LastThursday

Agreed. But you might need a map to find the territory or to navigate around it.

There is a lot of talk on here about the map not being the territory. But what is a map exactly? How does a map relate to stories, hallucinations and imagination? Let me know your thoughts.

It's instructive to look at the situation in Northern Ireland. There they have power sharing between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The power sharing is fairly unstable and there's a lot of bickering, but it's way better than the alternative was (killings, violence, bombings, terrorism). I remember the regular bombings on the UK mainland clearly. In fact there were no litter bins in major train stations for years, and even now there are clear plastic litter bags at stations. I suspect that a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine would also need this kind of power sharing for it to be viable. Otherwise the interests of the Palestinian people would still be suppressed in favour of Israeli ideals (as they are in fact now). A two-state solution would at least give the Palestinian people autonomy. However, in that there would be a very persistent and long lasting tension between a Palestinian state and Israeli state, which could destabilise the whole region - although that's no different to now - just look at India and Pakistan for reference. Or maybe the solution is to have a no-go zone like in Cyprus or the two Koreas. Also, I think that any Palestinian state would need to have contiguous land for it to work properly, at the moment Gaza and the West Bank are separated. Otherwise you would constantly have the presence of Israel interposed physically. But there are many countries with exclaves, Spain or the UK for example.

The only not-this is nothing. What is nothing? Not-this. So this and nothing are a mutually exclusive duality. But that's a duality! Yes and...?

Ignore them. Numbers only have as much meaning as you want them to have.

Some loose thoughts I had while reading your post: If there is some perception that has no bearing on our survival, then evolutionary processes would not favour being able to perceive it either way - it's a 50-50 chance. So we may have perceptions not directly related to survival - and spiritually related perceptions maybe one thing. Evolution doesn't progress, it has no end goal. Natively, that is correct. But there is an argument to say that any human invention is also a product of evolution/nature. Enhancement through technology does allow us to perceive more of reality. And it's done by using a transformation process: infra-red light is converted to light we can see, and so on. You could extend the argument further and ask if there are perceptions yet to be discovered through this enhancement (expansion) process. There's always variability in populations of any species, so it's quite possible some can perceive what others can't: for example see tetrachromacy. Note also, that this is an assumption based on form, so does it necessarily hold that if we have similar brains and bodies we must be perceiving similar things? If perception is relative to itself, then we could all be experiencing very different realities.

Running through the tall yellow grass Ghosts of past whisper and glisten in the dew Listen! Can you hear it? Walking beyond on the wooded path Miracles of present grip and sway gently in the breeze Stop! Can you feel it? Over hill running over stream over and over Futures rush through and fizzle in the noon Go! Are you not it?

Maybe communion with someone is spiritual in itself, the divided wants to become unified, two become one? The reward is unadulterated bliss and sticky mess.

It's a measurement problem. The interplay of chemicals is so intricate, that it's extremely difficult to work it all out in real time. If I was God and I had to solve the problem, I'd have chemical gradients in three axes to provide a 3D grid of different chemical concentrations in the early stages of cells division. Each level of concentration then switches on and off different parts of the DNA machinery in each cell, which then makes different cells. You can get at least one axis from where the sperm enters the egg. Alternatively if you have say 8 cells in a ball, then each pair could easily form a different axis of chemical concentration. I dunno just vibing here.

Except death isn't random, that's why they evolve. Imagine it like quality control in peanut factory, what would you do? You take out all the bad, rotten, shrivelled and mishapen peanuts. And you're left with the best ones. Nature does exactly the same thing, it is more likely to kill off peanuts that don't do as well in their environment. It's completly logical and simple.

Don't believe for a minute you don't rely on models though. Here's a thread about maps (aka models), the conclusion is drifting towards something you wouldn't like: In particular read this response:

The image you gave is misleading. For a start every time round the cycle things change, it's not static. Something becomes a peanut and then the peanut becomes something else. Next there are many peanut cycles, each one different. And lastly, this cycle is intermeshed with every other cycle (ecosystem), and with the cycles of Earth itself: water, atmospheric, ocean currents, Earth wobble and on and on. And even solar cycles have an effect. Science says all those things and more.

