Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist

[Iacchus32]

Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couldn't do so out side of it.

So what does it mean? That cognizance transcends time?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I think cognizance=consciousness. Time doesn't transcend consciousness, but it is apart of consciousness.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couldn't do so out side of it.

So what does it mean? That cognizance transcends time?

Ok, I've been nice before. This is getting to out of hand. When people constantly tell you you need to THINK and research before posting such outrageous claims, do you listen or just continue to spam?

I can't ruin your theory in one concept. No creatue experiences a single time at the same time it actually takes place. We have a delay on our senses. A person can only know something took place AFTER it took place, and we must access memory.

For instance. If you produce a word on a piece of paper for me. The only way I can know what that word is, is to access my memory.

The eyes do not show me what I am seeing.

I only know what I saw, never what I am seeing. And to know what I saw I use my memory.

You make outrageous claims, that are easily disproven. You need to stop spamming and do some research into your claims.

I was nice 5 times, but this is getting out of hand.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I think cognizance=consciousness. Time doesn't transcend consciousness, but it is apart of consciousness.

I think what I'm saying is consciousness transcends time, as opposed to the reverse. Which is to say, if you're aware of yourself in the moment, and not "caught up" in your thoughts (about the past, future, etc.), then to that degree you also transcend time. Do you know why? Because the past and future don't exist -- outside of the moment that is. Whereas the moment simply is (the experience of existence itself) ... And yes, it seems this was mentioned in the movie, http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A45118" ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok, I've been nice before. This is getting to out of hand. When people constantly tell you you need to THINK and research before posting such outrageous claims, do you listen or just continue to spam?

I would recommend you don't take things so personally.

I can't ruin your theory in one concept. No creatue experiences a single time at the same time it actually takes place. We have a delay on our senses. A person can only know something took place AFTER it took place, and we must access memory.

How much of a delay? Would you say micro-seconds? ... Nano-seconds? ... Less than that? ... Neither does this belie the fact that "the moment" doesn't exist.

For instance. If you produce a word on a piece of paper for me. The only way I can know what that word is, is to access my memory.

And while you may not recognize it for the word it is, you still recognize it as a "scribbling" on a piece of paper. In which case I would say "one's perception" is pretty instantaneous. Whereas to the degree that something is familiar, the more instantaneous the recognition factor is.

The eyes do not show me what I am seeing.

I only know what I saw, never what I am seeing. And to know what I saw I use my memory.

You mean the brain does the interpreting. And yet the eye still recognizes pattern, form, color, intensity, etc. Whereas if there is a delay to the brain, it's virtually imperceptible. The rest you have to chock up to the "experience" for what it is.

You make outrageous claims, that are easily disproven. You need to stop spamming and do some research into your claims.

I was nice 5 times, but this is getting out of hand.

Do you want to know what I think? Science is all about dissecting life. Whereas life itself is all the more flexible. Kind of makes you wonder how life could have ever managed without science? But you know what? It did!

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think what I'm saying is consciousness transcends time, as opposed to the reverse. Which is to say, if you're aware of yourself in the moment, and not "caught up" in your thoughts (about the past, future, etc.), then to that degree you also transcend time. Do you know why? Because the past and future don't exist -- outside of the moment that is. Whereas the moment simply is (the experience of existence itself) ... And yes, it seems this was mentioned in the movie, http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A45118" ...

Transcends, as I understand it, means to accrete. Please clarify this for me.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I only know what I saw, never what I am seeing. And to know what I saw I use my memory.

No, memory is the aftermath. What happens is, after your eyes detect patterns (cones...i'm sure you know about those...), the patterns are sent to the occipital lobe, then sent to the fugular area in the temporal lobe where they are analyzed. That's how you know what you're seeing.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Ugh, majin. You picked the wrong person to try to convince your half-assed concept on perception. So wrong are you, I'm not going to explain. Just going to ignore, no matter how difficult it is...

My truth still stands. and Iacc - stop pretending ALMOST instanteous is the same as INSTANEOUS. there's no differne between forever, never and now and never.

Man oh man, using lazy definitions to try to prove such an outrageously strange claim. Lazy americans!

I make a propition using Iacc's concepts

1.1 = 1.0

I mean come on guys, it's so close, can't we just call it the same thing?? pweeeeeeeeeease.

