 'downloads, sorts through and corellates what the Conscious has learned, interpreted, observed, etc, etc, during its active period.
Then we have the Autonomic Nervous system controlled mainly by an entirely different section of the brian/mind, this is somewhat akin to an operations programme of a Master Computer system, it runs independenttly 24/7 365 days a year for your entire life sending signals to your heart lungs, endocrine systems, etc, etc, telling them what do, how to do it and when to do it, etc, etc, that is UNLESS a 'glitch' such as an embolism, Brain Haemorrage, severe Head Injury or Cerebro-vascular accident, etc, occurrs in the region of Autonomic Nervous system/brain/mind then shit truly does often hit fan, so to speak.
But since, as both you and JeffMesser seem to want to have us believe, we are Non-corporeal, Non-material ( i.e. being made up of matter) then such things cannot exist therefore Medicine, Medical Sciences, etc, etc, are guilty of suppositions in extremis are they not?
Ergo, should you or Jeff suddenly develop symptoms of a Brain Haemorrhage, C.V.A. or the like, though I would most sincerely and emphatically NOT recommend doing so, you could both just put such 'symptoms' down as being minor error in the algorithms controlling your 'awareness' programmes.

@Triphid it’s not that we individually are non-corporeal. As individuals with organic bodies, I am in full agreement with what you are saying. What you are missing is that organic bodies have no awareness of self, or free will. How could the firing of neurons possibly cause self-awareness? No one has ever explained how such a thing could occur, and many leading scientists have concluded that it does NOT occur.

Sure, pull the plug on a computer and it goes dead. But your computer never had conscious awareness to begin with—it was not a self. From an overall perspective the death of a computer is of little significance—other computers are in operation. Correlate that with organic bodies.

You are clinging to a materialistic, corporeal world view, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence in support of such a view. What is ethereal is the mislabeled “concrete“ world of our senses, which is purely symbolic and imaginary, and is nothing like ultimate reality beyond. This is not some sort of woo—it should be plain as day to everyone. The idea has been a part of the body of science for a very long time. According to quantum gravity theory particles of matter are not things but events. That kicks materialism in the head right there. There are no things in the universe.

So-called “things” are nothing but recurring patterns of sensory input. For efficiency we think of those patterns as
discreet objects, and sometimes assign them names. It is data compression.

@WilliamFleming So, going by what I assume you've just said, then your profile, your profile photo, your comments on the site and groups, etc, are absolutely nothing more than NOTHING and as we so often informed by the Religious " Nothing can come from Nothing."
So, enlighten me please, since you are, as you appear to imply, a non-corproreal entity, just a mere shell transporting around an awareness, then where exactly did,
A) this 'shell' come from, if at all you are just a mere shell that is,
B) Where and from whence did this non-corporeal 'awareness' come into being and by what means,
C) How, exactly can this 'awareness' claim to have had ACTUAL 'parents,'
D) what source/s of energy power/drive/energize this non-corporeal 'awareness' during its non-corporeal existence, and last but by no means least,
E) what happens to this 'awareness' when it no longer operates. i.e. dies?
As to you anaolgy of a computer verus a human brain and body, well my example was merely in simple terms that the mind, brain, central nervous system and autonomic nervous system are somewhat AKIN to a computer BUT the difference ids that a computer requires an EXTERNAL power source to operate efficiently whereas the REALITY of the human body creates its own electrical energy, an energy which has been PROVEN time and time again to EXIST.
Albeit that that electrical energy is a very very low voltage, amperage, etc, but it does exist none-the -less.
As the brain grows, develops and learns it creates new neural pathways ( tracks similar to the circuits on a circuit board if you will) between neurons and axions, etc, alomg which these micro-electric pulses can travel thus increasing the memory capacity and abilities of the brain.
But, unlike the computers we create our brains, well for most of us that is, do not have a limited memory capacity whereas computers have a limited memory capacity.
Yet we too have both a R.O.M. system within our brains/minds as well as R.A.M. system just as does your computer, lap-top, iphone, ipad, etc, etc, our R.O.M system is what I'd loosely label as being the Autonomic/Central Nervous System of the brain/mind, our R.A.M. system is the major part of our mind/brain and it learns, write and re-writes its 'circuits' on a basis of possibly and probably every second or minute as we learn, realize or comprehend something new ech and every time/hour,day, etc, we are awake and aware.
For example, a new born child has no ambulatory abilities at birth, but as time and experiences go by it observes, learns and the 'circuits' in the brain/mind are formed slowly and steadily then, voila, the 'circiuts' are complete, the new neurons and axions can now receive the necessary micro-electirical impulse and the child begins to learn to stand, place one foot in front of the other and walkinf commences.
And all this occurs BECAUSE the boy and the brain have a material, phsyical, corporeal form, shape and the musculature to enable it to do so.
Ergo, IF we were only a non-corporeal 'awareness' we would neither need a a physical 'transportation system, i.e. a frail body with a limited existence time spans, to 'travel' around in, nor would we required such inventions as telephones, computers, the internet, books, cars, buses, trains, etc, etc, because this 'awaeness' would have the inherent abilities to travel anywhere, anytime at will and would not be so tied down as you and I are.
Is that not simple logic to you?

