Nemra

It's an understanding that came from deconstruction. But sure, I cannot hold some crazy states like God-Consciousness. Why does having a conversation with anyone contradict understanding that there is only one experience?

Something similar to that by deconstructing my sensory fields. I was shocked when I realized that there is only one experience, whatever that is, and I am the only one who is truly experiencing. Have you noticed that there is only one of everything? 🙂

😁 There is a comedy sketch in which an old lady and a businessman are praying. The old lady prays to God to give her some money and the businessman prays to God to give him an expensive car. Both are praying so hard that the businessman gets annoyed with the old lady and gives her the amount of money she wanted. 😂

Almost forgot that at school we used to recite prayers from the Quran, Coptic Christian, and Orthodox Christian traditions before beginning literature or religious classes.

There was a literature professor in my university that made us do Christian prayer for the exam and our grades depended on how authentically we prayed. 🤣

What movie have you recently watched, or are you now watching? I have yet to finish watching the movie "The Irishmen".

As a kid mostly surrounded by Christians and went to church (not of my own volition), I'm glad that I haven't taken Christianity too seriously and I never read the Bible. I had the intuition that those people are being conformist about it as they treat some words as the truth over experience. Why should I read some stories about God? I felt that if something is true it cannot be dependent on the Bible. My hatred of reading books came from observing how Christians are eager to worship their stories. I'm an alien around where I live.

What is magical is that, because the whole field is infinite, there is a part of it that is exactly as you imagine it to be—regardless of how restricted your imagination is, which I think serves as an interesting proof that reality itself is absolute imagination. Your restricted imagination maps perfectly onto specific parts of the whole field, meaning the entire field is composed of different orders of imagination. The thing is that you cannot alter higher orders of this field if your current state remains restricted from accessing them.

Belief within its own boundaries is magical. If you believe that the earth is flat, it will seem flat to you. If you believe that reality is physical, it will seem physical to you. However, beliefs cannot directly control things that are beyond beliefs. You don't even know that it will affect indirectly. Belief is a lower order imagination because it doesn't have direct and total control over everything, and an unconscious self-validating mechanism that is built on assumptions which makes you think that the truth (assumption) is self-evident. Assuming that believing will change things that don't depend on believing is an epistemological trap.

Prophet's Prey Overview: Filmmaker Amy Berg sheds light on the sexual, financial and spiritual abuses heaped upon members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by their former leader, Warren Jeffs.

I would say that, more fundamentally, those measurements are constructed on the change of present and past of some sensory phenomenon. But the thing is that the past was present before getting to the present and it is also referred to in the present. So the measurement is constructed on the present moment, and past moments that were present moments that together are constructed on the present moment. Past is a nested construction within the present.

What if the magic for getting money was having a job? I guess printing money would do as well. 😁 Why aren't the limitations of this reality that aren't constructed by humanity not magical enough? How would you prove that your manifestation is what directly caused the result beyond assumptions / beliefs? The actual mechanics/limitations of current reality doesn't depend on believing that reality is material. Beliefs cannot directly change the limitations beyond belief-based limitations. Maybe you believe that some technique could change, and then when you do it the limitations change. But that's indirect, and still you have to prove to yourself that the change isn't a belief. The problem of belief is that without actually knowing whether something is true you assume it is, and then whatever happens to you, you will think that it's because you believed in it, especially that the belief is the direct cause. You get lost in a self-reinforcing loop. But what's magical about belief is that if you believe that reality is material, it will become material. For exploration and testing how powerful hypnosis is, I have listened to hypnosis files. They work like magic, given some time, because you completely concentrate your focus on an idea being real until it becomes solidified in your mind. Links get created in your mind between different things, so when you think about a certain thing, it can directly affect what/how you feel and act. It's terrifyingly powerful; you can be hypnotized to experience an intense bliss! People underestimate how suggestible their minds are.

It sometimes happens on my side as well. Refreshing the browser helps.

Me. For me, anything can be a resource.

When you understand how things that are currently boring will be valuable to you in the future, you often start to enjoy doing them.

Awakening.

Why should most people find my work the most meaningful thing? Perhaps both could overlap, but I don't really care if most people don't find my work the most meaningful, unless I want to earn more money. I would like it if some people found my work uniquely meaningful to them. How helpful my work actually is to all mankind is another thing. For me currently, the smart way would be doing some work so then I could explore other avenues later. I quite enjoy doing different stuff that's not related, and I'm still open to discovering new passions.

Do you regard "highly meaningful to you" as more important than "highly meaningful for mankind"? What if the work is highly meaningful to me, but not all people find it meaningful?

How can a property of an actual finite thing be actual outside of an actual universe or experience?

What age do you consider "young"? I have found that playing the piano makes me cry, like I'm in some ecstatic state. I'm not the best at it, but I have learned how to play from scratch without any theory. No matter how boring it got, I have never thought of not playing it. Sometimes I would not play it for a long time, then I would get back at it.

Contemporary definitions of "matter" are absurd: mechanical, reductionistic, indivisible, naturalistic. I think viewing "matter" as "holon" would make more sense. Some early philosophers seem to view it that way, more or less.

If you focus your attention enough on the existence of your sensory fields, you can become conscious that no object can be carved out from those fields because, essentially, they are qualia—sensory phenomena which are self-evident. Your perception flips.

Do you mean physics as the mechanics of things or things being physical? The former is independent from physicalism. The latter is about physicalism, which is inherently materialistic. Here is my take against physicalism:

I think that's why scientific discoveries, such as atoms, wouldn't be discovered without imagination, regardless of how accurately the imagination reflects the actuality of the discovery beforehand.

Where is the physicality of objects when anything you experience through your sensory fields are the things that make the fields fundamentally distinct from each other—such as feeling, sound, etc.? Physicality assumes that objects you experience through your sensory fields are independent from or exist outside of those sensory fields. People assume that anything outside the norm of what they label as physical is not real. They don't seem to understand that any object they encounter is perceived through their sensory fields, which they use to label the object of their direct experiences as physical in the first place. So, they want to provide sensory-independent proof of an object's physicality, not knowing that they will be relying on their own sensory field to prove it, which makes their assumption fallacious because it causes an infinite regress, and yet they think they have discovered something fundamental about reality. Saying that reality is physical is essentially no different from believing that God exists. Also, they don't understand that, regardless of how limited their imagination is, any object they can imagine exists as a potential that will emerge within the infinite holarchies of their own sensory fields if they zoom in or out far enough.