Happy Atheist Forum

The Bible is belief.
God is belief.
Christianity is belief.
Nonduality is belief.

Reality as such is simply ordinary and simple; it's this immediate unknowing, and at the same time reality knows it does not know, everything else is imagination/story.

There is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

The Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

The reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

The misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Is this topic worthy of being discussed? I personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

The more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

Quote from: Me_Be on March 16, 2024, 10:48:56 AMThe Bible is belief.
God is belief.
Christianity is belief.
Nonduality is belief.

Details matter, especially when there is quite as much devil in them as here. (The reason I am nitpicking is to avoid using chosen language as the deciding factor in definitionally-dependent contexts. Is "orange" a fruit or a colour? Is a vertebrate a bird? So forth. Avoiding linguistic ambiguity is a good starting point when trying to describe reality, which does not depend on the words you call it at all. Your models of it, however, may.)

The Bible is a book. A collection of stories from a couple of millennia ago, some in turn based on stories from even earlier times. It is not a belief, but people do believe in its contents.

God is a mythological creature. It's something you can believe in - or not. God is not a belief.

Christianity is a set of beliefs. There are many denominations of Christianity with contradicting views on specific theological issues. As a very surface-level analysis, however, you could say that it is a belief, thereby hand-waiving potential discrepancies.

Nonduality is a state of not being dual. It's absence, singularity and every plurality but one. As a philosophical tradition, it is as Christianity - a set of beliefs and observations. (Though from what I know, that one is called "Nondualism.")

QuoteThere is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

This is a trick of linguistics. It would be like saying "There is no God because God is not a thing." It's... Lazy, somehow. Circular.

Even if a construct of a demented mind, it exists as such. It may be some degree of wrong and/or some degree of correct, and you could analyse the reasons why it must be so, but the expression "there is no such thing as..." implies absence of something as it is described. "No free lunch" means (literally speaking) that even if on the surface, you have been offered it for free, expect there to be strings attached. It does not mean that lunches do not exist. That would be circular argument - a much-used tool of the faithful (Much-trunkated example: The Bible is true because God says it is because the Bible says he does) but rather on the useless side when it comes to learning.

QuoteThe Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

The reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

Reality is a collection of interconnected systems. The practical degree of said interconnection, however, may vary. For example, due to wave-like nature of particles, an electron "almost certain" to be here *point* may upon resolution be in Andromeda. Let us assume that that electron is a part of my toenail. Does that mean that my toenail is connected to Andromeda? Practically speaking, no, it does not.

You may "zoom out" and view everything as a single unit. Meaningless, unless examining its properties or actions at that level. You can zoom in and determine the system's system's systems. That, in turn, would be meaningless on the scale of reality itself - just like my toenail electron resolving in Andromeda against astronomical (pun intended) odds.

QuoteThe misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Deliberately-confusing language may contribute to misunderstanding the proposition. It really is not complicated and while it may have some, shaky though it may be, intellectual scaffolding to lean on, it quite simply gives the individual sensor data analysis far too much credit. So someone born blind does not know what blue looks like. Well, so-effing-what? They can still understand what blue means in the broader context. It's energetic photons at certain wavelengths, hitting the retinae of the eyes and those interactions are being processed as "blue." So, does blue exist even if you cannot conventionally sense it? Of course, it does! It refers to photons of certain energy, which are trivially demonstrable to exist.

QuoteI personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

Mmmh... Yeah... There are no good reasons to believe anything. There may, however, be sufficient reasons to accept something as true until proven otherwise.

If it's important to you - verify it.

QuoteThe more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

An advice more than thoughts. You are unliekly to arrive at the "true nature of reality," whatever that expression means to you, in any meaningful way by thinking about nonduality. That just churns and re-churns your pre-existing datasets in search of new conclusions. Get a few more measurements, compare against conflicting datasets and add to your own. Your mind is an open system - treat it as such.

Christianity is not a set of beliefs. It's a set of nonsense or delusions based on ancient myth and fable.
Nonduality is not a belief. The brain builds up a model of its environment as a mode of survival.
Nobody has ever seen god, but some are willing to think such an entity is there to guide them.

"Knowing that you're nothing is wisdom, and knowing that you're everything is love."
Science has gone beyond that philosophy by asking if anything exists at all, although Buddhism comes close.
There is no wisdom, just experience.

Whether the beliefs are nonsensical or not, Christianity is still a set of them. :smilenod:

Again, I do apologize for being all nit-picky, but in my experience, one thing you don't want in a philosophical discussion is linguistic ambiguity. To put it this way, there is a reason why my otherwise-lazy ass is verbose even by my own standards in these responses.

Quote from: zorkan on March 19, 2024, 01:09:33 PMChristianity is not a set of beliefs.

Of course it's a belief. It's a story based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

Quote from: zorkan on March 19, 2024, 01:09:33 PMIt's a set of nonsense or delusions based on ancient myth and fable.

The belief in Christianity is a belief held to be true by many believers whether their belief is true or not. For the human mind, just believing in something as existing is enough to justify it's existence, whether it's there or not in the real objective sense. That's just how the mind works, it is able to conceive things as existing. And yet not only has God never been seen, nobody has ever seen their own mind either.

And so who can say otherwise if there's a claimed belief in God; and has actually experienced God to have been their own personal direct experience. How can someone else prove their belief to be nonsense or delusional if it's been their own private direct experience, that no one else could possibly be privy to, ever?

And since no one can access the mind of another mind, as it's obvious that no two minds ever meet up. It's an impossibility for two minds to meet up so as to be in an advantageous position where each mind is able to examine directly the other mind's personal experiences as being true or not. All that can be offered to others here, is one's word about their own private experiences..

And so surely, by opposing a belief held to be true, to be nonsense and not true,  would require an opposing belief.  So even the action of dismissing one's belief requires the belief a belief can be invalidated as a false truth claim being nonsense.

 So the argument to dispel a belief as nonsense also requires belief that the belief is indeed nonsense, as you cannot know for certainty if it's nonsense or not, it'll only be your word on someone else's direct experience, and not your actual direct experience. So all I'm saying is that anything that is being claimed to be someone else's direct experience requires a belief to invalidate or validate it.

Quote from: zorkan on March 19, 2024, 01:09:33 PMNonduality is not a belief.

Of course Nonduality is a belief. It's still a claim to know the ultimate nature of reality.
It's a realisation that there is only belief, and yet no believer. As the knowledge of a BELIEVER existing would also be a belief. Which in turn means ''belief'' is simply myth, and such is all things that are claimed to be known, those claims to know any knowledge, is also a myth.

Quote from: zorkan on March 19, 2024, 01:09:33 PMThe brain builds up a model of its environment as a mode of survival.

Say's who? Who knows this? Who is seeing the brain, but then claims to know nobody has ever seen God?

Quote from: zorkan on March 19, 2024, 01:09:33 PMNobody has ever seen god

And the one who makes the claim to know nobody has ever seen God, has ever seen the one making this claim to know the brain builds up a model of it's environment by talking about someone else's brain, never their own. But even if you did open up your own skull and look at your own brain, there is nowhere in that brain where you would find a person who is claimed to be a Believer, or a Knower, or a Seer. 

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMDetails matter, especially when there is quite as much devil in them as here. (The reason I am nitpicking is to avoid using chosen language as the deciding factor in definitionally-dependent contexts. Is "orange" a fruit or a colour? Is a vertebrate a bird? So forth. Avoiding linguistic ambiguity is a good starting point when trying to describe reality, which does not depend on the words you call it at all. Your models of it, however, may.)