@Triphid You are interpreting it all wrongly, and you are thinking in terms of the space/time/matter model that is nothing but imagination. As long as you cling to that model we won’t be able to communicate. You want to know where things “come from”, but since, from a higher perspective time does not exist, the concept of “coming from” is meaningless. Organic bodies are extensions of universal consciousness. You seem to be thinking about some sort of individual soul, and that is not at all what I am trying to convey.

As an analogy think of a fleet of self-driving cars. A self-driving car has no soul, no self-awareness, no free will. It is not a self but an assemblage of parts. When it is taken out of service it is nothing but junk.

Most of the time a self-driving car appears to be conscious. It can talk, plan its own route, react to new situations, etc. But its functioning depends on programming, logic, memory, and sometimes random choices. It might operate alone for a long time, but periodically its computer is over-ridden by a conscious entity from a realm outside its personal reality.

I certainly can not explain this concept fully—there are lots of gaps and I’m not sure of it all. I am basically mystified and bewildered by reality and feel profound awe and reverence.

Sounds as though you understand reality fully and your mind is fully made up. If by any chance you want to learn more about universal consciousness you can glean sources from my quote above from HuffPost. For a very good scientific exposition of reality beyond the senses read Reality is not What it Seems by Carlo Rovelli.

I see no reason to carry this further. Thanks for a stimulating interchange.

@WilliamFleming Again with the circular type of reasoning you so adroitly employ.

yep. Kierkegaard commented that when you name me you limit me. so if you're talking about something without limits then a name is rather inappropriate. I don't particularly believe in their god but that's their path. I believe in science.

@JeffMesser If you understood biblical text they understood things about naming. Elohim in old testiment is more of a title or saying something is all mighty. "Jesus" character didn't get named until the new testiment. Ruach is a force. it is a force like breath, wind or a storm. Ruach, the force of breath is what gets translated into English as "spirit". I don' think the translation is exactly matching the original intended meaning. For example take the first part of Genesis where it says in English "... the spirit of God hovered over the waters". this has me thinking it is a type of a ghost of a person. Where as if you translated "... the force of the almighty hovered over the waters", it sounds to me like something of some physics is going on.

@Word it's approached the same way in the rig veda and the upanishads which would put it as a concept possibly over 75,000 years old.

@Bobby9 I already had your no vote down. thanks for playing.

I will take that as a "no".

@JeffMesser No, that is, silly way to get to the obvious.

@Fernapple so you don't wish to know. thats fine. namaste

that was rude. do you entertain with that closed mind?

@JeffMesser Do you entertain the proposition that people who don't agree with your unsubstantiated claims may yet have a desire to understand Reality? I'll answer for you like you rudely answer for others: No, apparently not.

@racocn8 I accepted the "no" from numerous people who may have wanted to expound on their objections. This isnt a rape investigation. Some people are open-minded enough to be receptive and some aren't. Over 40 years I've started to figure out those who aren't with extreme efficiency and I can usually tell thru dialogue if they're hip deep in maya or of they have the impetus of the seeker within them. So you can take your "no" and be off. namaste

@JeffMesser I appreciate truth-seeking as much as anyone. You may be saluted for your efforts. But, what is the point of seeking enlightenment if the subject still behaves in a belligerant arrogant dismissive way? Should anyone expect cruel rhetoric from an ascended master? Here's a tip: pretend you have wisdom, behave accordingly; really act the part, humility and all that, and maybe, just maybe, you might stumble on some. Or, just keep going the way you are; really revel in your snarkiness, continue to have no one take you seriously, and stay in the same metaphysical rut you're in right now. Namaste, right...

@racocn8 you appreciate truth seeking? LOL

1. physics
2. you and I and we are all one. I am.

@JeffMesser So there is only one "being"? And that being is you & me & everyone? And that being created physics & math? Sounds like a monotheistic belief but there's nothing else except that "god".

@David_ver_3 no, we didnt "create" physics and math. there are laws of physics guiding how things react and interrelate. we just witness.

@JeffMesser Your original post started with "There is no such thing as matter." Now you say "there are laws of physics guiding how things react and interrelate". Physics (and math) are how matter behave. I'm confused by your apparent contradiction - no matter only consciousness, or matter & physics that we observe?

@David_ver_3 there is no contradiction. rules and consciousness. that is all.

so that's a vote for "No, I don't want to know". Got it.

@JeffMesser Whats to know then?

@CapriKious a non-nihilist way to live with peace and hope.

@JeffMesser Peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell all montagues and thee.
But really, live on and prosper or whatever it is you do.

oh definitely ... the Hsin Hsin Ming by Seng-ts'an

here's a link to the pdf
[holybooks.com]