What exactly is the mind and where is it located ?

[goldisheavy]

it just means i responded to education ,a mind is not needed to respond .

 

I have thoughts and considerations but they do not originate from the mind. its a spiritual orgination

 

i generate a thought , look at it and then vanish it out of existence

 

this is not the mind doing these things

 

only life has the ability to generate thoughts and considerations then vanish them .

 

we can consider having a mind but thats pretty much it .

 

What is the difference between life and mind?

[TaoMaster]

What is the difference between life and mind?

the mind is a physical thing and life is not . life is spiritual .

[goldisheavy]

the mind is a physical thing and life is not . life is spiritual .

 

I don't see how the mind is a physical thing.

[TaoMaster]

Is a law a physical thing ?

 

Can you describe what the mind actually is ? For you ?

 

How would your life be different without one ?

[Mystique Enigma]

‘I’ the Mind

 

'I' create ...

'I' the mind

'I' am the self

'I' am the life

 

If 'I' was no more

'I'' would not be

Life would be empty

In silence 'I'd sleep

 

Keeping a balance

'I' create my self

The illusion of life

An image of self

 

It is 'I' who lives

It is 'I' who forgets

The image of a God

The definition of a 'self'

 

As the journey began

So will it end

Neither the ocean

Nor the fish one appends

[TaoMaster]

Ok got it , thx . Life is the mind . Its just anorher term for life ? One and the same thing ?

 

Is rhe mind spirirual or no physical ?

[goldisheavy]

Is a law a physical thing ?

 

Because laws don't have weight, spacial and temporal extension, they are not physical. They don't have the qualities of physical objects.

 

Can you describe what the mind actually is ? For you ?

 

Sure. The mind is a capacity to know, to experience and to will.

 

How would your life be different without one ?

 

"Without the mind" is not even an option. I can be without a limb or without a body or without thoughts, but never without mind. In fact, sensing absence is a type of cognition, which of course requires mind.

Edited August 25, 2014 by goldisheavy

[TaoMaster]

Because laws don't have weight, spacial and temporal extension, they are not physical. They don't have the qualities of physical objects.

 

 

 

Sure. The mind is a capacity to know, to experience and to will.

 

 

 

"Without the mind" is not even an option. I can be without a limb or without a body or without thoughts, but never without mind. In fact, sensing absence is a type of cognition, which of course requires mind.

 

Laws are considerations that things must be a certain way .

 

Considerations are physical things so that Ipso facto makes law physical .

 

Every particle in the universe is bound by law ( yin ) without law there would just be life , nothing. No thing.

[goldisheavy]

Laws are considerations that things must be a certain way . Considerations are physical things so that Ipso facto makes law physical . Every particle in the universe is bound by law ( yin ) without law there would just be life , nothing. No thing.

 

Considerations are not physical things. An example of a physical thing is a chair. An example of a consideration is "I need to go bowling soon."

[TaoMaster]

Considerations are not physical things. An example of a physical thing is a chair. An example of a consideration is "I need to go bowling soon."

what is a considration made of ?

 

is a thought a physical thing?

 

how about a mental image of a chair / physical ?

[TaoMaster]

Because laws don't have weight, spacial and temporal extension, they are not physical. They don't have the qualities of physical objects.

 

 

Sure. The mind is a capacity to know, to experience and to will.

 

 

"Without the mind" is not even an option. I can be without a limb or without a body or without thoughts, but never without mind. In fact, sensing absence is a type of cognition, which of course requires mind.

where is the mind located ?

 

does a chair have a mind ? if no then " without a mind" is an option

 

you can consider any things to be physical or not but the consideration does not make it so .

 

you can consider a thing non existent or existent , its either does of it doesnt , its a legal matter . called law of duality

 

there is life , non physical and there is everything else that life creates that is physical.

 

its life who has capacity , not mind. The mind is a created thing , created by life the creator of all things.

 

a mental image of a chair is as physical as a chair you sit on but the only difference is one is more solid than the other . They are both physical .