Okay fair enough.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMThe Bible is a book. A collection of stories from a couple of millennia ago, some in turn based on stories from even earlier times. It is not a belief, but people do believe in its contents.

Well the story/contents is never separate from the book, so belief is still a factor in this discussion.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMGod is a mythological creature. It's something you can believe in - or not. God is not a belief.

Okay. But I'm not sure what you mean exactly by that.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMChristianity is a set of beliefs. There are many denominations of Christianity with contradicting views on specific theological issues. As a very surface-level analysis, however, you could say that it is a belief, thereby hand-waiving potential discrepancies.

Okay.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMNonduality is a state of not being dual. It's absence, singularity and every plurality but one. As a philosophical tradition, it is as Christianity - a set of beliefs and observations. (Though from what I know, that one is called "Nondualism.")

This is knowledge, a claim known. A belief.

QuoteThere is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMThis is a trick of linguistics. It would be like saying "There is no God because God is not a thing." It's... Lazy, somehow. Circular.

It is circular, but so is all introspection into the answers as to what it is to know the knower of known conceptual things.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMEven if a construct of a demented mind, it exists as such. It may be some degree of wrong and/or some degree of correct, and you could analyse the reasons why it must be so, but the expression "there is no such thing as..." implies absence of something as it is described. "No free lunch" means (literally speaking) that even if on the surface, you have been offered it for free, expect there to be strings attached. It does not mean that lunches do not exist. That would be circular argument - a much-used tool of the faithful (Much-trunkated example: The Bible is true because God says it is because the Bible says he does) but rather on the useless side when it comes to learning.

Okay.

QuoteThe Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMThe reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

Reality is a collection of interconnected systems. The practical degree of said interconnection, however, may vary. For example, due to wave-like nature of particles, an electron "almost certain" to be here *point* may upon resolution be in Andromeda. Let us assume that that electron is a part of my toenail. Does that mean that my toenail is connected to Andromeda? Practically speaking, no, it does not.

I think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMYou may "zoom out" and view everything as a single unit. Meaningless, unless examining its properties or actions at that level. You can zoom in and determine the system's system's systems. That, in turn, would be meaningless on the scale of reality itself - just like my toenail electron resolving in Andromeda against astronomical (pun intended) odds.

Okay.

QuoteThe misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMDeliberately-confusing language may contribute to misunderstanding the proposition. It really is not complicated and while it may have some, shaky though it may be, intellectual scaffolding to lean on, it quite simply gives the individual sensor data analysis far too much credit. So someone born blind does not know what blue looks like. Well, so-effing-what? They can still understand what blue means in the broader context. It's energetic photons at certain wavelengths, hitting the retinae of the eyes and those interactions are being processed as "blue." So, does blue exist even if you cannot conventionally sense it? Of course, it does! It refers to photons of certain energy, which are trivially demonstrable to exist.

Okay.

QuoteI personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMYeah... There are no good reasons to believe anything. There may, however, be sufficient reasons to accept something as true until proven otherwise.

If it's important to you - verify it.

I think we verify our beliefs by simply being aware of them. And that's all we've got to work with.

QuoteThe more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2024, 12:27:44 PMAn advice more than thoughts. You are unliekly to arrive at the "true nature of reality," whatever that expression means to you, in any meaningful way by thinking about nonduality. That just churns and re-churns your pre-existing datasets in search of new conclusions. Get a few more measurements, compare against conflicting datasets and add to your own. Your mind is an open system - treat it as such.

Although no one ever arrives where they already are, so I agree it's unlikely to be a destination to reach. An open mind informs itself, it's self-evident as a direct experience, whereas the absence of one's direct experience of being is not an experience, hence it's always openly self-evident.

Quote from: Me_Be on March 19, 2024, 04:09:22 PMI think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

Well, if we are onto something with a field-based model of space, then in a way, "empty space" is what bridges stuff rather than what divides it.

It's not a perfect analogy by a long shot, but imagine the surface of a lake. You disturb it, and concentric waves move outward. The greater the disturbance, the grater the waves. Theoretically, "the entire lake" may experience this disturbance, but at certain point, the waves created by it fall below the level of noise - those waves already there from other causes. The lake is an analogy for a field, permeating the "empty space." The disturbance can be an analogy for a particle - a wave packet of that field. If you try to resolve a point where the particle is, you will get a probability distribution, greatest at the epicentre of the diisturbance and decreasing outwards - theoretically, "forever." If that is all there was to it, everything would have been connected. However, there are different sorts of fields permeating space, there is an inherent "noisiness" to them ("zero-point energy," ref. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and sufficiently-large systems are, much like the fields themselves, not practically changed by the loss or addition of their smallest components. If there is hardly any practical (or, meaningful) connection between "everything" at the building block levels, how would there be at the levels of systems consisting of more such building blocks than there are stars in the observable Universe?

Language is a tool for communication. If I start responding to you in Norwegian, you will not understand enough of it (assumnign that you have never learned it) to understand what I'm saying. It is not a reflection on the factual basis in what I say. Whether a car or en bil, the hunk of plastic, metal and rubber does not depend on it. You apply language, if you know any, to your datasets as a part of creating that mental model of reality I've been belabouring in the past two conversations.

Quote from: Me_Be on March 19, 2024, 02:51:08 PMOf course it's a belief. It's a story based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

If I say David Icke is the son of god, would that be a belief, or would it be bullshit?

https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-david-icke-the-conspiracy-theorist-who-claims-he-is-the-son-of-god-11982406

Could be both. :smilenod:

Quote from: zorkan on March 21, 2024, 10:47:31 AM

Quote from: Me_Be on March 19, 2024, 02:51:08 PMOf course it's a belief. It's a stories based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

If I say David Icke is the son of god, would that be a belief, or would it be bullshit?

https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-david-icke-the-conspiracy-theorist-who-claims-he-is-the-son-of-god-11982406

The point I'm making is that there are some people in the world who believe the story that is written in the Bible to be God's word. And that Jesus was the son of God.
That's all I'm trying to say here. The Belief is always prior to any valid or invalidation of it.

People have their beliefs whether they are seen by others as BS or not, the belief is held regardless.

Children have beliefs about Father Christmas, they really love the idea. Their belief about (Santa) was planted in them from birth by their parents and family. Adult human beings who know better, that the belief is a LIE continue to perpetuate the lie by wanting to keep it alive as and through their offspring.

And the reason why I think this happens is because none of us can really know our creator in the same context a machine can never know it's creator. And so we make-believe our beliefs because the alternative is just too unbelievable, we seem to be naturally wired to want to know things, there is an aching longing in the human heart for knowledge, as if we do not like to Never Not-know.

Another example of (belief) is the belief we all die. Our death is a belief too, and yet none of us have ever experienced the experience of death, it's simply a belief, but have no absolute idea about what it means to die.

It's all very mysterious because it certainly feels like I am alive, and yet there was a time when I did not exist, and so I can say to myself, ''who am I right now''  knowing right now that there was a time where I did not exist. And knowing I once did not exist seems like death to me now, so death is a strange concept then, insofar as how could I have been dead if I know that I am alive right here and now? That question is unanswerable, in my opinion.