That's true. I'd say an abstract or mental map is a very different thing from any other type of map - even language. Your example of navigating a building is interesting. Even when you're actually in the building and trying to navigate it, you're still using an abstract mental map to do it. I think most would call this "direct experience" instead, but there is a sense in which we're still using mental maps even when directly experiencing (anything) - and we can't actually get away from this. Although @Vibroverse thinks/knows it's possible to do so. You've touched on something important, in that a map isn't meant to explain everything. Is a map always a simplification of what it represents? Is a map always a particular point of view? This is just fate or determinism by another name, personally I don't believe in determinism. But it's very possible there is a guiding force pushing us in certain directions - which is nearly like determinism. The guiding force is still "us" but one that we're not much conscious of.

Being able to do this is a superpower that is critical if you're into self-help or spirituality. Confusion normally creates negative feelings; to be able to just sit in confusion and not strongly emotionally react is a great skill to have.

Yes same stuff. As the wikipedia article says: thought form or imaginary friend. But my take is that it is possible for the tulpa/thought form to posses your body - and this is both easier to do and to maintain. But maybe at that point it becomes less of a tulpa and more of something else? I mean, doesn't a good actor become "possesed" by the character they've studied and mentally built up? Is acting dangerous? Agreed, as can anything spiritual or that plays with the mind. But I would say it is not dangerous in general for most people. Naturally, you could argue there are levels of tulpa creation. If you want to create a malevolent demon tulpa, then yeah ok, potential danger. It's probably good to realise at some point on the path, that there is no ground, because everything is relative to everything else. But it should be eased into. If you are prone to believing any stray thought as reality, then maybe steer clear of this sort of thing.

I'm not a tulpamancer as such. But I have dabbled. There is a fair amount of mental effort involved. I've found that it's much easier to just embody your tulpa and be them. All this talk of it being a dangerous activity is rubbish. Just go ahead and do it. Having imaginary people in your life is not dangerous.

No no no. That's what "happened" means. It happened. It's just that the past is qualitatively differerent from the now.

Is there any room for "direct experience" in that case? Or is all of experience "indirect" i.e. a map of some sort? Is there a concrete end point to the map of a map of map? Yes? How is language understood at all? Does it use another language - a mental mapping language? Or is there some non-language that language is understood by? Sorry lots of questions marks.

If I was a business person I'd say provide massive value to people. The more value you provide the more money comes your way. Think about what you can do for others and then start doing it. Value generally means solving people's problems (but it can mean other things). Remember you must take action, and keep taking action or nothing will happen.

NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) says that for a person to change and transform (i.e. therapy), you recall the imprint and then modify it with new experience (called anchoring in NLP). In effect changing the mental map of the person. I'm thinking that your "imprints" and @Vibroverse's "perfect platonic ideas" are one and the same thing. Somehow it is the currency that we use for thought and understanding - I'd call it a mental map or conceptual map. That is the utilitarian view of a map, which answers the question "why have a map?". A map then allows you to gain knowledge of truth by bringing it to your attention, you can then "walk the path" as you say. So this is what I've got so far: map -> mental map -> reality The map can be anything tangible that is symbolic in some way. This then is attached to a mental map (imprint/platonic idea), and in turn is attached to a real experience. I think the mental map arises in response to symbols and/or experience, and the attachment happens because the same mental map gets triggered by more than one thing: the squiggle on a piece of paper, triggers the same mental map that a mountain in reality does.

I keep vacillating (nice word) between these thoughts: Of course there are separate consciousnesses don't be silly Consciousness can do what it likes (and is a prankster) There is only one consciousness (possibly mine, possibly not) I'm not special, why should I be the only consciousness one? It's a non-question, unanswerable Am I a p-zombie? The question is answerable but not with language Consciousness is just a concept and nobody even understands what it refers to Welcome to my mind.

It's a false dichotomy. Your life purpose is exactly that: your purpose in life. If your purpose in life is to also have a girlfriend then that is part of your life's purpose. Nobody said it should be easy. Take her with you on your journey, grow together.

Or just stare at her foot for long enough (the lifted one). That's what I did.

@strangelooper no offence, but I'm going to stop myself from engaging any further with you, as tempting as it is. Good day to you. Don't derail the topic either. Thanks.

You clearly know nothing about momentum and inertial frames Throw two tennis balls up in the air at the same time and notice that they move together - relative to each other there is no motion. Likewise your body and the ground are moving together. Close your eyes on an aeroplane, can you actually tell if you're moving or not? I don't think NASA had CGI in 1969. Oh no. I've taken the bait hook line and sinker - shoot me, put me out of my misery. Maybe I didn't pray enough to the one true God: Science?