r0ckyreed

I could also use my phone camera and take a picture of it in the mirror. The image of my phone is in the picture and yet was the source of the image. How do we know the brain doesn’t work like that? I will add another perspective that with consciousness it seems different because how can anything you see (an object) be the source of the subject?

Where did you get that worksheet from? I didn’t know there were worksheets for each video! That is too cool!

Experience = Consciousness!!!

Is change/impermanence an illusion? My thoughts prior to reading Parmenides: Given that the past and future are imaginary and only the Now exists, it follows that change is an illusion since there can be no change without time. And there can be no change without Truth. If Truth is unchanging, then change ultimately is not true. Change is an appearance of that which is unchanging. But appearances are content within Truth. The boundary between changing and unchanging doesn't exist. Everything is Unchanging because Everything is Truth. If the Truth can change, then the Truth has not always been. But the Truth by definition is eternal and unchanging. If the Truth can change, then Truth is not an Absolute since what used to be the Absolute is no longer the Absolute; hence, it is a self-defeating. Truth is unchanging by its nature. That is why Truth is more fundamental than fact. All that appears to be changing is the Unchanging. Change is imaginary and is ultimately relative and not Absolute Truth. Parmenides thoughts on change: Parmenides gives the argument that if something exists, then it has always existed and always will be. He states that the appearance of change is an illusion and we are misled by our senses. Our mind is constructing change. Parmenides also argues that everything is one. Since the Universe is one thing, that means that all differences and distinctions are arbitrary such as the distinction between the changing and the unchanging. Differences in time are also an illusion according to Parmenides since the Universe is One and Time is always Now. All of history is like a movie all contained on The One DVD. The appearance of movement is an illusion. It is just one impression and one occurrence. The mind is imagining movement and frames. Zeno's paradox - To get from point A to point B presupposes that you must go through an infinite number of tasks in finite time. To get to point B, you must reach half of the way, then 1/4, then 1/16, then 1/32, then 1/100, and this goes all the way to infinity such that you never actually reach point B. Point B is only imagined. You are always Here! You are never There and you never get There. Here is all you can be. Reason tells us that change is an illusion but our senses seem to tell us that change is possible. What are your thoughts on impermanence being an illusion? Given your understanding of Buddhism and the concept of anicca (impermanence) and the Eternal Now, how would you resolve this paradox? How can Now be unchanging/eternal and yet also be impermanent? Maybe it is like I suggested, impermanence is relative to the Unchanging Absolute?

But change is an illusion since time is an illusion. Truth is unchanging by its nature. See my recent post on Why Impermanence Is An Illusion? for more on that. Edit: If other minds don't exist and external reality does not exist, then it is not too difficult to further state that change, location, travel, and time don't exist.

What are your top three? I like the techniques you listed there. Can you tell me a little bit more about them and where you got them from? my top three are 1. Actuality 2. Solipsism, and 3. Contemplation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/13/tik-tok-utah-china/ I am not so sure what to think about the issue anymore. It gets complex because where is the line between safety and tyranny? People should have some freedoms. If alcohol and weed are legal, then why make TikTok illegal? You would need to apply the same logic across the board and that would look tyrannical.

Isn’t impermanence relative though? I thought Truth was unchanging by its nature? How is change Absolute? Parmenides says that impermanence is an illusion and lays out an interesting argument that appearances are relative and can easily deceive us. Consciousness is Truth and appearances are relative you could say. What do you think?

Don’t forget that fear is also good and is love. Why is fear viewed negatively? Consider that fear is what gets you off your ass. Fear is an intense form of desire. It is how you use fear that makes it good or bad. You can use fear to face challenges head on. The essence of courage is facing fear but not eliminating fear.