 

Quote from: Me_Be on March 22, 2024, 10:02:12 AMThe point I'm making is that there are some people in the world who believe the story that is written in the Bible to be God's word. And that Jesus was the son of God.
That's all I'm trying to say here. The Belief is always prior to any valid or invalidation of it.

It's a fair enough observation, but I don't think validation is always secondary to belief in this manner. An observation may form a belief, and therefore precede it.

QuoteIt's all very mysterious because it certainly feels like I am alive, and yet there was a time when I did not exist, and so I can say to myself, ''who am I right now''  knowing right now that there was a time where I did not exist. And knowing I once did not exist seems like death to me now, so death is a strange concept then, insofar as how could I have been dead if I know that I am alive right here and now? That question is unanswerable, in my opinion.

This is interesting, because from my point of view, your question is actually very easy to answer.

You were not dead before you were born - or, conceived, in fact. There simply was no you. Death is something that happens to something that is alive. A cell may die - or a system (of systems) of cells, constituting a human. Death is the degradation of a living system into its non-living components. Thus, there is no death without preceding life.

You know that you didn't exist before your time - and you know that you will not after (unless you believe in some manner of an afterlife that enables the continuation of you as a single system in some meaningful way) It's... "All chemistry." If you burn two hydrogen molecules, you will get two water molecules. Those molecules did not exist before hydrogen was burned, and will not exist after they have been electrolysed apart or reacted into something else. Humans are no different in this sense - only significantly more complex.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2024, 07:56:59 AM

Quote from: Me_Be on March 19, 2024, 04:09:22 PMI think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

Well, if we are onto something with a field-based model of space, then in a way, "empty space" is what bridges stuff rather than what divides it.

It's not a perfect analogy by a long shot, but imagine the surface of a lake. You disturb it, and concentric waves move outward. The greater the disturbance, the grater the waves. Theoretically, "the entire lake" may experience this disturbance, but at certain point, the waves created by it fall below the level of noise - those waves already there from other causes. The lake is an analogy for a field, permeating the "empty space." The disturbance can be an analogy for a particle - a wave packet of that field. If you try to resolve a point where the particle is, you will get a probability distribution, greatest at the epicentre of the diisturbance and decreasing outwards - theoretically, "forever." If that is all there was to it, everything would have been connected. However, there are different sorts of fields permeating space, there is an inherent "noisiness" to them ("zero-point energy," ref. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and sufficiently-large systems are, much like the fields themselves, not practically changed by the loss or addition of their smallest components. If there is hardly any practical (or, meaningful) connection between "everything" at the building block levels, how would there be at the levels of systems consisting of more such building blocks than there are stars in the observable Universe?

Language is a tool for communication. If I start responding to you in Norwegian, you will not understand enough of it (assumnign that you have never learned it) to understand what I'm saying. It is not a reflection on the factual basis in what I say. Whether a car or en bil, the hunk of plastic, metal and rubber does not depend on it. You apply language, if you know any, to your datasets as a part of creating that mental model of reality I've been belabouring in the past two conversations.

And this story authored by you there, is also you're belief. For anything at all to be known, it must first be conceptualised and infused with meaning for it to make sense or not.

Human language is the perfect tool for making sense of what we ultimately cannot know, but can envision this unknowing as if it is known as and through the senses and the mental capacity to be able impose our make-believed beliefs upon it as and through our conception of it. We have the capacity to think about reality, to perceive it by attaching labels and stringing them all together to make a story, where previously there wasn't one. And we have been doing this story telling from cradle to grave constantly relating to our thoughts until we think we've understood who we are and the world we live in. But our limited knowledge as finite beings is still just a (belief)

Beliefs are mentally constructed arbitrary ideas within the sense of human I Am-ness, they're born of thoughts. And yet 'thoughts' can never touch reality as it actually is, because reality as it actually is is inconceivable to the human mind. And yet seems to be obviously knowable in this immediate Non-knowing, for how could there be a state of Not-knowing for the mind - 'thought' simply imposes upon this unknowing reality turning it into some kind of known. So what seems to be happening here is very basic and simple once realised, and that is reality is known only by association by what is ultimately always this mysterious unknowing knowing of itself. 

Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2024, 10:34:42 AMThere simply was no you.

You know that you didn't exist before your time - and you know that you will not after (unless you believe in some manner of an afterlife that enables the continuation of you as a single system in some meaningful way) It's... "All chemistry." If you burn two hydrogen molecules, you will get two water molecules. Those molecules did not exist before hydrogen was burned, and will not exist after they have been electrolysed apart or reacted into something else. Humans are no different in this sense - only significantly more complex.

Well I agree with that so far.

So when you say there is no you... and then say there is a you that knows it didn't exist before it's time? and knows there is a you that will not exist upon death?

Are you saying you think the word ''YOU'' is a synthetic product of brain chemistry ?

Thank you for this insightful discussion btw.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2024, 10:34:42 AMIt's a fair enough observation, but I don't think validation is always secondary to belief in this manner. An observation may form a belief, and therefore precede it.

I think there is a third (trinity) factor involved here. Which is (observer - observing - observed) are all one unitary action.

I don't think an observation of a belief is what forms the belief. There is an awareness of belief, but the belief itself was not formed by the observer of it. Awareness and belief are one instantaneous knowing, and not two separate things where one precedes the other, or is prior to the other, except the belief within the idea of conceptual separation where the observer, observing observed, are known only to be 3 separate words in this conception.

Quote from: Me_Be on March 22, 2024, 10:41:23 AMAnd this story authored by you there, is also you're belief. For anything at all to be known, it must first be conceptualised and infused with meaning for it to make sense or not.

Or you can just assume the words to carry their most commonly agreed-upon meanings.

The story was not authored by me - I merely reproduced and reframed it. I do not claim any original research in the realm of physics.

QuoteHuman language is the perfect tool for making sense of what we ultimately cannot know,

Perhaps it is. Now, what makes you think that there is something worth knowing that we may ultimately not? (By "worth knowing," I mean something that has or can have some interactivity with us)

Quotebut can envision this unknowing as if it is known as and through the senses and the mental capacity to be able impose our make-believed beliefs upon it as and through our conception of it.

It ceases to be make-belief when it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality.

QuoteWe have the capacity to think about reality, to perceive it by attaching labels and stringing them all together to make a story

There was a time, even in your own life, when all you did was gather and process sensor data. Your conscious capacity to sort and label, not to mention make stories, came later. A person who does not know a language can still perceive and think about reality in terms of some other sensory input, and may output those thoughts by other means than linguistic communication.

QuoteAnd we have been doing this story telling from cradle to grave constantly relating to our thoughts until we think we've understood who we are and the world we live in. But our limited knowledge as finite beings is still just a (belief)

It's not a belief if it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality, even if it is not "cosmically correct." Einsteinian gravity is not a force. Newtonian gravity is. Both model the same aspect of reality with varying degrees of precision. Both are useful. You can throw a ball and predict exactly where it lands using Newton's model. You can drive a car and know exactly where to take the next right using Einstein's. When trying to accomplish something these models are insufficient for, you need a different one.

QuoteBeliefs are mentally constructed arbitrary ideas within the sense of human I Am-ness,

No. They need not be arbitrary, or have anything to do with someone's "themness," beyond "running on their hardware."

Quotethey're born of thoughts.

