Mason Riggle

Why would you ask someone else whether or not there's anyone else? You are either talking to yourself and pretending it's someone else so convincingly that you can't tell it's all you, or You are actually talking to someone else. Both seem the same, and it doesn't make one bit of difference to you which one is the case.

@aetheroar already always doing that without trying to.

There is 1 path, and I'm always already on it. Anything I do to change my path is just more of the path I'm already on. 'Being how I am being' is the only thing I ever do, and I never ever have to try to do it. It's literally effortless. I can't not do it. Trying not to 'be how I am' is always just more 'how I am being'. It's so easy.

@Vibroverse the question isn't 'did a tree fall if no one hears it fall?'... it's 'did it make a sound if there's no one to hear it?'. Basically it's asking.. does something really 'exist' if there's nobody for whom it 'exists to'? What would a reality seem like if there were no one for whom it seems like anything?

@Vibroverse it's not a contradiction.. it's just difficult to conceptualize 'an eternal, ever changing, now moment', because 'maps' can never accurately map the 'territory' without being the 'territory'.

@Vibroverse explore what it means for something to 'exist'. The tree falling question serves this purpose.

It kinda does. It's always now.

@Vibroverse i get what you're saying. I'm saying that if you really think about it, it makes no sense. You can only experience 1 reality.. if there are 'other realities' that you don't experience, then they are not part of your reality, and might as well not exist. There would be no difference between 'other realities that exist beyond my experience of them' and 'no other realities'.

@Vibroverse it's just that 'this one' is the only one there ever is, no matter what 'this one' is like. If I have 'all of the grapes', I can't grab any more grapes.. there are no 'other grapes' for me to grab... and even if there were, I would have them, and they still wouldn't be 'other grapes', because I always have all the grapes.

@Vibroverse I think we get what you are saying.. it just doesn't exactly map onto reality. Your map is like imagining a movie screen that is showing you the movie of your life.. and you thinking, wow, I am this infinite movie screen, creating this movie in real time as I watch it, but I could also be creating other movies that are not part of this movie. It's more like, there is an infinite movie screen showing this particular movie, even though it has the potential to show infinite movies, and no matter what movie is playing, it's still the same one, and you're that.

This why the all of numbers on the dial are arbitrary. Don't be scared to turn it up to 100, it's really no louder than 3.. it only seems that way relative to 1.

I'm gonna use my brain to control my brain.

@Inliytened1 haha @ 'bigger'. Make it go to 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

"other universes, right here right now" doesn't sound very logical. How can what is 'right here and now' be 'other'? "entire Universe" is like saying, "the whole everything"

@Federico del pueblo infinite creativity. Notice that you can replace the word 'imaginary' with 'real', or the word 'dreaming' with 'creating'. "Why did I create this thread? It's crazy to understand how I would [create, imagine, dream, realize] a @Null Simplex character... I must be damn good at imagining real characters and stories..."

@VictorB02 ?

@VictorB02 This is all me! 'MY mind' adds confusion.. it implies duality. A 'me' separate from 'mind', who owns 'mind' or is aware of 'mind'.. but it's all mind.. and that's what I am. All of it, whatever there seems to be.

@Vibroverse There is no 'my imagination'. That there's a separate 'you' who is 'imagining' in addition to 'imagination' is just more imagination.

@Wilhelm44 Not a problem.

Not really.. 'deterministic' is just a description of how reality seems to be occurring. How hard a hammer hits a nail determines how far it will be driven into the board.. it's 'deterministic'... it's just that what 'determines' any 'relative' part of they system, is always 'everything which is not that relative part'. I am DETERMINED by 'that which is not me'.. even though the distinction between 'me' and 'that which is not me' is relative and arbitrary. I am only defined in terms of 'that which is not me'. What is the 'outside' of a cup? Well, it's everything that's not the inside. Outside is 'determined' by 'that which is not the outside'.

@WokeBloke "I have no other self than the totality of things of which I am aware." - Alan Watts I am all of it. There is no separate 'me'.

@WokeBloke thinking is occurring, and that's not being denied. There's just no 'me' (separate me) who's 'doing it'. It's a language thing. When you use a knife to cut a pizza, you could say, 'the knife cut the pizza'.. but ask yourself.. did the knife 'do that'? Just because the knife 'does things', like 'cut pizza', does not mean that 'the knife' caused itself to cut the pizza.

@WokeBloke thinking is occurring.. it's just being misattributed to some separate 'you' who's 'doing it'. Similarly, digesting is happening, but there is no separate 'you' causing the digesting. Digesting and thinking are both things that organisms 'do' automatically, similarly to how grass grows 'automatically'.. there is no 'grower' of the grass.

@Wilhelm44 exactly. Finding the 'source' of 'what is occurring' is like finding the center of the surface of a sphere. It's all the center, or none of it is. Another way to think about this illusion of a separate 'doer', is to take it out of human terms. For example, consider a tree growing.. what is the 'cause' of the 'growing'? What is that's 'growing the tree'? Where is the 'grower' of the trees? What is 'causing' the tree to grow? Well, there really isn't one. There is just 'the growing'.. no 'grower'.

@WokeBloke Consider a boy holding a stick, using it to poke a toad. Now ask yourself, is the stick poking the toad, or is the boy poking the toad? The boy isn't 'poking the toad'.. he's only 'moving the stick'. The stick is 'poking the toad'.. but is the stick 'doing that'? Is 'poking the toad' something the stick is causing? Now consider a person thinking about the beach. This time ask yourself, is the person thinking about the beach, or is it just the brain that's thinking about the beach? Is 'thinking about the beach' something the brain is causing? Is there some separate 'you' somewhere causing your brain to think about the beach? There is no 'source'.. no 'you' who is 'causing what is occurring'. There is just 'what is occurring', the totality of which is the cause of 'what will occur'.