LastThursday

As per title. How do I make this paradox pop? By way of explanation the conundrum goes like this: I have come to realise that the sensation of there being a 'thing' or 'kernel' or 'nugget' or 'soul' or 'watcher' or whatever, is just a construct. 'The concious AI has realised it's just a program running in a computer' (for example - I don't actually believe that though). As such, this Construct knows it is made from a free floating sea of associations and memories and feelings and the rest. The Construct keeps itself going, by continuously reinforcing the belief that it exists, rather like a perpetual motion machine. But this Construct also believes 'reality' doesn't need the Construct to carry on: reality doesn't need to be 'watched' to exist. Now the Construct knows that it's fake, but one thing it really can't deny, is that 'reality' is actually happening. And that if it ultimately snuffs itself out, it thinks reality will carry on regardless - it is not scared (very much). But where/what/how exactly will reality be, if it's not being 'watched'? In other words, is it actually possible to remove the Construct without also snuffing out reality? Or does the Construct just morph itself into something else - something like reality 'watching' itself? Does the Construct die or does it re-contextualize? Which is it?

Thanks all. I've exhausted myself on this topic. Time for a mushroom tea and a darkened room...

Thank you @Mu_ for your video. That's the realisation. The Construct is aware of the Construct. It has literally pulled itself up by its own bootstraps. It has conjured itself up from nothing. The Construct is aware of its own awareness. The awareness is an awareness of something however. Aside from the vagaries of language use, awareness is something that 'cuts' or 'divides' or 'separates', because otherwise everything would be the same and awareness would cease. If the awareness were dropped into an infinity of nothing it would not exist. And yet despite that, here is reality and there surely is awareness. If I kill the Construct, does awareness also die? Is the Construct awareness itself? Is awareness all there is?

@Serotoninluv I couldn't agree more. Indeed language itself is a big barrier to understanding this stuff. There is also a strong tendency to get caught up in words and definitions of words and arguing about the use of words themselves and not actually getting to the meat of the spiritual practice. Even in the sentence I've just written, I've left out information: 'strong tendency' by whom and where and when? There's no other way around this on a forum, but direct experience is key.

@Emerald why does it matter to you? I used to do Tai-Chi for years, and after the initial excitement, I used to wonder to myself why do I do this? I'm just doing the same mindless moves over and over again, week in week out: sensei please just give me something else! Eventually it clicked. It wasn't really about the moves, it was the practice that was important. It was the energy, the poise, the focussed attention, the clear mind, and the graceful execution. That's why it mattered to me.

I did go through a solipsistic phase, but I didn't bother others about it; being asked if you really exist generally doesn't go down well. Eventually though, I realised I wasn't being radical enough, so I dropped the solipsism. Different compared to what? Ok, I realise my error, there is nothing to compare it to. Contemplating enlightenment is kind of a thankless task. I just have to concentrate on the path instead and I will get 'there'. One day I will be enlightened (or not) and that is that. Indeed, what objects? They are as much part of the Construct as the Construct itself. Is a chair four legs a seat and a back? Or is it a chair? Or is the chair just an invention? Is the Construct a sensation of existence + an observer. Or is it Reality? I have no idea - yet.

No Instead I questioned my existence, and 'I' started to act strange. That's the point. But you've lost the nuance of what I'm getting at - see next. Yeah exactly. But even worse. How can reality be any different? But I guess it can! I'm standing on the edge looking over, but I don't know how to jump or even if jumping makes any sense. Yes and it was hairy and stunk bad.

The illusion of inference, is one illusion, i.e. that time existed before last Thursday; my place of work is one mile away in space etc. None of that actually exists other than as an imprint in the present moment. The illusion of the present moment is another, different illusion. One illusion sits inside the other. So Last Thursdayism is all about shredding the illusion of inference: time machines are not possible, because time never existed. And, it points to the other illusion: there is only the present moment and it was made whole.

I wouldn't use 'generated' or 'mind', mostly because they imply time and a thinking process in time. Maybe 'a happening'. Damn it's hard not to use temporal words. But yes.

I only have one answer @cetus56 : yes. It's no more ridiculous than saying the universe comes from nothing. In reality the big bang, and my last cup of tea never actually happened, we just infer they happened from our memories. The memories come from nowhere, they're just 'there'. The illusion of time, is paper thin. In fact it's so paper thin, it doesn't exist! It's the same for 'space', 'persistence' and so on.

The question has no answer. Because if your 'something' is the whole of your reality, then your 'nothing' must contained within reality itself, which means it must be part of 'something'. The only way out, is to say that 'something' IS 'nothing', in which case the question no longer makes sense. Another way to attack it, is to ask what you mean by 'Why?'. This is just a shorthand way of saying 'What is the cause of?'. The problem with this is one of infinite regress, you just keep asking 'why?' and there is always a previous cause. The shape of the web of cause and effect, is either like a tree that has one final trunk, which was the 'first cause' (Big Bang for example), or more likely it's like a braided ribbon, where everything has been caused by everything else without a beginning. The problem with the 'first cause' idea is that the only way out, is again to equate the 'first cause' with 'nothing'. The problem with the 'braided ribbon' idea, is that there isn't really any cause and effect as such, because everything is caused by everything else (i.e. it's all one inseparable mess, or non-duality if you like).