I have 2 examples that have made me doubt the claim that there is no external world. 1st example: I have ordered a book from Amazon. The book is expected to be delivered to me tomorrow. The book, package, and delivery driver are not just the same as my ideas of Santa Clause. They actually seem to exist behind the scenes. After all, me ordering a book from Amazon assumes that such a book and delivery driver exist outside of my own senses, perceptions, and thoughts. There must be something beyond my own subjective mind, a world beyond my own mind. If this is true, then it is a doubt to Solipsism as well. For, Solipsism claims that the only thing that exists or that can be known to exist is yourself. But how you live your life day to day assumes that solipsism and no external world is false. What is the reality of a book, package, and delivery driver? How is it that there are things that occur behind the scenes if there is no external world? Maybe my subjective experience isn't all there is after all. 2nd Example: Hearing your phone ring when your phone is not being perceived. Getting a phone call and your phone is outside of your mind. How is it that your phone can vibrate and make sounds when it is not held within your consciousness? Of course, your phone (prior to it ringing) is an idea in your consciousness when you think about it. But if you didn't have the idea of your phone and you didn't perceive it, it would seem like it would be the same as it not existing at all. However, even if you don't perceive your phone nor have any thought about your phone, you could still hear it ring in another room. Try this exercise, sit in your room with all doors closed and fully strip away all ideas about history, biology/science, religion, other rooms, other people, and an external world (stuff happening behind the scenes). Now, you are basking in pure raw consciousness as it is. But suddenly, you can perceive your phone ringing in the other room. You didn't set an alarm, you assume it is someone else who has called you by basic logic, which already assumes that other people exist and an external world exists. How is it that when you strip all ideas and perceptions of your phone, that your phone suddenly starts to ring? I mean that is totally possible. By basic logic, this would entail that someone else had to make the call, for the phone cannot ring completely by itself unless you set an alarm. You can talk to people on the phone and they can come over to your house. Now, how is this possible if only your pure subjective experience is all that exists? Notice how your raw perceptions suggest that solipsism is true, but rationality seems to suggest that it isn't. You can notice patterns in the world with your mind. Be open to the idea that everyone has their own sovereign experience. If other people have their own sovereign subjective experience, then you may wonder, where it is occurring? Could it be occurring in an external world? Could it be beyond my subjective imagination like the Amazon package? If the Amazon package exists when I cannot perceive it, is it possible that there are aspects of consciousness hidden from itself as well? If so, how would this work? How can an object within my consciousness have consciousness? But I would object that you cannot find consciousness anywhere in the brain because the brain is an object within consciousness. Sorry, I have a last short example and that is people claiming to see more colors than other people. How is that possible if there are no other minds and no external world? Just because I don't perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I perceive only a small amount of colors compared to a genetic freak who can perceive many colors. For me, I do not have access to the amount of colors that a genetic freak can perceive. This suggests that there is more to reality than what is currently perceived in consciousness. I know that I am thinking of this whole scenario, but I do actually have a package that I expect to be delivered from Amazon! The question is that what is the reality of the package and delivery driver if it is outside of my consciousness? How is it possible for the package to be delivered to my house if there is no external world? Please note, I am merely trying to point out some doubts I have. I am not awake/enlightened nor do I understand anything. The existence of an external world for me is still something I have realized that I have not fully deconstructed because I still believe that my Amazon package exists beyond what I currently perceive. Writing on this forum also seems to assume that solipsism and idealism (a.k.a no external world) are false. Thanks in advance for your time and insights, Rocky

Correct. But what if “knowing” has nothing to do with “existing?” To know requires existence. But maybe there are somethings that I will never know since existence is prior to knowledge. Maybe that one thing that I cannot know but yet may still exist is the existence other sovereign fields of consciousness like my own subjective experience. Of course, the external world and other sovereign minds are inferences, assumptions, and speculations at best, but part of the nature of Infinity is that it exists but it is unknowable. Maybe that could be the case with “external world” and “other minds?” That they exist but are unknowable, which is what epistemological solipsism seems to suggest. On the contrary, when I question what another sovereign consciousness is I run into more issues. The issue that I find is that if there are other sovereign consciousnesses, then they would have to be located in my own subjective experience (behind my eyes so to speak). It is natural to assume that the idea of other minds exist behind humans eyes. But what difference is there really between the consciousness of a table and that of a human? They are both objects inside of my subjective experience. They are both objects inside my dream. Oh shit!! If other minds do exist, they would have to be in me! Experience is not located in any object because all objects are appearances within experience! Now I have no idea what it even means to say that other minds exist because that would conflate subjective experience with the object of a brain. But everything that is known about the brain is a perception and idea in my subjective experience. Now, I think I am getting what is meant by Experience is Absolute. There is nothing more fundamental than that. But I still have my doubts as expressed in paragraph one about whether my subjective experience is the only one. I cannot even conceive of infinity of sovereign subjective experiences. Well, maybe I can but they’d just be my own. But I can only experience One!! I feel like I am slowly breaking at this ice. I felt a little shift in perspective. I’m gonna journal about it more for clarity. Thanks!