This, however, they are. They are born of thoughs and are themselves thoughts. They are a product of sensor input and dataset processing. (Just to explain precisely what I mean by that, a sensor input may be a sound you hear. Dataset processing may be you recalling that sound or relating it to a cat or an air raid siren)

QuoteAnd yet 'thoughts' can never touch reality as it actually is, because reality as it actually is is inconceivable to the human mind.

Are you certain that you are not talking about The Cosmic Truth(tm) rather than reality? Because even if your sensor data is faulty, you still use it to perceive reality. It's far from inconceivable, and your conception of it needs not be total or often even approach perfection.

That said, thoughts are processes. They can touch reality through triggering proper outputs. Even if we grant the premise that thoughts cannot touch reality, however, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is because reality is inconceivable? Being inconceivable is not a bar from being touched in any way physically or metaphorically, so... Yeah.

QuoteAnd yet seems to be obviously knowable in this immediate Non-knowing, for how could there be a state of Not-knowing for the mind - 'thought' simply imposes upon this unknowing reality turning it into some kind of known. So what seems to be happening here is very basic and simple once realised, and that is reality is known only by association by what is ultimately always this mysterious unknowing knowing of itself.

So close, and yet so far, it seems. Anything that can be sensed, directly or indirectly, be it by you or some tool for the purpose, is knowable. I don't see the mystery here. Precisely how it works - say, how does my brain store faces I've seen in memory - that's the mysterious part as I see it. Of course, the fog of mystery recedes with increased understanding, For an explanation of the state of not knowing, I refer you back to the discussion we've had about you experiencing not being in my living room, or above for the burnt hydrogen example. It works in precisely the same manner.

[EDIT:]Tacked on the response to previous post:

Quote from: Me_Be on March 22, 2024, 11:03:47 AMI don't think an observation of a belief is what forms the belief.

Nono, not what I meant. An observation of a log floating down a river may make you believe that "things float." Throw a rock in, however, and you will have falisified that belief. Thus, your model of reality, in which things float, should be modified to accomodate the new data.

I don't believe in belief.
I'm even atheist to atheism.
As I am to all crackpot beliefs, except one.

I was personally visited by the angel Zarani on behalf of the goddess Zorka to reveal the truth about life and the universe.
It was described on gold plates which I have now buried, but to you my friends I am willing to divulge it if you wish me to do so.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2024, 11:22:23 AMthoughts are processes. They can touch reality through triggering proper outputs. Even if we grant the premise that thoughts cannot touch reality, however, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is because reality is inconceivable? Being inconceivable is not a bar from being touched in any way physically or metaphorically, so... Yeah.

To think of nonduality is paradoxical by association via the process of thought.  The human mind can conceive of everything except that which is in and of itself conceiving.
 In order to call reality nondual you have to define it, draw a border around it, and then instantly you have duality, never nonduality.
You can never ever touch nonduality.

Quote from: zorkan on March 22, 2024, 12:16:13 PMI don't believe in belief.
I'm even atheist to atheism.
As I am to all crackpot beliefs, except one.

I was personally visited by the angel Zarani on behalf of the goddess Zorka to reveal the truth about life and the universe.
It was described on gold plates which I have now buried, but to you my friends I am willing to divulge it if you wish me to do so.

So you have but ONE belief; the one that was described to you by an angel. Okay!

There are many beliefs, and yet no 'believer' has ever been seen or touched.

There is always a paradox.
Just like atheism is both belief and non-belief.
I don't believe in atheism but people tell me they do believe in it as a non-belief.
I've been reading a book called Atheism. I don't see what the author (Graham Oppy) is trying to prove, because he can't.
He talks about the Innocents, people who cannot possibly know one way or the other. Like children or mental health sufferers.
I class atheism as an intellectual subject and theism as more like a feeling.

Yet what we call life and the universe does exist and probably only in our brains.

PS. Meaning of life and the universe as revealed is simply to convert waves into mesons into electrons.
There is no need to debate anything else.

Everyone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

Quote from: Old Seer on March 25, 2024, 01:29:10 PMEveryone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

Bullshit

It may be comforting to have access to a bountiful font of it though.

Quote from: Old Seer on March 25, 2024, 01:29:10 PMEveryone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

Oh, please.
I can understand Roger Penrose far better.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2023/10/23/testing-a-time-jumping-multiverse-killing-consciousness-spawning-theory-of-reality/?sh=32793ff1209b

To sum up: It's not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the other way around. Simples.

Quote from: zorkan on March 27, 2024, 12:43:29 PMTo sum up: It's not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the other way around. Simples.

The field of truth is ultimately unknowable and concept free. It is only 'thought' which collapses the wave function into a duality of projected separately named objects where there are none.
 The word ''thing'' is the false separation, it is the 'thought thing' that collapses the superposition of the unified field of truth.

Conceptually speaking, knowledge is false, because it is born of conceptual thought. It is the mind/consciousness that gives life to a 'word' that at it's fundamental core is a false empty deception believed to be real and true, but is not.

Knowledge is formed of words and thoughts which are false even though they are related to the physical world that is seen as a real truth which is actually thought-free or concept-free, in other words, simply this immediate unknowing.

Beautifully put into words by the following quote...
'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

Quote from: zorkan on March 25, 2024, 12:48:03 PMYet what we call life and the universe does exist and probably only in our brains.

The universe only exists as a believed conceptualised ''thought'' that cannot be found anywhere neither inside or outside the brain. In the same context ''senses'' are a physical phenomena which detect and inform the existence of a real physical world, but in and of themselves, the ''senses'' cannot be detected as having an exact location as being inside or outside of the brain, as the brain knows of no such polarity as an inside or outside of itself, except in this conception.
 So yes, the world as it is thought to be - is not what thought thinks it is. And so this thought too is the absurd paradox of not-knowing knowing.

 When there is no thought about the universe; it does not exist for the thinker. A paradox must come into play within knowing when the non-universe still exists whether is it thought about or not thought about; the non-universe must first exist for it to be brought to life by giving it the label (UNIVERSE) So the universe is both a non-universe and a universe in superposition until ''thought'' collapses the unity into separation. In other words, into a not-knowing named known thing.

Quote from: zorkan on March 25, 2024, 12:48:03 PMThere is no need to debate anything else.

And there is no thing, nothing, not a thing debating anything else. That's the non-conceptual non-dual paradox of reality.

Quote from: Me_Be on April 02, 2024, 09:55:26 PMThe field of truth is ultimately unknowable and concept free.

What is the reasoning behind it being unknowable, concept free and even existing?

A specific truth is a model of reality which is intersubjectively verifiable. It may be true while not being "the whole story" or just being a "good enough" approximation for a purpose.

QuoteConceptually speaking, knowledge is false, because it is born of conceptual thought. It is the mind/consciousness that gives life to a 'word' that at it's fundamental core is a false empty deception believed to be real and true, but is not.

Once again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. How does conceptual thought necessitate that the knowledge arising from it is false?

QuoteBeautifully put into words by the following quote...
'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

Nah, it's neither linguistically impressive, what with being too heavy on the word "unknown" used towards the same end,* nor particularly meaningful in itself.

"The meaning of the mind?!" It has its functions. Abstractly speaking (also, outside those functions) the Meaning(tm) of a mind is precisely the same as the Meaning(tm) of that rock over there. They "just are." The rest of this quote simply describes curiosity.

*Here, let me try; The mind loves the mysterious. It loves the images whose meaning is unknown, since that is what it sees when looking upon itself. (Do please note that I didn't make it hold any more water than before - just "prettier" to this particular reader)

Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2024, 09:06:45 AMWhat is the reasoning behind it being unknowable, concept free and even existing?