We are emotional beings. And when you have a realisation, it's emotional. Just let it happen, it's far more satisfying

I'm in! Especially if you're anywhere near Europe - such as New York.

You can't die, because you weren't born. But you might forget. Better to try and remember.

@Jacobsrw that's interesting. I use a combination of both open and closed whilst entering meditation. I find this is quite effective at calming the monkey mind. My method is to close my eyes and not focus on anything in particular. If I notice myself drifting off into fantasy or monkey mind, I open my eyes and just notice my surroundings. This seems to shut off the fantasy for a while and there's a stillness. If it starts to come back, I close my eyes and begin the cycle again. I noticed at first this can actually feel quite unpleasant, because it feels like an interruption to the flow of the meditation. But I now find it quite effective to get my mind to go into nothingness fairly quickly.

Oh go on then, I’ll take you on. Warning: deep deception and circularity follows… I’m taking this on from cold, not ever having really thought too deeply about it, so what follows is a bit of a stream of consciousness ramble and a genuine from ‘first principles’ type of thought process. What is Mind? I think to have any chance of answering any of your questions I need to start with which definition of ‘mind’ I’m going to use (question 2 first). Firstly, I’m going to divide the world ‘out there’ from the world ‘in here’ and have an ‘interface’ between the two. Both ‘out there’ and ‘in here’ and the ‘interface’ belong to the entirety of the things I am conscious of. The world of ‘out there’ is the set of happenings which are either: autonomous (things I have no direct influence over or happen of their own accord), semi-autonomous happenings (things I can set in motion, but then continue to have a life of their own without further influence from me), and consistently spontaneous happenings (things that appear without my conscious effort, but are consistent with other autonomous happenings) and lastly, are vastly parallel (a very large set of consistent, simultaneous, interlocked happenings). The world of ‘in here’ is the set of happenings which are either: transient (they persist for a short period only), inconsistently spontaneous happenings (are not causally related to other happenings), are closed to the world ‘out there’ (do not influence the world ‘out there’ in a direct fashion if at all), and lastly are restrictedly non-parallel (the happenings are sparse and only loosely interlocked, if at all, and happen largely sequentially). The ‘interface’ is the set of happenings where the world of ‘in here’ mixes (influences) with the world of ‘out there’. The world of ‘out there’ can be changed or guided or re-arranged by the world of ‘in here’ by the ‘interface’. The world of ‘out there’ can in turn influence and change the world of ‘in here’. The ‘interface’ belongs to both worlds and allows a bi-directional exchange of happenings. From here on I will call the world ‘in here’ the Mind. The world ‘out there’ is Physical Reality. The ‘interface’ is The Body. A ‘happening’ is simply something that consciousness is aware of and has a separateness from other ‘happenings’, in other words a happening has a unique set of attributes which sets it apart. I will call a ‘happening’ in the world of ‘in here’ a Thought. The Deceptive Mind Again we need a definition of ‘Deception’ to work with. Deception is deliberate ‘covering up’ or ‘hiding’ of Truth. Truth here, is the bare happening without further interpretation or judgement. Truth is the first instant that a new happening becomes apparent to consciousness. Since every happening either in Mind or Physical Reality or The Body is unique (if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be recognised as a separate happening), each happening in itself is always Truthful. How does the mind conspire to hide Truth? Despite Thought being largely sequential and inconsistently spontaneous, there is a special sub-class of Thought(s) that acts as a type of glue. This glue works by sticking together different Thoughts and making them ‘consistent’ and ‘persistent’ with each other. Consistency involves a kind of logic of relationship between two Thoughts where they share some commonality or common attributes. Persistency involves two Thoughts which are labelled as being the same or sharing a large number of common attributes. In other words these Glue Thoughts act as a kind of comparative logic between two otherwise acausal Thoughts. The Glue Thoughts are where Deception first arises. Since every Thought is unique they cannot be compared with each other - otherwise they would not be unique. When one Truth is equated with another Truth then this is a type of ‘pointing’ or ‘indirection’ or ‘misdirection’. This is the essence of the Deception. Not every Thought in the Mind is a deception but those that create a sense of causality and persistence are. One of the consequences of the ‘pointing’ of one Thought to another, is that it is possible to have a circularity of ‘pointing’ where each Glue Thought in turn creates a chain of causality which eventually arrives back at the original Thought. This will set up a self-sustaining chain of Thoughts which persist outside of Truth. The chain persists, but the original transient Thoughts are long gone – all Mind happenings being transient. The chain is composed of a Truthful set of transient Thoughts which point to other Thoughts, but the ‘pointing’ itself is wholly deceptive and hence so is the chain. There is a large interconnected web of chains of Thought which create a sense (more Thoughts) of causality and persistence, this is The Ego. As such The Ego is a Deception. But The Ego itself is composed of Truthful Thoughts (each taken individually). It is therefore The Ego that is the actor who is deceiving. The ‘you’ that The Ego is deceiving is therefore the Truth of each happening. It is not even possible to say that the happenings are being observed by the spark of consciousness, as this is itself a type of ‘pointing’ and hence a deception. A painting is no more than its brushstrokes.

