4201

@mandyjw Your words do as good as they possibly can do in a forum argument. For the rest I should go deeper on my own. Thank you for pointing me in the good direction. Thanks to everyone else for participating. This thread was a blast still

Being honest, I'd admit that what really disturbs me is the idea of no-body. Sure there is no "me" but the container in which thoughts arise (mind) requires the body to function, at least that's what I believe. The fact is, if the eyes get hurt the awareness will be diminished. You'll be aware of less stuff if you become blind. Likewise brain damage will reduce the ability to conceptualize. "Identity" might be a TV program run by the mind, which is arbitrary and can change anytime. But what I consider the container, the body, cannot change freely. If I lose sight it won't be back. Is all of this really content? The ability to see, the ability to think, all within awareness? How could the content within the container affect awareness if it's purely content? When we say "no mind" or "no brain", this is true within the context of thinking that there's a brain I need to keep track of. (Idea of the container within the container, creating infinite recursion and thus infinite confusion). This is not what I'm talking about here. I do see the absurdity of having a model of something that do not exist such as a self. The body however is always in my awareness. I'll admit that the only reason I don't like the idea is because I care about protecting the body. I do not think that this body is the source of the suffering, that is content within the container. At least for me, the body/brain is just what implements the container. Sure anything can hurt the container anytime, accidents or random events. I can accept that as reality. But I'll at least do what I can to give it the most care. I see how the idea of a body could be false and I'm believing this idea. But nothing prevents it from possibly being true. There is no contradictions with this model of reality, only misunderstandings. When I think of somebody who doesn't care about "body" because it's just a thought to them, I imagine them simply neglecting their health. I'm probably wrong. When it came to letting go of the self, it felt like something useless and petty. A side effect of survival applied to a social identity. Something that is totally unecessary. Yet the body feels different, at least for me. It is "real" and so I'm not willing to stop protecting it.

The mind can't. But that doesn't mean it's not there. It might or might not be there. I just don't know.

Please don't bullshit yourself using my bullshit Again in this context the rules are the map and whatever implement those rules is the territory. The theory may be wrong but the behavior is consistent. This analogy is no better than using the thought of an apple vs an apple it self. Or the wall, or anything. I do admit that I'm believing there's an actual apple outside is just an assumption, but so is assuming there is no outside.

Ok but then how do you know that you created those things and they do not correspond to anything outside? I know that the thought is inside and that I can't experience what is outside but it is still thought that what I perceived has an analog outside. How do you know that there is no outside? I do see how assuming there is a territory because of the map is just an assumption, but letting go of this assumption reveals that I don't know if there is an outside, not that there is no outside.

That it is impossible to comprehend is a belief. You previously mentionned philosophers would say it's not possible to know anything. That its not possible to know is something they think they know (another belief).

Yes, interpolation from what is thought is always less reliable than what is. It often differs and so what is should always be favored. Right now in my experience, if I press against a wall I can feel the pressure of the wall holding me back. I interpret this situation from what I perceive of course, so that idea of the wall holding me back is just an idea. I don't take issue with the fact that I created this idea. But there is substance to this idea. It's not just an idea, it's true. The difference between this idea and other false ideas is that when I let go of the false ideas, the limitation goes away. This limitation, although perceived, will never go away. Even if I stop interpreting the situation into a limitation, I won't go through the wall. This is why I take issue with the idea of all being a dream or an illusion. Although they cannot be directly experienced, only interpreted, there are unbreakable rules. If those rules are, then it cannot all be nothing. There must be something material holding those rules, even if I am not equipped to directly experience this material.

Why should I trust you if you don't know?

@Javfly33 Fair enough. Thanks for this exchange

You assume there's a tree from what you observe, but you don't actually know if the tree is there, of it is fake. It is perfectly possible that this tree might be a plastic one, or an hologram. This is more obvious when you are blind, because then it's obvious how much assuming a blind person has to make about their environment. You do as much. My problem is with the idea that there can't be an objective tree. It's as wrong as the idea that there is one. Truth is we don't know.