A specific truth is a model of reality which is intersubjectively verifiable. It may be true while not being "the whole story" or just being a "good enough" approximation for a purpose.

The reasoning is in the model of reality which is a construct of the mind only. A descriptive reconstruction of unknowning reality is a falsely imposed reality, it's a claim to know reality without ever knowing how knowing knows. In other words knowing knows it does not know, therefore knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of a knowing reality which is ultimately unknowing.

The idea that there is a bunch of 'someone's' who are all able to agree upon there being an intersubjectively verifiable reality that all can witness is a conceived concept within infinity which in and of itself cannot conceive.

But yes, there are apparent concepts that appear as YOU that are about being (OTHER)than infinite therein being conceived.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2024, 09:06:45 AMOnce again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. How does conceptual thought necessitate that the knowledge arising from it is false?

Quote'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2024, 09:06:45 AMNah, it's neither linguistically impressive, what with being too heavy on the word "unknown" used towards the same end,* nor particularly meaningful in itself.

"The meaning of the mind?!" It has its functions. Abstractly speaking (also, outside those functions) the Meaning(tm) of a mind is precisely the same as the Meaning(tm) of that rock over there. They "just are." The rest of this quote simply describes curiosity.

*Here, let me try; The mind loves the mysterious. It loves the images whose meaning is unknown, since that is what it sees when looking upon itself. (Do please note that I didn't make it hold any more water than before - just "prettier" to this particular reader)

Okay.
But for me, flowery pretty words are simply analogous to water-colour painting upon the blank screen of transparent watery consciousness that serves only to obscure the real reality of thought free, concept-less unknowing conscious being awareness behind but never hidden from the known picture upon the screen which is then seen to be known, but compared only to a dream. Meaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

Quote from: Me_Be on April 03, 2024, 11:59:30 AMThe reasoning is in the model of reality which is a construct of the mind only. A descriptive reconstruction of unknowning reality is a falsely imposed reality, it's a claim to know reality without ever knowing how knowing knows. In other words knowing knows it does not know, therefore knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of a knowing reality which is ultimately unknowing.

Besides suffering from the same fallacious assertions as I originally reacted to, this answers precisely none of what I asked.

A description of reality does not impose reality. A desscription of reality does not need to be false. Understanding algorithms, statistics and the rules by which reality operates is how knowing functions, or "knows," as you put it. (How does a potato potate? Here is a simplified algorithm: https://www.ehow.com/facts_5802696_life-cycle-potato-plant.html)

Further questions, in addition to the unanswered three from above; how does "illusory" come into play? What is the significance of reality as seen as a single system not having any overarching knowledge or the capability of knowing? Can you demonstrate how the conceptualisation is done within infinity? (That which has no starting and/or end condition, which "all" knowledge does)

QuoteOkay.
But for me, flowery pretty words are simply analogous to water-colour painting upon the blank screen of transparent watery consciousness

You were the one to say that the idea was "beautifully put into words" in the quote you provided. I merely pointed out that from a different angle, it's a lackluster expression of a flawed idea.

Quote...that serves only to obscure the real reality

What makes that reality the real one? Is it real as opposed to, or in addition to, other available realities?

[EDIT:] What I'm asking for here, more than anything else, is for you to define your constants, variables and methods. I'm not looking for a nebulous non-answer. If all else fails, I'd suggest arranging it as a direct exercise in logic. A simple example: Red is a colour. Crimson is also a colour because crimson is a subset of red. [/EDIT]

Quoteof thought free, concept-less unknowing conscious being awareness behind but never hidden from the known picture upon the screen which is then seen to be known, but compared only to a dream. Meaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

Thing is though, without justification (as in, the factual basis and the applicable algorithm with which to approach the data) this is little more than a word soup. What does it convey? For instance, what makes a finite life a dream ad-infinitum? (Where is the methodology expressed? How do I go about falsifying it?)

Quote from: Me_Be on April 03, 2024, 11:59:30 AMMeaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

I want to ask what real is.
Don't
But I want to
Oh alright then. ::)
What is real, is there really any real real at all?

QuoteThe mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown.

Rene Magritte was a surrealist artist, so he would say that.

Quote from: zorkan on April 03, 2024, 01:01:34 PM

QuoteThe mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown.

Rene Magritte was a surrealist artist, so he would say that.

He just gave a poor definition of curiosity with an added dollop of nonsense. "Hon hon hon, ze meninge of ze mind eh, it is like le waffle belgique. Best enjoyed with strawberríe, oui?"

...The Asmo just done did a racism right there, didn't he? :sad sigh: Nothing against the dude, really, it's just that French(-sounding) bullshit seems more sophisticated somehow.

The mind fears the unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown.

The mind is indifferent to the unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown.

The mind makes up shit to appear cool since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown

Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on April 03, 2024, 01:19:11 PMThe mind makes up shit to appear cool since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown

:rofl:

Doesn't it just? (Just to be real in my merriment, it certainly does do that to be cool, but not due to its Meaning(tm) - whatever that may be - that would be the proverbial carts pulling the horses.)

Does the mind make up its own mind, or does something else?
A shadow mind, like the subconscious.
But where is it?
Might be the Jungian mind, or from the b'cks, perhaps.
Parasympathetic nervous system might play a part.
I never know whether to fight or take flight.
Only my amygdala knows.

Feels like I have an octopus mind where 8 is the magic number.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it

"Our brains make up our minds before we know it."

Well, duuh! ::) You need a mind to know stuff with.

Basking in the dryness of my word play aside, that right there is an interesting area of research. I suppose if one could account for every (or as near as makes no difference) variable, there could be a surprising degree of determinism to the universe, brains included. Sure, some degree of instinctive decision-making is an evolutionary necessity for survival, but when looking at "random" decisions (I have a bowl of chocolates, all of similar taste and size. Do I go for the round one or the square one? Such like) Yeah... That's interesting. :smilenod:

Brain anatomy is quite a subject and we are still trying to understand it.
https://mayfieldclinic.com/pe-anatbrain.htm#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20the%20left%20hemisphere,Figure%202.

Strange how the hippocampus is so locked away. It permanently stores bad memories which you wish would go away.
Don't know why it's called that. It looks nothing like a seahorse.

Upside down yoga stances might help the brain, like headstand and shoulder stand.
Increase blood flow to brain and improve memory.
Releases the 'bindu', I'm told. Probably a load of 'bull'.

Where does the mind get it's impulses. to do anything, I'd like to know.
Wake up one day. Fly to the moon or stay at home.

Quote from: zorkan on April 04, 2024, 01:28:23 PMBrain anatomy is quite a subject and we are still trying to understand it.

This calls for a mini-rant over one of The Asmo's oldest pet peeves, so... Not addressing you specifically.

Have you noticed how common a sentiment "we are still trying to understand the brain/mind" is when compared to similar sentiments relating to gravity, evolution, chemistry and so forth?

Yes, the things brain does and the ways in which it does them contain several areas of active research, but so do those other things I mentioned and many - many others besides.

"We" understand brain anatomy. As long as there is the next question, however, what we are trying to do, is increase the degree of said understanding. Learn more. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Here, they know more about ARSes than brains.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/understanding-the-brain-is-a-catalog-of-all-we-dont-know-about-the-brain/#:~:text=We%20don%27t%20know%20which,t%20know%20what%20consciousness%20is.

