As for Sugar how do we know it is sweet - we know because we have experienced it via our senses.
How do we know water is wet, or Sunshine is warn, or beauty is in a sunset.
We may read these things but we do not know of it. When we experience it than we know it.
I'll share some points with you to consider.
These were raised in my mind while reading web pages on the topic of epistemology.
1. Everything that is known external to the body is known ultimately in the mind.
2. Our minds experience the world through our five senses. Nothing external is really experienced unless it is experienced by mind.
3. Our minds projects these observed objects via frequency of light and sound, converts signals of sight, hearing, taste, touch, into bio chemical electrical neuron signals which culminate in the brain from the external into the body mechanism and is projected into a space time mind medium, containing everything we have observed externally and we call this our experience.
4. To talk of an object being outside the body is to talk about it being outside a thought, ie outside a mental thing, outside the mind - which is impossible.
5. Everything we observe is mind. And therefore in common parlance say we know these things that are in mind.
That brings us to states of mind
1. Altering our sense perception alters our observable reality in mind. Some call this illusion or hallucination or insane even mysterious derangement's of mystics are of mind.
2. Drugs and Alcohol damage the physical structure of the true nature of consciousness and of our awareness making the mind less and less aware of the source of its true nature and more and more lost in the illusion of matter.
3. At birth it is said by doctors that we are more conscious than we are at old age. Our mind keeps our attention within a degrading frequency limitation for some reason of its own nature.
4. The process whereby we become conscious of an illusion cannot be different than the way we become conscious of any ordinary object in time space.
5. The act of awareness - of the illusion and the reality are indeed the same, even though one is false and the other accurate.
What then is the truth of experience.
1. Recently discovered - children in classrooms were sending and receiving texts at a sound frequency tone on their mobiles that their teachers were unable to hear. Thus created a bit of a stir for the teachers.
2. The most innocent amongst are the new born who have a frequency receptive ability of light and sound above that of grown ups and their learning skills capability is far greater than any of us. They can see and hear things we cant.
3. What they know and are aware of in their mind consciousness we are not - thus we do not help them with their awareness but we delude them into the world around us.
4. We mistakenly call that growing up, and force that nature on the innocent out of them.
5. It is this innocent nature of someone who did not lose its capability to their environment that remained uncorrupted with time and age thus leading them to speak of the spiritual regions within. God and angels, are in the mind and are as real as the external world.
"Blessed are the pure at heart for they shall see God. "
So where does the error really occur?
1. Our minds have become engrossed in matter and sense perception. It has lost all its frequencies of spiritual awareness with time.
2. Conscious awareness of the physical world with no way to reconnect with the conscious spiritual world and no teacher we have degraded our awareness with time through negative (in that respect of knowing the spirit) indulgences.
3. If an illusion is a false sensory impression it is still an impression made on mind.
4. It cannot be in the object it can only be in the mind for its there where the mistake of interpretation occurs.
5. The Genius is the one who can use the state of mind and its intellectual capabilities to solve complex problems.
We are all hoping that someday you will be able to swim out of the shallow end of the pool, Jesuis. In the meantime, we have to put up with stuff like this.
I know that you think that since you used words like "parlance" and stuff, that you went pretty darned deep into the subject you were making up, but the only talent you exerted is your ability to over-generalize and simplify. The latter is of course understandable, because otherwise you wouldn't, you know, understand it.
What part of the mind are you talking about. How much of your mind involves thoughts and shit? And how much is too busy doing other things to care? Here you are presenting a silly set of over-simpifications, spiced with omissions and errors and imagined relevance. You are big on "known" and "mind", "experience" and observation". Yet you barely know the words, yet alone their relevance to the "thoughts" you've presented here.
In your first numbered point,you said:
1. Everything that is known external to the body is known ultimately in the mind.
When you say that, you seem to be assigning accuracy to the term "known". You seem to be assuming precision and to be assigning sensory data and interpretation a 1:1 ratio. You are ignoring errors in perception, misinterpretations, missed cues, the fact that the brain fills in most of what we "see" in our peripheral vision, all the other things our brain is doing in the meantime, and all the stuff our body does without needing the brain. You are ignoring the second brain we have in our stomach that is responsible for our feeling hungry and "butterflies". You seem unaware that most of what we do is unconscious, and of our limited perception of reality. Which further distorts what we think we are observing/experiencing because we don't know how much we are ignoring.
And you are speaking in specifics as you over-generalize. Which is actually impressive. But the limits of which you speak are not universal. Yes, kids in a classroom did communicate at a frequency their teach couldn't hear. But I can detect frequencies far beyond those known to the kids. I've got an oscilloscope. Which means that my "ignorance", which stems from growing older and less able to hear, is offset by even better sensory sources. So I can detect far more than those kids. If their superpower and youth is impressive, why isn't my extended sensory apparatus, combined with a higher degree of education, far more impressive than the talents of a bunch of second graders?
Which means that my mind, whose experiences are limited by what I can sense, can recognize its limits and extend the natural with mind-concocted tools, Which must mean that the mind is smarter than it looks, otherwise it would just be too busy attending to those five senses that it wouldn't have time to come up with other stuff. And you are over simplifying our senses as well. The five-senses thingy (sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste) are incomplete. Do you know about your proprioception; your brains ability to know where your arms and legs are. Exactly where they are? The sense that deteriorates (like sight) as one ages, and which explains why old people fall down a lot. Their bodies lose track of where their legs are.
Native peoples, unencumbered by civilization, have a natural sense of direction, and always know which way is which. And most people have an uncanny sense of time. One that is far more accurate than researchers would have predicted.
We may have over 20 senses. Itching, for instance, uses a completely different set of nerves than any other touch-based sensory system. Is that yet another sense, or not?
So there is all this stuff going on in our heads and our bodies, and you want to simplify it all and then assign excess value to "spiritual awareness". Which is, for the most part, just a way for an inadequately aware brain to fill in the blanks to its own satisfaction.
I don't know if you are old enough to drive, but if you are, you probably have had the experience of driving in an unfamiliar area and being surprised that you actually stopped your car at a stop sign that you didn't consciously know was there. That is the part of our brain that is doing most of the work, and we don't know diddly about it. Science can't get to it (though they can measure it and stuff), meditators can't directly access it, yet it does most of the work. Our conscious selves are minimally important. About all that part of us does is assign a sense of self importance and give that distortion top priority. (A subject worthy of discussion, but above your grade level.)
The brain in incredibly complex. When combined with our bodies, it gets a couple billion times more complex. When further combined with the things happening on the cellular level, we get a few trillion times more complex. Then toss in our external environment and all the stuff we have to put up with there, and poof, we are too complex to exist. The only reason we survive is that our simple heads refuse to delve in to things too deeply. Which makes the whole thing tolerable.
I could go through the rest of your post in equal detail, but I'm pretty sure I've bored the pants off of everyone (except Nam, who probably doesn't wear his while at the computer
). So I'll stop.
There are too many unknowns in our minds/brains to allow for a meaningful conversation among anonymous strangers on the Internet. Expecially when at least one participant has an exceedingly naïve view of the subject matter. And is too impressed with the imaginary field of spirituality.
You should change the subject.