Depends on your dictionary. In physics sound is the air wave and not the input signal.

When I talk about flying or walking through walls, I'm using the same level of "freedom" the mind gives you when you are dreaming or imagining. If there is only thoughts, then the only thing preventing you from walking through walls must be a thought/belief. Otherwise there must be some other form of limitation that prevent such phenomenon from happening. If you say there is such a limitation, then we can call this limitation "the physical world" and call ourselves materialists. Else then you think that letting go of the thought will allow you to overcome the limitation, hence walking through walls or flying.

Sound is a wave going though air, aka movement in the air molecules. it is a real thing as well according to your definitions.

You only suffer your vulnerability if you care about what the outside will do to you. No me = no fear about that. Does the illusion that you control the outside hide the fear for you? I am doing the suffering to survive. It is an activity I do by reacting to what comes within awareness for the sake of keeping the "me" alive. Realizing that I'm the one doing that is sufficient to stop suffering (which is the same as realizing no me). Sure, if nothing exists outside of the mind then I am God. But then I could fly and walk through brick walls, which I can't do.

If nothing hears the tree falling but it fell, there's absolutely no way to say if it made a sound or not. I would say "I don't know" if it made a sound. How can you say you know it made no sound? Because you think there is nothing except what you are aware of, nothing but thoughts. But therefore the idea of the bricks being real is also a thought (since there is nothing but thoughts), so you can walk through walls if you stop believing the bricks in the wall are real. So despite every moment confirming the "real world hypothesis", all I can say is that I don't know if that hypothesis is true. I don't know if things exist or are just thoughts. But why believe that they don't exist? Just to stop conceptualizing about them? Isn't it better to accept that you don't know? I do see how denying the existence of anything that is not awareness is useful to avoid conceptualizing about things that are not the present moment, but despite the usefulness of this "technique", is it really true?

Thoughts affect each other. What is believed will change what is thought, but not "what is". What is can influence what is thought, but what is thought can only influence what is through physical use of muscles. Is this relationship only believed? If so then I can literally grow wings and fly right now. I am open and I have been open to the idea that this relationship may only be believed, yet I never have grown wings.

As an experienced psychedelic user, I struggle to see how anyone can say for sure materialism is false. I had multiple awakenings but none "debunked" the reality of things, it just debunked the idea of "me". At least in my experience, no matter how much psychedelics you take and no matter what you think, bricks are still hard as bricks. There's no doubt that I could pretend a brick to be soft, but this pretension would be obvious. The thing is, this whole "debunking materialism" business doesn't seem to go anywhere. Suffering comes from the thought of a self, not from the bricks being bricks.

You are doing it. What causes you to do anything? Because you realize you've been doing it. This is no different from having a habit of biting your nails. If that's something you don't want to be doing, whenever you'll realize you are doing it you'll stop. It is not "spawned". You just have the habit of doing it. You ask a good question though. Who are you? Fighting it won't get you far. It's just a symptom. If you find out who you are you'll see what you've been doing and why.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks

Not sure what's the point of Fox news to try and convince their viewers that Trump is winning by a landslide when he is really not. Is it really helping Trump?

AI generated advertisements are not only based on locale and demographic but also based on your shopping history, browsing history, types of people you interact with and basically any data websites manage to collect from your activity. The AI "learns" what is the best ads to show you based on this information by trial and error. In some way it is showing the best ad "for you". You decide if that's creepy or not. If you don't like it feel free to use services that hides your information.

Fuck yeah, happy to hear that from you

Whenever you critique science you seem to be critiquing a way of misusing science rather than science itself, and then blaming "the scientists" for not seeing those limits. Yet my personal experience with scientists and academics do not show that. There might be a dunning–kruger effect, where the ones that extrapolate scientific claims to justify ideologies are the ones that do not know much about science. At the end of the day, science is just documentation of the limitations of the physical world. You previously said that "it's all illusions". Yet I fail to see how the fact you can't walk through brick walls is an illusion. Everything about the brick wall needs to be perceived and interpreted, yet this limitation that object can't pass through it doesn't go away no matter how you interpret the situation or even if you are aware of the wall or not.

