Is it logically possible that I go to a state of mind that I could experience my existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bahman said:
Is it logically impossible that I go to a state of mind that I could experience my existence? Each day and night our minds goes to different states, experiencing tremendous state of beings. We can strongly without any doubt say that we experience things. This however does not provide any strong proof that I separately exist. I cannot possibly go to a state of mind that I could only experience my inner self but nothing else.
Click to expand...
Why do you need or seek proof that you separately exist?

Why do you seek to know if it is “logically impossible that (you) go to a state of mind that (you) experience (your) existence?”
Bahman said:
I have already tried meditation. But what I need to reach is a higher state of awareness for something which is so hidden to me. I cannot possibly reach to a state of void, at the same time, set myself free of myself, at the same time have a higher awareness on my existence.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to reach this higher state of awareness?
 
JButky said:
I see, I misunderstood originally.

For you to see yourself, outside of yourself, would require yourself to be two “selves.” Otherwise, you would need one self with 2 independently existing different states. (not possible) At best you could view part of oneself, as in a duality seeing the other part as an extension of the same part (as I can see my hand). But for one to be able to see the same one independently as “proof” of existence would require this independent duality. The duality itself does not work for this proof. So I would so that no, logically, you cannot use an altered state to see yourself as proof of existence. An independent duality must be part of the nature of such a being for this purpose or the lack of it would would negate the premise. The same person cannot exist independently separate for this task. An altered state of consciousness cannot independently duplicate itself (or exist in that manner) for this type of proof to even occur.

Joe B
Click to expand...
The idea of two selves is strange to me, since each self if they could exist together could ask the same question from their own perspective. So the idea of two selves if possible does not provide any answer to my problem.
 
RoseMary131 said:
Why do you need or seek proof that you separately exist?
Click to expand...
Why not? The fact the things are experienced, including thoughts, does not mean or prove that our separate selves do exits. This is the very first and important question that everybody should ask it. The main question is whether the concept of self is an illusion or not. If not why so ambiguous.
RoseMary131 said:
Why do you seek to know if it is "logically impossible that (you) go to a state of mind that (you) experience (your) existence?
Click to expand...
Why not? I want to know if this state of mind in principle exist or not and if yes how you could approach it. It is the question about your existence whether is an illusion or not. If real is it logically impossible to experience it or not. If it is logically impossible, how we could sure about existence, and if logically possible how we could experience our selves.
 
Bahman said:
The idea of two selves is strange to me, since each self if they could exist together could ask the same question from their own perspective. So the idea of two selves if possible does not provide any answer to my problem.
Click to expand...
That’s just it, they would have to exist separately (which is not possible) so that doesn’t work.

Each self existing in itself is a logical absurdity. And it wouldn’t work anyway since they would share the same perspective for proof of existence.

For this to work you would need to be fully aware of your second self existing entirely separately. You would need to be in a state of existence first to use a state of consciousness to be able to attain it to get your proof.

You can reason it logically, but there is no resemblance to anything real. It might make a great sci fi mind bender movie though 😃
 
Bahman said:
Why not? The fact the things are experienced, including thoughts, does not mean or prove that our separate selves do exits. This is the very first and important question that everybody should ask it. The main question is whether the concept of self is an illusion or not. If not why so ambiguous.
Click to expand...
I totally do not understand your quest.

I know that I exist.

If I am wrong, it does not matter to me because that means I do not exist, so there would be no concern of mine since I am not.

If I am an illusion, that is okay.

I have no need for proof.
Why not? I want to know if this state of mind in principle exist or not and if yes how you could approach it. It is the question about your existence whether is an illusion or not. If real is it logically impossible to experience it or not. If it is logically impossible, how we could sure about existence, and if logically possible how we could experience our selves.
Click to expand...
If I and my existence is an illusion or real - is of no concern to me.

My answer is my existence and I are real… it not… its fine with me to be wrong.

Since I choose that my existence is real… I will call myself as existing. How I experience myself is through myself - defined as through mind, body, and soul.

Even if another “person”, who may not exist, questions my existence, it does not effect how I perceive that I exist.

My mind and I, if they do exist and I chose “that I do exist”, do not follow your journey of questionings.

If you and I exist, I wish you God’s blessings and Peace in your existence.

If you and I are an illusion present in a “being’s” “place of illusion”, I wish the existence of God’s Peace to the being who is experiencing us as an illusion.
 
Existence isn’t to be understood (you’re right, when you say we shouldn’t be thinking about it). You don’t touch things with your ears. Existence isn’t given to the inner man’s ears (understanding). You cannot experience your existence because you exist not. What you take for your existence is Him, the Rock, the Father, I AM. Jesus is the Logos, the Rock’s Son, His essence, the concept of existence, the very concept of God.
 
Maybe part of your quest is defining “who I am”.

I define “I” to “myself” as “mind, body, and soul”. To prove “I”, “I” would offer proof of the components “mind, body, and soul”.

Beginning with “soul”, “I” will accept there is no “proof”. So, “I” will accept there is no proof that “I exist”. “I” find Peace in the acceptance of no proof of “my soul” and no proof of “me”.

“My” soul is based on faith, not proof. Therefore, my existence is based on that same faith, by “my” definition of myself being mind, body and soul.

Defining “proof”, “proof” is a use of “mind”. If “mind” does not exist, but is an illusion, then “proof” does not exist but is an illusion.

An illusion, uses the existence of “mind”, if there is no mind - “illusion” does not exist.
 
[The] God (existence itself, Him to whom the concept of God applies, the Rock) isn’t experienced through one’s understanding, “God” (the concept of existence, the word of God, the Son begot through the Father’s introspection, i.e., Jesus is Yahweh’s self-knowledge) is experienced through one’s understanding.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God.
Click to expand...
en arche en ho logos [the word], kai ho logos en pros ton theon [the god], kai theos en ho logos [and “god” was the word] (John 1.1)
Click to expand...
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4.6)
Click to expand...
 
RoseMary131 said:
Maybe part of your quest is defining “who I am”.

I define “I” to “myself” as “mind, body, and soul”. To prove “I”, “I” would offer proof of the components “mind, body, and soul”.

Beginning with “soul”, “I” will accept there is no “proof”. So, “I” will accept there is no proof that “I exist”. “I” find Peace in the acceptance of no proof of “my soul” and no proof of “me”.

“My” soul is based on faith, not proof. Therefore, my existence is based on that same faith, by “my” definition of myself being mind, body and soul.

Defining “proof”, “proof” is a use of “mind”. If “mind” does not exist, but is an illusion, then “proof” does not exist but is an illusion.

An illusion, uses the existence of “mind”, if there is no mind - “illusion” does not exist.
Click to expand...
So start with the body!!! :)🙂

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top