Good question. I am not sure. By definition, the implicit is indirect and intuitive in nature. I can't experience the infinitude of space directly, but I can grok it implicitly and indirectly. I think it is kind of like the unconscious mind. The external world can be called "the unconscious mind." I see no difference between the hair growing on my skin and the growth of plants in my garden. It is all the same process to me. It is like a gigantic unconscious mind that runs the entire universe. I checked it. I have only ever experienced my subjective experience. If my subjective experience though is sovereign and all I have, then couldn't you and others also have sovereign experiences like my own? I know that I am inferring the existence of other minds of my own. But if my subjective experience is like it is, then is it possible for their to be other subjective experiences where I become the object in someone else's awareness? Right now, I know that the closest thing I have of experiencing others is objects (i.e., human bodies) within my consciousness, which I assume have a subjective experience like mine behind their eyes. Could it be kind of like a first-person multiplayer online game vs. a single-player first-person? In the multiplayer option, it assumes the existence of "external world" where there are other Playstation consoles (or other minds) connected to the online database (or Infinite Mind). My current console (i.e., mind) cannot perceive the others because they are all sovereign. Or is it more like playing a single-player first-person open-world game like Skyrim, where everything on the screen is me and there are no other players but me? Is that the latter pointer you are talking about? It seems like it to me. But that would mean that my subjective experience is all there is and you all are basically different aspects of my subjective experience. Wow! But I am not aware of everything, so maybe it is more like what I call the "external world" or "universe" is really my unconscious mind. It makes me wonder whether there is even such a thing as an "unconscious universal mind" because if I am not conscious of it, it is just an inference at best. Come to think of it more, I assume that behind the eyes of humans, there is a consciousness like my own that I have never validated directly. Come to think of it now, it doesn't make sense because that would assume that subjective experience is rendered from an object like the brain. But if you look into someone's brain, you never find a subject or consciousness in there (including if I examined my own brain). My own brain would be nothing more than an object within consciousness. So if other consciousnesses exist, they would have to be constructed by my subjective experience like I do in Skyrim or in my dreams. Am I on the right track? It feels like it to me.

The idea of others awakening, let alone existing and being conscious, is inference and speculation.

It is implicit understanding. I have an implicit understanding that space is infinite even though I cannot explicate or prove it or even directly verify it. Even though my experience feels finite (because I can only see so far) it is actually infinite partly because the space around me has no beginning or end.

@Razard86 Wow. That was powerful. You are right. I am overthinking it. My mind is tricking me into another deception. Now I kind of understand why Buddhists say “thinking is dangerous.” The external world and the Amazon package are thoughts in my mind. No more real than past and future. To even think an external world exists is to be lost in the illusion of time. Now, I can see that. Thanks for your intelligence!