First I'd start by saying I think he is mostly the one at fault here. What he is asking you is not reasonable in my opinion. He is playing the victim and blaming you for being who you are. Having emotions is not irrational, repressing them is. He is responsible for who he is and what he does. That being said, blaming him won't get you far. This idea that it's your responsibility to change who you are to respond to his trauma and issues, why did you accept it in the first place? Isn't it the perfect opportunity for you to feel inadequate? If for example, you were addicted to inadequacy, then this would be the perfect match wouldn't it? Perfectly chaotic I mean. What I mean here is that this situation provides you the best of opportunity to indulge in this self-judgement you probably did for your entire life. None of this is necessary or desirable. If you follow me on that, why do you have self-destructive tendencies? Does it seem counter intuitive if what you want is to survive as yourself? Well, what if you happened to identify as being inadequate. So much so it is part of "who you are". Then since you want to survive "as who you are" you'd be compelled to keep feeling inadequate since this is what you think you are. You need to realize that this idea of you being inadequate is not who you are. You may believe that right now but this belief is the only thing making it true (for you). It's hard to let go such a belief because your entire life story is made to reinforce what you believe you are, but you are the one who made this life story. It is just a perspective. I'm not gonna claim I got the perfect 1. 2. 3. technique to let go of such a belief. But I know somebody who do. Peter Ralston in The Book of Not Knowing describes exactly how to do that, in very deep details. Of course there are other options, but as long as you believe that you are not adequate this will continue, no matter in what context. Be aware and skeptical of thoughts that seek to blame yourself for everything. You are an amazing person, I know you will get through this. PS: This whole idea of emotional challenges lowering your IQ is the most irrational thing I've read in a while No, you are not getting "worse", you are just going through your own issues and this is important work. You'll end up stronger at the end of that. Yes stress and anxiety reduces your performance at anything... but those things are not permanent.

The ego he is talking about is just a collection of thoughts and story that got confused with being. It is a fallacy, a misconception but not true. He says "I am not the mind" and that the mind is experienced, but I do believe he is wrong on that (or at least we simply have different definition of "mind"). Thoughts which are the content of the mind can be experienced but not the container. If you could experience anything about the container you could derive "properties" or "qualities" to it, and then claim that's what you are. Any idea about the container is content, and so not the container. Death can be interpreted as the content, "I", coming to an end. This is ego death and infinite love. No problem with that. What I am unsure about is physical death, the end of the container. Leo basically says in his 1h30 video on Immortality that this "end" or "physical death" is just more content, therefore it doesn't exist and the container has no end. I doubt that. Some ideas have more substance than just being ideas. A brick is a brick no matter what you think about it. I still believe in things being "physical" which some would say is just another property, more content, but I would say that those physical things demonstrate limitations that are beyond beliefs. Beliefs are indeed limitation but the reality of a brick wall is also a limitation. Can you let go of the brick wall by letting go of the concept? No, therefore I doubt the idea that physical death can be let go of by letting go of the concept. Following this physical death would end the container. That aside, what determines what goes through awareness? Even if we refuse to say it's the real world and its laws (e.g. you won't see colors in a dark room) then there's nothing preventing this awareness from experiencing pure nothingness for eternity. To give credit to the idea that you will experience more things in the future is to believe in some sort of laws that prevent it. So I accept the possibility of this whole idea of the physical is an illusion, but I cannot say that it is with certainty. Therefore I cannot say with certainty that the container has no end, or that the mind is immortal. The best I can say is that I don't know. It goes without saying that the emotionally challenging part of death is still the ego death. If you don't identify as anything you don't really care what goes through awareness, even if it's emptiness for eternity (which is absolute Love anyway). The problem arises only if we create a self that is scared of that. But this challenges the idea that "after death you will cycle back". Maybe you will, but I don't know how you can tell.