I bet that electron is concious...

Age is just a number. A big fucking number: 45. Gulp.

I often think about my childhood. My early childhood was full of two different cultures, sunshine, always being outdoors with my younger sister, who was my best buddy, being adored for being the eldest grandchild, and for having insatiable curiosity about everything. My teenagehood was full of arguing and absent parents, unwanted responsibility, bullying at school, social awkwardness, loneliness, high introversion, lots and lots of TV, books, staying indoors and home computers! And what do you think I thought I missed the most? Being a teenager: that was the closest thing I could identify with, now. That is, until I went on holiday one time. I was in my late thirties. And I was with a bunch of friends. The setting was a huge converted barn in the middle of the French countryside. We drank wine, ate cheese. I ate sunflower seeds swinging gently in a hammock most days, sipping wine and reading. I discovered a beaten up old bike in a shed and re-learned to ride a bike and took it around most days for an hour or so and got lost. I would wake up before everyone else just as the sun was coming up and take a plunge in the freezing cold pool before doing some Tai Chi. I was also inexplicably struck by the beauty of a ruined old brick barn next to our lodgings. So much so, I just had an overwhelming desire to sketch it. The amazing sunsets and the warm stillness in the evenings nearly made me cry. It was then I realised what I had really been missing. I had been totally disconnected with the authentic, curious, adventurous, outdoor-loving me and with that sensation of just being for the sake of being, and the inherent beauty in the world, and a deep knowing that I was part of the world - the sensations I last had as a young kid.

Before every awakening there is confusion.

Then what is 'nothingness' other than a delusion of language?

@Shanmugam good article. Especially valid since we're using words on a forum to try and discuss the elephant of non-verbal direct awareness. Maybe all seven are true here?

I have to admit I've become super sceptical about things I don't directly experience - anything other than that is quite literally a story I tell myself. Anything to do with science is also quite literally 'a story'. Useful stories maybe, bit still stories; and I used to be a hard and fast materialist. But anyway, entanglement is a very specific thing between two identical particles of matter, which were born at the same instant. It has nothing at all to say about the subjective experience of thought. However, there is solid scientific evidence of 'mind over matter' (video here sound is crappy though). Also look up Benjamin Libet. My point is, who's to say that one person's thoughts/intent doesn't affect the free will of others? Maybe we're all thoroughly entangled? But it's still easier to use the power of speech, than the power of mind to 'entangle' others. As for magic, it is all around us, but our egos have a real downer on it.

I think that's murky territory. Mainly because it's impossible to treat thoughts as 'things' that can be compared to each other. Your thought about your friend is not their thought about you. What exactly would tie these two disparate thoughts together - especially if two different people are having them? One answer is that every thought comes with the baggage of context. The context is pinned on the pure thought after it's occurred. It is the context that is then used to compare thoughts. Where does the context come from? Previous experiences, memories and so on. In other words, there is no coincidence, it's 'made up' to suit the occasion. A completely different slant on it, is to take it probabilistically. Here's a thought experiment... Imagine there is an entity whose sole purpose is to generate thoughts. The thoughts are utterly random, but they come in succession one after the other. The entity has always existed and will continue existing forever. One day it gets lucky and has a succession of thoughts which are in some way correlated with each other, by pure chance. The lucky succession of thoughts lasts for 75 years, thought after thought after thought. Impossible? Not given an infinity of time. That lucky fluke is you. In reality the thoughts a not connected in any way with each other: the succession of correlated thoughts gives the illusion of a 'you' having these thoughts. Rather like the individual frames of a film giving the illusion of motion.

@Serotoninluv it is certainly powerful to question from where do thoughts originate (and where do they disappear to?). And then to question 'a choice'. After all it is just another thought and where did that arise from? And, the ego 'having control', is just another thought and on and on. Extending this, you realise that the ego itself is just a bunch of thoughts, that come from somewhere mysterious. I am inclined to think that thoughts are associated with memory, because there is a 'recognition' that happens when you have a thought. A thought is never without context of some sort, even if it's about a pink elephant say. I think generally the 'recognition' is confused by the ego as coming from itself. The 'recognition' is then conflated with the thought itself. You're right that the everyday definition of free will is that of being free to make a choice (by thinking about something) and that's probably the most useful one. But for me, it somehow feels/appears wrong to me to call a chain of thoughts without manifestation 'out there', free will. For example, if I have a thought about asking for a pay rise tomorrow, and then tomorrow I change my mind without uttering a word to anyone: have I really exercised free will? Or is it just that something has 'made me' change my mind over night? If you take my definition, then when I think of making a coffee, and I actually make one, there's no confusing that free will was exercised.