Perceptions and ideas or otherwise, consciousness. Ohhh!!! I think I may be getting it now! My subjective experience or consciousness is all there is to what I call reality. I can imagine things outside but they are inside. But my consciousness is mentally constructing everything around me that I am not aware of. So what I call the external world is actually just 1. Consciousness and 2. a mental construction. If my mind is constructing all of the physics and laws without my awareness, then my mind is constructing the external world without my awareness. The external world now is redefined as my own mind!! Because even though I am not aware of what my mind constructs, it/I still constructed it nonetheless. So things existing beyond my awareness is not the external world, it is the nature of Consciousness or my own mind or Field. Let me think about this a bit more to try to make it clear in my mind. I kinda realized that what I call the external world is not what I was meaning by it anymore. Everything around me is inside of this Field, which feels like a mind or brain. Where I think the external world is, I am only left with my mind or Field. It is the feeling of being inside of a mind or brain that I recognize to be my own. Let me contemplate this more to see if this is full of crap or not. I have to directly grok it.

Sorry for my ignorance. I am trying to understand and trying to deconstruct my games and BS. It is hard for me to see my own blindspots. And I don't outsource this to anyone else, as it is nobody else's job but my own to spot. However, the main reason why I propose the question here on the Forum is so that I can gain more awareness of my blindspots so I can grow and gain a deeper understanding and become wiser. I am just ignorant to the games that I am playing right now, and I am not sure what games you mean. I am open to challenging myself and the games that I am playing. It is hard to do that though when I don't know. It is hard for me to understand, so I apologize for my ignorance. I am openminded, curious, and have a genuine desire for truth. I just want to understand the truth and not believe in it, which is a trap that I noticed myself fall into in the past. So that was a game that I was playing for sure. In my current situation, I only have access to contemplation and meditation as tools for gaining insight and understanding. I guess I do not fully understand really what is meant by no external world because there appears to be more than my subjective experience, but I know that from my point of view, my subjective experience is the only thing I know and can say exists even though there appears to be more to it. Thank you for your time and insight. All the best, Rocky

No. I haven't. And I admit this. But I cannot assume that my subjective experience is all there is. Nor can I assume that there is an objective reality. My experiences tell me that only my subjective experience exists because I have never experienced any experience but my own. But my logic/inference suggests to me that there is more to reality than my subjective experience. Each creature I see appears to have a consciousness of its own. There are many humans and creatures that know way more than I do. I am still trying to figure all of this out because both my perceptions and logic can delude me. So how can I trust any of my faculties to derive the truth? It seems like logic is a better lead because at least it can question the truth-value of my experience, whereas sight and sound are just appearances without question. The main issue is what kind of logic and how do I know whether my logic is valid or not. So I don't immediately get out of this conundrum. That is one reason why I love contemplation because I can use my intellect to question existence. What I really mean by logic is the use of the intellect to contemplate. I don't mean following narrow rules, which is a big limit I see with logic. I don't think I am just the body. I am the perceptual field of experience. I am all the sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, smells, and thoughts. I am The Field. What I mean by external is there being things outside of The Field like the sun, galaxy, ozone layer, etc. because those things are ideas within my Field, but they are not in actuality within my Field at this time. I believe that I can go to The Golden Gate Bridge, but right now, it is a belief in my Field. My whole question is that just because the Golden Gate Bridge is not inside my Field, does that mean that it ceases to exist? If so, then why do I hear about it indirectly through news, etc. It seems to imply that I can experience it directly out there somewhere in my Infinite Field of Consciousness. I think Consciousness still holds things in existence even though I cannot perceive them. Take the video game of Skyrim or GTA V for example. The game holds all of the locations in it, but you are only aware of your current one. You can think of The Screen as being what holds everything but is only aware of what is there. The Screen or Field of Consciousness is holding things that are outside of my current awareness of them. At least, that is how I imagine that to be. I apply that same analogy to the world that what if my Field or Consciousness is holding things in existence that are beyond my awareness of them. I think this makes sense given that space is infinite. And space is nothing more but the emptiness within my field that makes room for all objects to exist. If you can agree that space is infinite, then that implies that there can be objects in that space whether they are currently perceived in my Field or not. Can't you conceive of this? If so, then it is possible that objects can still exist outside of your Field while being rendered or held within your Field. We only perceive only a small fraction of The Field when compared to the Infinite Field of Consciousness. It makes me wonder why experience is designed like it is? Why is my sight only limited to this oval in front of me and why can't I see 360 degrees all around me. My auditory field can hear 360 degrees, so why is my sight limited to what is in front of me? Etc. Etc. We say that sight is our primary or dominant sense, but yet, our sight seems more limited than our sense of sound. Thanks for your response! I am still trying my best to understand given my ignorance. All the best, Rocky

To verify claims and conclusions. Ask your doctor next time if we need proof of the effectiveness of your treatment. No it isn’t. Nothing is obvious or certain. You can’t even tell whether you are dreaming or not.