I rest my case.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

So what does it mean? That cognizance transcends time?

It means that cognizance is a function of attitude as is the knowledge that we exist. That is why time often seems to slow down for people in life threatening situations. All the petty concerns, habitual affects, and preconceptions are thrust aside in the moment in order to deal with the situation and survive. Likewise, my pet mouse may be a mouse of little brain with no concept of death, but she most certainly appears to know she is alive and exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ugh, majin. You picked the wrong person to try to convince your half-assed concept on perception. So wrong are you, I'm not going to explain. Just going to ignore, no matter how difficult it is...

My truth still stands. and Iacc - stop pretending ALMOST instanteous is the same as INSTANEOUS. there's no differne between forever, never and now and never.

Man oh man, using lazy definitions to try to prove such an outrageously strange claim. Lazy americans!

I make a propition using Iacc's concepts

1.1 = 1.0

I mean come on guys, it's so close, can't we just call it the same thing?? pweeeeeeeeeease.

I rest my case.

So why should we bother to listen to you, if in fact you're a figment (time delay?) of our imagination? ... Sorry, you and your "replies" don't exist ... not in the moment anyway.

Don't you think it's possible to lose sight of what you're studying by over-analyzing it? I think the best way to understand something is to allow it to carry on of its accord, in context with "what it is," rather than dissecting it and "butchering it" to pieces.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Transcends, as I understand it, means to accrete. Please clarify this for me.

Transcends means to "rise above," to where something which once had influence over you, no longer does. In which case I'm saying cognizance, which is only "realized" in the moment -- the moment which always is, and hence Eternal -- transcends time.

Think about it. Does time really exist? No, all we have is "the moment."

As for this thing about acretion, I don't know where you came up with this, except perhaps from M. Gaspar? ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
It means that cognizance is a function of attitude as is the knowledge that we exist. That is why time often seems to slow down for people in life threatening situations. All the petty concerns, habitual affects, and preconceptions are thrust aside in the moment in order to deal with the situation and survive. Likewise, my pet mouse may be a mouse of little brain with no concept of death, but she most certainly appears to know she is alive and exists.

Is "emotional awareness" what you mean by attitude? And by knowledge do you mean the observation of that state? While it's funny you should mention your pet mouse, because in the spiritual sense a mouse signifies perception (I believe?), in the sense that its so small and yet, "sensitve." And, since we're speaking about cognizance and awareness here, that would also entail perception. Hmm ... kind of strange ... It's all about that little spark, "of recognition," which belies the fact that we exist.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is "emotional awareness" what you mean by attitude? And by knowledge do you mean the observation of that state? While it's funny you should mention your pet mouse, because in the spiritual sense a mouse signifies perception (I believe?), in the sense that its so small and yet, "sensitve." And, since we're speaking about cognizance and awareness here, that would also entail perception. Hmm ... kind of strange ... It's all about that little spark, "of recognition," which belies the fact that we exist.

Attitude is both a noun and a verb, an awareness and an action. Knowledge is the abstraction of attitude. In this instance, by knowledge I mean that particular awareness and action upon which all other knowledge is based.

Some materialists like to assert that all we have is human perception of existence, but when we perceive the ground of our own being it is absolute. The world may not be flat as once was thought common knowledge, but I exist and my knowledge of my existence and participation in existence is absolute and irrefutable. I can pretend otherwise, but it is just a pretense.

As for my mouse Brownie, she is very sensitive indeed. They say if nuclear war broke out today the cockroaches and rodents would inherit the earth. The meek and supple shall inherit the Earth while the proud and inflexible will fall. That is simply the way of nature.

Water

The best of man is like water,
Which benefits all things, and does not contend with them,
Which flows in places that others disdain,
Where it is in harmony with the Way.
So the sage:
Lives within nature,
Thinks within the deep,
Gives within impartiality,
Speaks within trust,
Governs within order,
Crafts within ability,
Acts within opportunity.
He does not contend, and none contend against him.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Some materialists like to assert that all we have is human perception of existence, but when we perceive the ground of our own being it is absolute. The world may not be flat as once was thought common knowledge, but I exist and my knowledge of my existence and participation in existence is absolute and irrefutable. I can pretend otherwise, but it is just a pretense.

And the "journey" begins ...

I posted this on the other thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2107&perpage=15&pagenumber=2" by the way.