We know more about the surface of Mars than what lies beneath us.

Quote from: zorkan on April 05, 2024, 12:10:08 PMWe know more about the surface of Mars than what lies beneath us.

That tired old adage is at best a matter of perspective, I think.

What specifically are you referring to? "Terabytes" of data gathered on the subject in total? The quality of terrain mapping? Positions of mineral deposits? Air/liquid streams and such like? Who's even "we?" Humanity? NASA? The faculty of geology at a given university?

We do have a LOT of data on the Earth's crust, and while it is possible that we have comparatively more on the surface of Mars, that calls for specification and verification, which I, for one, have never seen materialise with any such claims. (for instance, "we know more about the Moon than we do about the deep ocean." Same problem. In my opinion, it's just something people parrot because it sounds profound. At least, everyone I've ever pressed on the matter had to fold like wet toilet paper)

True, we do have data about the crust, like we understand the width of the peel of an apple.
I've descended in a cage 300 feet into a disused coal mine (Big Pit), and it was dark.
Go further down 2000 miles to see the core and it might be as hot as the sun.
Could the Earth stop spinning and the magnetic field be cut off?
Life would die. But so what, this planet is already a graveyard for all life.
Get life while you can, I say.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/earths-mysterious-core

The Moon is pretty much a "solid lump" of moon. Mars - not far behind. Yes, planets - the Earth among them - eventually cool, their mantles and cores solidify enough and... "No" more magnetosphere. That's pretty much how it goes.

I have no idea if that's how the biosphere is likely to meet its doom, or if it will stick around to witness the Sun going red giant on this planet's bottom, but yeah... The Universe is "out to kill" life. Fortunately for life, it tends to operate on such time scales, as may just be enough for life to destroy itself before the Universe can ever get to it. :smilenod:

[EDIT:]Also, while The Asmo is being peeved by pseudoprofundities, you know how they say soemthing to the tune of more people having been to space than to the bottom of the ocean? Well, fucking duuh! Yes, it is not as trivial (all other concerns such as actually being alive while at it excluded) to get to space and back as it is to sink to the abyssal plain, then cut the ballast, but "all" you have to do once you arrive in space is have a vessel capable of holding one atmosphere of pressure in an unpressurised environment. It's "the same" as holding two atmospheres at sea level. A pop bottle or a soda can can do it. At the bottom of the sea, the vessel has to be capable of maintaining that same atmospheric pressure in an environment where the ambient pressure is orders upon orders of magnitude greater than that. "one tiny leak," and you're fucked. It's not all there is to it, of course, it's just that maybe, all things considered, it's actually easier to get to space in some meaningful way than it is to sink to the bottom of the sea and that while astronomically (pun intended) expensive, the potential return on investment is more attractive in space travel than sub-sea exploration.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on April 03, 2024, 01:19:11 PMThe mind makes up shit to appear cool since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown

All that is known is the unknown.

That which is not yet known can eventually become known. But that which is unknowable can never be known.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2024, 12:29:40 PMFurther questions, in addition to the unanswered three from above; how does "illusory" come into play? What is the significance of reality as seen as a single system not having any overarching knowledge or the capability of knowing? Can you demonstrate how the conceptualisation is done within infinity? (That which has no starting and/or end condition, which "all" knowledge does)

I can only demonstrate using a quote from biblical scripture, which is simply knowledge arising as itself, to itself and for itself. Just like any knowledge one claims to know.

''‭‭1 Corinthians 13:12  For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.''

This is referring to the reflective world of knowledge/thought (for now we see only a reflection).

Then "we shall see face to face" which refers to the full picture; aka from source to source.

Now I know in part (Now I am experiencing the reflective world of thought), then I shall know fully (Complete and no longer veiled by thoughts, seeing "the light" that thoughts are covering), even as I am fully known (I am truly already and always Fullness/Wholeness no matter what, yet I seemingly experience forgetting this and falling for the illusion the reflection creates, and then remembering the Wholeness.
This is basic Nonduality. In fact pretty much all of the worlds religious text including islamic faith is derived from a base level nondual context at it's fundamental core.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2024, 12:29:40 PMWhat makes that reality the real one? Is it real as opposed to, or in addition to, other available realities?

When discussing reality/realities, contemplation using words is always referring to knowledge, something known, always knowledge, because without knowledge there's simply ''thought-free awareness'' aka nothingness appearing as everything without imposing any concept to it.

Awareness is the only ONE real reality. Awareness is not human. Human is a concept known to Awareness. Awareness is the nameless one reality.

Neither the human body, nor the human entity ( some call the spirit ) is "LIFE The Real Self" ( "AWARENESS " )
The Only thing that is "AWARE" of anything, is "AWARENESS", which is "LIFE The Real Self"

You are Awareness Itself individually and uniquely aware as "you." You are individual being. The pure awareness you are is the one universe you experience. Awareness and form are one. Awareness is what you ARE, what you see WITH, and that which is SEEN.

Awareness itself is not the awareness OF any 'thing' or any condition or situation, it is the one infinite and omnipresent "light" you ARE, you see things with, and the 'things' themselves.

You are aware of; conscious of; "alive" to  these words. But it is not "you" being aware of "these words" with "your faculty of awareness." What makes the experience possible is the oneness of Awareness Itself. That which you are aware of is Awareness Itself, and the "you" being aware is the same Awareness Itself. Awareness Itself is existence itself.

Or put a simpler way, only consciousness exists.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 05, 2024, 01:30:18 PMI have no idea if that's how the biosphere is likely to meet its doom, or if it will stick around to witness the Sun going red giant on this planet's bottom

Velikovsky fable:
Worlds in Collision (book) "proposes that Venus formed inside of Jupiter, and that around the 15th century BCE, it was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object and subsequently passed near Earth, though an actual collision with the Earth is not mentioned. In doing so it changed Earth's orbit and axial inclination, causing innumerable catastrophes which were identified in early mythologies and religious traditions from human civilizations around the world. Fifty-two years later, it again made a close approach, stopping the Earth's rotation for a while and causing more catastrophes. Then, in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Mars (itself displaced by Venus) made close approaches to the Earth; this incident caused a new round of disturbances and disasters. After that, the current "celestial order" was established. The courses of the planets stabilized over the centuries and Venus gradually became a "normal" planet."

Suppose Jupiter which is more than twice as big as all other planets combined decides to spew out another comet which this time hits Earth, then we're doomed.
Doomed!
So what, I ain't bovvered.

Quote from: Me_Be on April 05, 2024, 04:27:03 PMAwareness is the only ONE real reality.

Explain. What precludes other realities from existing?

Quote from: Asmodean on April 07, 2024, 09:45:44 AM

Quote from: Me_Be on April 05, 2024, 04:27:03 PMAwareness is the only ONE real reality.

Explain. What precludes other realities from existing?

I don't think nothing precludes other realities existing since the word ''other'' is simply a different 'appearance' of the same ONE existence. The claim 'I exist' is the same experience for every person, and although every person's experience of existence is different, the difference is simply an appearance of the same one aware real existence.

For example: I believe the actual possibility of there being a conscious experience where consciousness is able to be aware it is aware, appears to itself as an ''other' where the illusion of duality is born.