 

mental images of things are no differemt in terms of physical things . they are both made of same physical universe particles .

 

solidity is determined by the amount of particle in proximity to one another .

[Marblehead]

is a thought a physical thing?

 

how about a mental image of a chair / physical ?

They are real for only the one having the thought or mental image. They would not be real for anyone else unless shared with others. Illusions are funny things. They seems so real, like the image of the chair - it exists in one's mind until they try to sit on it and their ass hits the floor.

[TaoMaster]

Ya funny , hitting the floor that is . We can actially see others thoughts and show them ours. I only say that from experience. Many times its a little starting for others and they look at me with a stange look on thier faces. For a long time too. But usually, others dont see others thoughts, true.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I realize that what I posted above is very simplified. But I needed to keep it simple at first.

 

I will agree with you that we can share our thoughts and images with others and most often those others will be able to reify those same thoughts and images.

 

The thing is, these thoughts and images are at a personal level whereas the chair is at a manifest physical level. Anyone can sit on the chair, not all will be able to comprehend your thoughts and images.

[goldisheavy]

what is a considration made of ?

 

It's not made of anything. I suppose I can say it's made of questions, hopes, fears, imagination, experience, etc. None of those are physical.

 

is a thought a physical thing?

 

If course not. If thought was physical, it would have weight, length, inertia, wavelength, etc.

 

how about a mental image of a chair / physical ?

 

It's not physical.

[goldisheavy]

where is the mind located ?

 

Nowhere. The mind cannot be located because location is itself is a cognition. Cognitions cannot and do not explain the context they arise from, but on the contrary, cognitions require context to be meaningful. So not only do cognitions not explain anything outside of themselves, but it's worse, because cognitions themselves need to be explained, and they depend on context for their own meanings.

 

This context that cognitions depend on is a volitional formation of the mind. It's 100% immaterial.

 

does a chair have a mind ? if no then " without a mind" is an option

 

Technically things can't be said to have or not to have mind. Mind is not like an optional attachment to a vacuum cleaner.

 

I'll put it this way. Does dryness have water or only wetness? What has water and what doesn't? Well, this is a confused question. Water has the property of wetness. It's silly to talk about wetness having and sometimes not having water.

 

It's the same with the mind.

 

Cognitions are to mind what wetness is to water. The mind is a greater context, whereas individual cognitions are specific, delineated, distinguishable events.

 

So when you recognize the distance between the chair and a table, that's a cognition of distance. To experience this you need a mind. The mind as such is not an actual experience. Instead the mind experiences cognitions like thoughts, distances, hopes, fears, pressure (felt as weight, mass, inertia), expectations being fulfilled or frustrated, etc. Nothing that the mind experience is mind as such. Instead the mind experiences consequences of its own functioning, but never directly itself as an object.

 

Similarly, no specific posture of my index finger is my index finger. If I hold my index finger in the shape of a hook, I cannot say, lo, this hook is what is my finger. That's nonsense. Likewise, when the mind undergoes any cognition whatsoever, whatsoever, without exception, that cognition is always optional the way a hooked finger is just one of millions of ways of presenting your finger to awareness. So no specific deformation of a finger is uniquely the finger to the exclusion of all else. Cognitions are like the deformations of mind, and none of them represent the mind. The brain as something experiencable is not representative of the mind, because it's just one of many possible deformations of the mind's experience.

 

So the various states of mind are not closer to the mind or further away from it. In fact, the states of the mind cannot be related by distance to the mind at all. They can't be said to emerge from the mind, as if leaving the mind behind. They can't be said to stay in the mind, as if contained by some kind of membrane. States of mind don't stay and they don't leave. We just can't even talk about them in those terms if we want to be precise.

 

you can consider any things to be physical or not but the consideration does not make it so .

 

This doesn't matter. Depending on how you consider things, your experience of life will change. That's what's important. What everything is or isn't is of no value at all. What's valuable is this: "What can I get away with?" That's something we need to investigate. If at the bottom of it all it turns out there is a series of infinitely descending turtles, who cares?