Contemplation & Experiment Word for Word Journal Notes: "What is the external world? The external world is the idea that something exists and has a nature beyond perception, ideas, and consciousness. Things exist in a world outside of my subjective experience. Does the external world exist? I don't know. Everything I have ever experienced has been consciousness What I believe is outside of consciousness is based on an idea right now that I believe I perceived. My mind creates a narrative-logic of ideas based off of what I perceive. I hear a sound and the idea of air conditioning or bird is immediately attached to it. How do I test the hypothesis that there is or is not an external world? I am imagining a white grand piano in the living room of my grandparents house. What is that thought? Is there an actual piano beyond my thought? It seems like everything that exists is my perceptions and ideas. The actual piano that I believe exists is what I call direct perception/experience. If I do not directly experience an idea, does the idea have actual existence? Let's test this. I closed my eyes and walked around the room. Just because my visual field is closed doesn't mean my other senses are closed too. The room and space remain when my eyes are closed, but the room and space when eyes are closed aren't filled with color and vision. It is just blackness. The tactile field still exists and perceives the room the same. My mind has a memory of where my phone and most objects are in the room are. It has a memory of what my phone and guitar looked like. But my journal was not where I thought it was. I imagined it being on my small table, but in reality, I felt it on my bed. If my awareness of space, touch, and hearing still exist in my room when my eyes are closed, I can assume my thoughts of things outside of my room exist as well. Why do I prioritize sight as my main perception!!? All perceptions are equal including thought. Just because I perceive a wall in front of me and hear something behind it, doesn't mean that there is nothing behind the wall because I cannot perceive it. The visual form of what I am hearing is something I am imagining now, but that does not mean that the visual form of what I am hearing cannot be seen, which that is also an idea that I can see what I am hearing. But can I really? A bird is the form I see and the sounds I hear. That is what a bird is to me. Even when I don't remember where I put an object, it still exists as potential. I didn't remember where I put my journal or car keys, but it still existed as touch with my eyes closed. If I couldn't find my journal with my eyes closed, could it still exist? As an item that can be touched? The only way I can say anything exists is if I perceive it. But just because I say anything exists or not, does that mean that it actually exists or not? The actuality of existence seems to be my perceptions of it. I spun around with my eyes closed and didn't know my orientation. Then, I heard a sound from my phone that appeared behind me and I knew where to go. The perceptions of this journal right now are more real than the mere idea of it within consciousness. To say that this journal exists means that I can see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, and think of it and of course, write in it. The journal exists for its perceptions and its utility. Te reality of my journal when I am not perceiving it is a mere idea that I conceive. But the question is, when I am not perceiving something or conceiving it, does it exist beyond perception and conception?" - r0ckyreed's unfinished contemplation on the external world