Thought creates a duality, where the same one reality splits into many; into many existing parts by being aware it is aware. Suddenly there is an awareness of I am a ''person'' or a ''self''

This introspection points to the very fact that we are all the same person being different parts of the same one existence unaware of the 'other' experiences; as all 'other' experiences are happening simultaneously all at once within the same one aware reality.


It seems there's just one reality appearing as the many, so yes, on the one hand; it seems there are many different realities, but on the other hand, those ''other's'' are unavailable since they are simply part but NEVER apart of the same one infinite aware existence.

There is already a potentially infinite period of time where you didn't exist, which ended when you were born. And if you return to the state you were in before you were born after you die, what's stopping you from existing again and again and again, because the very concept of 'you' is already known by the ''Actual'' direct experience of being aware of being aware in the first place.

That's the only explanation I've got for the ONE and true real reality, which seems feasible to me right now. It's what I believe anyway, but doesn't mean it's seen this way for every person. It's just my opinion, due to how I perceive reality as and through the lens of my own personal direct experience of what thinking on a philosophical human level means to me here.

Quote from: Me_Be on April 14, 2024, 09:13:19 AMThere is already a potentially infinite period of time where you didn't exist, which ended when you were born. And if you return to the state you were in before you were born after you die, what's stopping you from existing again and again and again, because the very concept of 'you' is already known by the ''Actual'' direct experience of being aware of being aware in the first place.

Entropy.

Quote from: zorkan on April 14, 2024, 12:31:36 PM

Quote from: Me_Be on April 14, 2024, 09:13:19 AMThere is already a potentially infinite period of time where you didn't exist, which ended when you were born. And if you return to the state you were in before you were born after you die, what's stopping you from existing again and again and again, because the very concept of 'you' is already known by the ''Actual'' direct experience of being aware of being aware in the first place.

Entropy.

What if the known concept of 'you' is actually referring to the entire everything that is alternatively known as the universe itself. It seems that everything that is the universe is moving more towards 'higher entropy' (increasing) rather than 'lower entropy' (decreasing)

Such measurements can simply be known as and through the concept of ''time'' which must be a 'thing' albeit a temporal appearance of what is ultimately timeless /absolute and eternal.

'Appearances'' such as high and low entropy in physical systems can be observed relatively, whereas absolute timeless eternity cannot be observed; but only known as an idea in relative terms by association; meaning while (entropy and time) appear real enough within awareness, they are in fact both real and unreal within our awareness of language and knowledge; as no one ever witnessed the beginning or ending of the entire universe itself as one whole unitary thing.

 Knowledge of any thing does not actually exist outside of the brains capacity to construct it using concepts via language which can only point to the illusory nature of reality, in that ultimately, is of an unknowable nature, even to itself.

This thread is in the wrong section. It should be in the philosophy section. The contributors are certainly serious thinkers who post some high minded content

One of the things that I boast about is; although we are happy "atheists" we do not discuss religion, or the absence of it, as a main thrust. We devote more space to petrol heads, photography, music, and strange antipodean stuff that Puddin brings us.

Quote from: Icarus on April 15, 2024, 03:58:29 AMThis thread is in the wrong section. It should be in the philosophy section. The contributors are certainly serious thinkers who post some high minded content

It's a good discussion, though with a few circle-going tendencies. :smilenod:

I have not checked in for a bit, so some reading and [hopefully high-IQ to live up to the compiment] replying to do. Yep. 8)

What's stopping me from existing again and again and again is the arrow of time (rel. to entropy).
"Just as well", did I hear.

Even the Greeks knew this.
When granted eternal life Tithonus was stuck in his old body.
If he'd asked the gods for eternal youth he wouldn't have been granted eternal life.

Quote from: zorkan on April 15, 2024, 11:59:44 AMWhat's stopping me from existing again and again and again is the arrow of time (rel. to entropy).
"Just as well", did I hear.

Even the Greeks knew this.
When granted eternal life Tithonus was stuck in his old body.
If he'd asked the gods for eternal youth he wouldn't have been granted eternal life.

Eternal time is reality, and that which has a beginning and an end in time, is illusion. In the material world, time is an illusion, depicting past, present, and future.

It's an illusion, because in eternal time, there is only one tense - the present. There is no past and future in eternal time. Material time is thought of in terms of past, present, and future, so material time is illusion. In reality, past and future don't exist. There is only now. To exist in eternal time is like existing in one prolonged now.

Reality is that which is eternal and unreality, or illusion, is that which is temporary. So illusion does exist, but it is unreal in the sense that it's not eternal.

So reality and illusion are defined by time. One is eternal the other is temporary. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Anything seen in the light of eternity will be manifested for such a short flicker in time, that it is as if it didn't really happen.

So illusion exists, it is not false or fictional, but the reason it is not considered real is because it is not eternal. It's like a dream. A dream happens, but when we wake up, we understand it was not real. Life in a material body is like that - dream-like.

The duration of the universe will make a lifespan on earth seem completely insignificant, and cosmic time of millions, billions, and trillions of years will seem totally inconsequential and insignificant from the angle of eternal time. So in the light of eternity, anything that is not eternal, is but an illusory glimpse. That's how one can understand that anything which has a beginning and an end is illusory. Only that which is eternal is real.

Does the human body entropy? yes, it does. But can CONSCIOUSNESS entropy? it's hard to say...
We don't have any experience of something that lasts forever, do we? Yes we do. The only thing, that lasts forever is the conscious self. How so? because something conscious is absolutely here already being the witness of the body; so there is no way to un-witness this consciousness in the sense of it lasting forever, or having a beginning, or an ending from the first person singular pronoun perspective. Yes, we can witness beginning and ending of another person, but a consciousness is always needed for the witnessing of another persons entropy to be known to have occurred; so consciousness has to be eternal, never temporal.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 15, 2024, 07:37:32 AMThis thread is in the wrong section. It should be in the philosophy section.

Okay, move this thread to the philosophy section then. No problem.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 15, 2024, 07:37:32 AMOne of the things that I boast about is; although we are happy "atheists" we do not discuss religion, or the absence of it, as a main thrust. We devote more space to petrol heads, photography, music, and strange antipodean stuff that Puddin brings us.

And yet the ''Happy Atheist Forum'' has a Religious section where people are invited to explore - The set of beliefs, rituals, and practices founded on specific supernatural and moral claims about reality and often associated with worship of a deity.

So what to do?  :thoughtful:

Quote from: Me_Be on April 18, 2024, 11:49:35 AM

Quote from: Asmodean on April 15, 2024, 07:37:32 AMThis thread is in the wrong section. It should be in the philosophy section.

Okay, move this thread to the philosophy section then. No problem.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 15, 2024, 07:37:32 AMOne of the things that I boast about is; although we are happy "atheists" we do not discuss religion, or the absence of it, as a main thrust. We devote more space to petrol heads, photography, music, and strange antipodean stuff that Puddin brings us.

And yet the ''Happy Atheist Forum'' has a Religious section where people are invited to explore - The set of beliefs, rituals, and practices founded on specific supernatural and moral claims about reality and often associated with worship of a deity.

So what to do?  :thoughtful:

You may have misattributed the quotes slightly. 'Twas not I who said that, 'twas Icarus ;)

Yeah, scrap the religion section and religion with it.
Religion means living in fear for the rest of your life.
Philosophy is dead (Stephen Hawking).
Everything it has ever presented has been proved false.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 18, 2024, 02:00:12 PMYou may have misattributed the quotes slightly. 'Twas not I who said that, 'twas Icarus ;)

Sincere apologies for that, Asmodean.