 

The whole point of making the study of mind pivotal is precisely because we no longer want to think what is behind the mind, if anything. We give up on that idea for various reasons.

 

solidity is determined by the amount of particle in proximity to one another .

 

What determines the solidity of particles? More particles?

Edited August 30, 2014 by goldisheavy

[TaoMaster]

Nowhere. The mind cannot be located because location is itself is a cognition. Cognitions cannot and do not explain the context they arise from, but on the contrary, cognitions require context to be meaningful. So not only do cognitions not explain anything outside of themselves, but it's worse, because cognitions themselves need to be explained, and they depend on context for their own meanings.

 

This context that cognitions depend on is a volitional formation of the mind. It's 100% immaterial.

 

 

Technically things can't be said to have or not to have mind. Mind is not like an optional attachment to a vacuum cleaner.

 

I'll put it this way. Does dryness have water or only wetness? What has water and what doesn't? Well, this is a confused question. Water has the property of wetness. It's silly to talk about wetness having and sometimes not having water.

 

It's the same with the mind.

 

Cognitions are to mind what wetness is to water. The mind is a greater context, whereas individual cognitions are specific, delineated, distinguishable events.

 

So when you recognize the distance between the chair and a table, that's a cognition of distance. To experience this you need a mind. The mind as such is not an actual experience. Instead the mind experiences cognitions like thoughts, distances, hopes, fears, pressure (felt as weight, mass, inertia), expectations being fulfilled or frustrated, etc. Nothing that the mind experience is mind as such. Instead the mind experiences consequences of its own functioning, but never directly itself as an object.

 

Similarly, no specific posture of my index finger is my index finger. If I hold my index finger in the shape of a hook, I cannot say, lo, this hook is what is my finger. That's nonsense. Likewise, when the mind undergoes any cognition whatsoever, whatsoever, without exception, that cognition is always optional the way a hooked finger is just one of millions of ways of presenting your finger to awareness. So no specific deformation of a finger is uniquely the finger to the exclusion of all else. Cognitions are like the deformations of mind, and none of them represent the mind. The brain as something experiencable is not representative of the mind, because it's just one of many possible deformations of the mind's experience.

 

So the various states of mind are not closer to the mind or further away from it. In fact, the states of the mind cannot be related by distance to the mind at all. They can't be said to emerge from the mind, as if leaving the mind behind. They can't be said to stay in the mind, as if contained by some kind of membrane. States of mind don't stay and they don't leave. We just can't even talk about them in those terms if we want to be precise.

 

 

This doesn't matter. Depending on how you consider things, your experience of life will change. That's what's important. What everything is or isn't is of no value at all. What's valuable is this: "What can I get away with?" That's something we need to investigate. If at the bottom of it all it turns out there is a series of infinitely descending turtles, who cares?

 

The whole point of making the study of mind pivotal is precisely because we no longer want to think what is behind the mind, if anything. We give up on that idea for various reasons.

 

 

What determines the solidity of particles? More particles?

Thx GIH, different, but Interesting . Ive never heard it being defined as cognition without location . I like the without location though.

[TaoMaster]

what happens if a person loses their mind ? good ? bad ? insanity ? more sane ?

[Silent Answers]

My quote button, copy and paste aren't working properly on this connection...So this is addressed to TaoMaster

 

"every particle is bound by law (yin)"

 

A few days ago you were trying to convince us that anything Yin is negative, and nothing but illusion. Now Yin is the Strong Force that holds the stitching of the cosmos together? Well, that sounds like something pretty useful...essential...to the forming of physical reality. (This is related to your other thread, forgive me for continuing here, it just happened to be a quote from this page).

 

The point I'm making is this. Besides from the ever present list of opposites and "3 real life examples", it's like you change your view with every Youtube video you see. Sometimes you scratch the surface of something interesting, something worth talking about, then you dash all credibility with contradictions and personal feelings passed off as absolute truth, and understanding of the cosmos.