Also, I did an experiment for the external world and this is what happened: External World Contemplation Experiment I closed my eyes and spun around the room so that I was completely disoriented and didn't know where anything was. I used my imagination to move about the room. And then, I moved about the room with a silent mind. Just because I close my eyes and turn off my visual field does not mean my other fields turn off as well. I still have the auditory field that is in waiting mode for any sound to occur upon it. My tactile field is also still open as I found out the hard way when I moved about the room. I went around the room touching items and I realize that I was touching what felt like a computer and a guitar. I know it is my computer and guitar because I feel it. Why do I doubt that such objects exist when I do not see them? What makes vision the ultimate authority of consciousness? This is what I wondered. It occurred to me that vision and my other senses, including thought are all equal. No sense is more true than the other. They are all equally true. What I call my computer is nothing but my sensations of sight and touch and imagination. However, there were two things that happened. I tried to imagine where everything was. What makes me think an external world exists is that I imagined my journal being on my desk, but in reality, it was on my bed. Even when I did not perceive my journal, I imagined it to be in a place where it wasn't. Now, I don't know if my journal was always on my bed even with eyes closed, but when I used my tactile field, I noticed that I was wrong about where I thought it was. Everything exists exactly where I left it, or for the most part, where I thought I left it. How is that possible if an external world does not exist? My mind was totally wrong for where my journal was, so how can it be solely responsible for where everything is now? I will have to entertain this thought more because the only way I know any of this is because I perceived it through tactile field and sight when I opened my eyes to see that I was wrong about where I thought my journal was. This shows me that an objective reality exists in the sense that reality is not just what I think or believe but at the same time, I cannot say that reality exists independent of mind. But I know it exists independent of what I believe or think about. Then, I had my eyes closed and I disoriented myself and then I just stood there trying to contemplate what the existence of anything is. How do I know I exist or have a body? Etc. But then, my phone rang and it was the dentist calling me to confirm my appointment. Lol. This makes me wonder that how does my phone ring and how does the dentist office call me if they don't exist when I don't perceive them directly? How do I know it was the dentist who called me? Because I have their number and answered the phone. How do I know their office exists beyond my own mind? I guess I don't know that either for certain. However, what makes me convinced that it does exist is that the space around me that I perceive is infinite. Space literally has no walls to it. The walls of space are contained within space. Objects cannot exist without space. If space is infinite and there is an end to my visual field, it must imply that like the tactile field with my eyes closed, it still exists. Like my auditory field with my eyes closed and no sound, it still exists as potential for all sound. I may not be able to hear what people are talking about, but I can know that they are talking even if I cannot make out what they are saying. I will probably have to do this experiment again because my thoughts on all of this are still not clear. The only way I know anything exists is because I perceive it and imagine it. What my experiment revealed is that my imagination can be completely wrong, but my perceptions are completely right. I was wrong about where I thought my journal was, but my tactile field showed me where it was. It also revealed to me that we base our whole understanding of the world through primarily the visual field. We take the visual field as being what the world really is. But all fields of experience are equal

I think if we trace the causes back, it will be an infinite regress problem. And yes, I can see how the tracing of the causes is an imaginary process that conflates the map for the territory. But how we live and survive, we presuppose that there was such a process for things. The mind cannot accept that everything I perceive to exist has no creator, origin, or process. From your state of consciousness, if you saw an unknown Amazon package, would you infer that there was a process? It could be a bomb or a book inside for all you know. Our survival mind cannot accept that there was no process; otherwise, we couldn’t exist right now and have this conversation. We could blow up and die from being wrong about what exists inside the box, which from what I hear on the radio/news, that stuff can happen and I know that is hearsay, but it is still possible. To survive, we assume that external world exists. It may not be a true model but it is helpful for sure. I am just wondering how you would incorporate the insight that there is no external world if you notice that things seem to appear behind the scenes like an unknown Amazon package and the inference of something inside. Doesn’t your mind do that naturally? I get how everything that I call "existence" is something I perceive or imagine, but when I am looking at an Amazon package, I cannot say for certain what exists inside it, but I know something exists in there that I cannot currently perceive. What is inside could be almost anything such as a book, a bomb, the wrong book, a movie, a condom, etc. With rationality, I can eliminate such things as a TV, tennis racket, etc. depending on the size of the box. How do you explain all of this?

How does it not? It sounds like Heaven and Love to my ears. I don’t think an awakened mind cares anymore “improving your experience of life.” What more is there to do if you realize that your existential nature is complete and identical to God?

My goal is to make a thread dedicated to understanding the conservative worldview. The series on When The Left Goes Too Far really inspired me to try to understand the conservative worldview objectively without bias. What resources have helped you increase your understanding of politics? You cannot understand politics without understanding conservatism un-strawmanned. Here are some resources I have discovered so far! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/