I hadn't realised until you brought it up. It was a slip of concentration on my part. Sorry about that!

Quote from: Icarus on April 15, 2024, 03:58:29 AMThis thread is in the wrong section. It should be in the philosophy section.

I'm happy to have this thread moved to the philosophy section. No probs!  :)

Quote from: Icarus on April 15, 2024, 03:58:29 AMOne of the things that I boast about is; although we are happy "atheists" we do not discuss religion, or the absence of it, as a main thrust. We devote more space to petrol heads, photography, music, and strange antipodean stuff that Puddin brings us.

And yet the ''Happy Atheist Forum'' has a Religious section where people are invited to explore - The set of beliefs, rituals, and practices founded on specific supernatural and moral claims about reality and often associated with worship of a deity.

So what to do?  :thoughtful:

Quote from: zorkan on April 18, 2024, 02:02:52 PMYeah, scrap the religion section and religion with it.
Religion means living in fear for the rest of your life.
Philosophy is dead (Stephen Hawking).
Everything it has ever presented has been proved false.

It seems philosophy and religion both, are heard as pure ''Dogma''
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
No person knows anything, no person knows anything for sure.
Nothing is happening, where the character ''me'' is just a word, referring to what is not really real.

Knowing from the Nondual perspective points to a grief, a loss of something for the sense of ''me''.
The realisation of no control, no problems, no path, and no goal leading the ''me'' to feel that everything is pointless, meaningless and hopeless.
So human language has sought out a God to help soothe their existential angst.

Irrefutably there is Life, and that You are Life, there is only Life, hence there is no ''My Life'' or ''My story'' 

Quote from: zorkan on April 18, 2024, 02:02:52 PMYeah, scrap the religion section and religion with it.
Religion means living in fear for the rest of your life.
Philosophy is dead (Stephen Hawking).
Everything it has ever presented has been proved false.

Scrapping the story that humanity has assumed it, itself has written, is likened or compared to a dream, and nothing ever happened in a dream.

So Who or What is this 'you' without the attachment to story?
Scrapping you're story, is the end of Authorship, the end of belief in Authorship. The end of 'you' and 'me' the end of every-one who believes in Authorship.

Reality has no Author, no Copyright. . except in this conception, the greatest story; no one ever wrote, or heard, or told.

Reality is unwritten; that which is eternal and unreality, or illusion, is that which is temporary.
Note that illusion does exist, but it is unreal in the sense that it's not eternal.

Corinthians 4:18. New International Version.

 18 ''So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.''

Compared with...

''Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the non-existent [the visible material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the invisible spirit soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. '' ~ Bhagavad Gita

From Buddhism, a godless religion:
The material world only exists because of consciousness.

"Once in Hawaii I was taken to see a Buddhist temple. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget." And then he said, "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell."
― Richard P. Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist.

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism

"I remember one student who was having problems memorising material for tests. Distraught, she went to the monks who explained to her that she was having such trouble now because, in a past life, she was a murderous dictator who burned books, and so now, in this life, she is doomed to forever be learning challenged."

The dark side of us all is that we are just a collection of assembled waves and particles.
(Being miserable keeps me happy}.

From far, from eve and morning
     And yon twelve-winded sky,
The stuff of life to knit me
     Blew hither: here am I.

A E Housman, poet.

Quote from: zorkan on April 19, 2024, 12:20:26 PMFrom Buddhism, a godless religion:
The material world only exists because of consciousness.

Yes.

The material world; is an imaged projection of imageless consciousness. The same but different stuff (our) apparent dreams are made of.

Quote from: zorkan on April 19, 2024, 12:20:26 PMThe dark side of us all is that we are just a collection of assembled waves and particles.

From the internet/inner-net.
''Indeed, we are. The intricate dance of atoms and electrons forms the very fabric of our existence. From the majestic galaxies to the tiniest particles, the universe weaves its cosmic ballet. Each atom, with its nucleus at the center and electrons whirling around like celestial dancers, contributes to the grand symphony of reality.

In this cosmic choreography:

Protons and neutrons huddle together in the atomic nucleus, bound by the strong force.
Electrons, the ethereal troubadours, flit around the nucleus, their paths governed by quantum probabilities.
Energy levels dictate where these electrons can pirouette, creating the mesmerizing patterns we call chemical bonds.
Molecules, those harmonious ensembles of atoms, join hands to form everything from water to DNA.''

Quote from: zorkan on April 19, 2024, 12:20:26 PM(Being miserable keeps me happy}.

I'm happy being unhappy, and if that makes me sound like a misery guts, then I'm happy with that too. I have no particular preference to-be or not to-be; for I have no control to make what happens unhappen.

There is nothing making happening happen; nor is there anything to make what happens unhappen.

"The material world; is an imaged projection of imageless consciousness. The same but different stuff (our) apparent dreams are made of."

Nope. The material world comes from the Higgs Field.
https://www.waldorflibrary.org/journals/22-research-bulletin/1199-autumnwinter-2012-volume-17-2-higgs-field-and-a-view-of-the-material-world-that-makes-sense

"I'm happy being unhappy, and if that makes me sound like a misery guts, then I'm happy with that too. I have no particular preference to-be or not to-be; for I have no control to make what happens unhappen.
There is nothing making happening happen; nor is there anything to make what happens unhappen."

Or, everything is in the past and the future never comes.
Trying to force happiness on yourself is certain to lead to unhappiness.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/happiness-secret-why-miserable-unhappy-ok-mental-health-depression-anxiety-a7837481.html

Humans are waves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/08/19/in-quantum-physics-even-humans-act-as-waves/?sh=40ced635312c

Quote from: zorkan on April 21, 2024, 05:22:03 PMThe material world comes from the Higgs Field.
https://www.waldorflibrary.org/journals/22-research-bulletin/1199-autumnwinter-2012-volume-17-2-higgs-field-and-a-view-of-the-material-world-that-makes-sense

Fair enough. There is a field theory. So is this field conscious of itself? I mean what's viewing the field? what part does consciousness play into the equation of the field theory of reality?

Quote from: zorkan on April 21, 2024, 05:22:03 PMOr, everything is in the past and the future never comes.
Trying to force happiness on yourself is certain to lead to unhappiness.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/happiness-secret-why-miserable-unhappy-ok-mental-health-depression-anxiety-a7837481.html

Thanks for posting the link. I've not heard that said before, but I am delighted, it's as though I was reading my exact same thoughts, it made my day even happier.  :)  8)

Quote from: zorkan on April 21, 2024, 05:22:03 PMHumans are waves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/08/19/in-quantum-physics-even-humans-act-as-waves/?sh=40ced635312c

Okay, thanks.

Can I just ask...This assembling of all the named molecules and chemistry that just happened to have made up the material world as we know it to be.... Was all that just an accidental, opportunistic, spontaneous event...or will we never know for absolute certainty why there is something rather than nothing question?

Quote from: Me_Be on April 22, 2024, 10:18:15 AMCan I just ask...This assembling of all the named molecules and chemistry that just happened to have made up the material world as we know it to be.... Was all that just an accidental, opportunistic, spontaneous event...or will we never know for absolute certainty why there is something rather than nothing question?

Ask me a difficult one.
As there are no absolutes we will never know.
Maybe when we capture one of those aliens who invade our airspace we could ask it.
Meanwhile, your guess is as good as mine.