 

I think myself and most other people on the forum would be more interested in what you had to say if you could follow a specific path....and accept the possibility that you may not be the all knowing great master of Tao that you want to be. It's ok to not know EVERYTHING and just have a personal attachment to an idea. That way you wouldn't come under the scrutiny of others making note of your discrepancies.

 

Yes, I am kind of taking at jab at you...but it's out of hope you'll put some of that contemplating to better use. It may not be my place to comment on - but if you've truly accepted that we are all one, and that I put you here...then you'll take my advice as your own. I wouldn't comment at all if I thought you weren't worth it.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Silent Answers

[silent thunder]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/woman-born-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors-1.2003732

 

This is pretty remarkable. A Chinese woman, discovers in her mid twenties that she has no cerebellum.

 

This reinforces my experience that while the brain can affect the mind, it does not generate it.

[Marblehead]

 

This reinforces my experience that while the brain can affect the mind, it does not generate it.

And I will continue to attempt to cause you to change your mind about that.

[TaoMaster]

My quote button, copy and paste aren't working properly on this connection...So this is addressed to TaoMaster

 

"every particle is bound by law (yin)"

 

A few days ago you were trying to convince us that anything Yin is negative, and nothing but illusion. Now Yin is the Strong Force that holds the stitching of the cosmos together? Well, that sounds like something pretty useful...essential...to the forming of physical reality. (This is related to your other thread, forgive me for continuing here, it just happened to be a quote from this page).

ya this web site has issues , i had spell checker working nicley yesterday but not in the past and today no go

 

i never said yin is or was the strong force that holds the stiching of the cosmos..Please send me a link to that . Yo cant it doesnt exist . Its a lie , an illusion .

The point I'm making is this. Besides from the ever present list of opposites and "3 real life examples", it's like you change your view with every Youtube video you see. Sometimes you scratch the surface of something interesting, something worth talking about, then you dash all credibility with contradictions and personal feelings passed off as absolute truth, and understanding of the cosmos.

you need to take everything in a new unit of time . Time is an illusion .

I think myself and most other people on the forum would be more interested in what you had to say if you could follow a specific path....and accept the possibility that you may not be the all knowing great master of Tao that you want to be. It's ok to not know EVERYTHING and just have a personal attachment to an idea. That way you wouldn't come under the scrutiny of others making note of your discrepancies.

if you dont like my posts , dont read them .

Yes, I am kind of taking at jab at you...but it's out of hope you'll put some of that contemplating to better use. It may not be my place to comment on - but if you've truly accepted that we are all one, and that I put you here...then you'll take my advice as your own. I wouldn't comment at all if I thought you weren't worth it.

thx, man , fortunatly I understand you and thats a good thing . when you help me i help you and vs versa. its a legal issue and yes we are all the same spiritual dude. The illusion is that we are not .

 

there is only self and others in the physical universe but spiritually we are just 1.

 

so when you comment to me and me you we are in actuallality just taking to self .

 

when you have yang and yin , aka self and others , it generates sensations both good abd bad , aka yang and yin .

 

the more yang the more good sensation and the more yin the worse.

 

ive actually figured out the whole thing ( the universe ) and no matter what anyone says does, opposes , fights me be littles me or what ever it want change that .

 

I even have a simple exercise so you too can become more aware than you already are . I hope you use it it works well and theres nothing in it for me or you to lie about that but theres allot in it for both of us if im truthful . im not BSing you bro .

[TaoMaster]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/woman-born-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors-1.2003732

 

This is pretty remarkable. A Chinese woman, discovers in her mid twenties that she has no cerebellum.

 

This reinforces my experience that while the brain can affect the mind, it does not generate it.

thank you

[silent thunder]

And I will continue to attempt to cause you to change your mind about that.

I hope so!

Conversations are pretty boring when everyone agrees all the time.

[TaoMaster]

BTW Silent thunder , OOB experience is not an illusion , its an awareness. Its real .

 

its when you consider yourself in a body , thats the illusion . Do my drills and youll see for yourself .

 

awareness is yang , unawareness is yin

 

once you get an inkling of this truth , you will want to run with it and never stop . Thats also a good thing .

 

peace