RMQualtrough

They don't. This is another arena like naive realism where everyone falls into the same trap lol. Women certainly can like nice guys. Try MDMA if you want to see this. People conflate certain characteristics with success in that field when those characteristics are meaningless. Like being an "asshole". Like they think the act of being an asshole is WHY the girl likes the guy when it's not lmao. What is really happening is that men who look like they have very low social status (and possess low social status) get no results by being themselves, and they're like "fuck... Maybe if I act nice..." then that doesn't work. Then they see high social status men who just so happen to act like pricks with girls and get mad and think "women like assholes!". The things are unrelated. It is just that the dude in question has very low confidence, or acts creepy, or in some way has shit social status lol. It isn't to do with niceness or selfishness at all.

It always seems like there is a critical AHA moment, immense progress in understanding, then a waning where you no longer understand. Then it goes up again beyond where you were before. Then wanes. It appears two steps forward one step back all the way up...

God is infinite. If something is possible it must exist? So is there a universe of just floating chairs? If so here is the dilemna. I am very much struggling with... I know that there is no external world, I even think I can prove it. So then if in this universe of just floating chairs, if nothing localized there experiences it, what are the chairs? They can't be chairs because shapes and colors etc require an observer. So what are they? This is the same thing I am trying to get at with this universe. Things we NOW see and call rocks etc were floating around, but like the chairs, before there was anything to perceive them what were they? I posted similar v recently but I didn't articulate myself well. This should better show what I mean... I already accept perceptions ARE the only world there is, so what are these floating chair universes which aren't being perceived by anything?

I want to dig deeper. So when we track the universe way back and figure that long before the Earth even formed, X and Y was happening, if X and Y are nothing at that point in time, how did they happen? To square this away with the factual impossibility of an external world, it is hard. There are some possible ideas. One, that ALL "matter" has some degree of perception, e.g. when atoms bounce off each other. Or two, that even in the unconscious and unperceived, things can happen. Also quantum eraser: Backwards causality (AKA events occur to satisfy an event which has not yet happened but will. AKA the future event causes the past events so as to lead up to its happening). But that has nothing to do with form so maybe irrelevant. Thoughts?

Hm now if a human and that alien were there, would it not be the case (assuming the chair is solid) that if the alien tried to walk through it, he would crash and fall over seemingly nothing, if he could not perceive the chair?

So take the chair or rock dimension, it would be possible for a space alien, say, to perceive the rock's physical appearance from afar as the taste of sugar or as a sound for example (whatever the hell that would be like). So what does the chair actually exist as when not perceived? Is it the taste of sugar? Is it a sound? Is it a shape of a chair? Or do unobserved objects like in the chair dimension exist as infinity, or just nothing? In our rock universe, at some point perception happened, and now we can track back through time to a state in the universe where the things we call rocks were moving around etc. but nothing was localized in the universe to perceive them and so what exactly were they at that point?

Yes of course... If Adeptus was anaesthetized beneath a cliff face and a giant boulder fell off the cliff onto his face, the thing called Adeptus would cease having experience of the world, even if nobody or animal was around who was aware of the boulder. Adeptus is a dreamt up material character localized inside the material universe dream. When two material-dream things interact, things happen. In this case we mess with the finite form called Adeptus.

In the nothingness there is unmanifest everythingness. The chair universe exists in the unmanifest. When an unmanifest-experience takes place in said unmanifest-universe it becomes perceived and hence manifest? How about that... There are perhaps infinite universes just like ours which always remain unmanifest, with unconscious rocks floating around or w.e., because there never develops a perceiver to """collapse the wave function""" from unmanifest into manifest? Hm. So the infinity contains both infinite manifested things and infinite unmanifested things. That could make sense if not Panpsychism. Yet it remains the case, there is nothing "out there". So what do we interact with? Well I suppose we too are part of the apparent outer world and interact with it thusly. A solid concrete wall will always represent something impassable regardless of how it is perceived? Even though it is fundamentally nothing outside of perception.

I believe it can be legit proven that the external world cannot exist as a thing at all. It must be nothing. I do think this can actually be shown. AKA there is no external world. When perceptions take place, the nothing becomes a thing, e.g. shapes, colors, or even a simple recognition of a state or face. I do believe that the universe predates conscious experience unless particles have conscious experience. If they don't, then there is no perception of the world and thus the world remains as a nothing for the time. But we can track back through time and find out what happened prior to the existence of conscious experience (barring the possibility outlined). Secondly, given the external world is nothing and takes form by perception, what exactly causes natural selection to take place? If solid objects are nothing why could we not perceive them as such and walk right through them? ... The non-existence of the external world leaves two things I'd like help understanding. See if you can: 1) Describe the mechanism behind how the big bang etc existed and events took place prior to the existence of minds which could perceive the surroundings. 2) Describe how and why evolution takes place when the external world is nothing outside of perception. ... I can see that my alteted perceptions do not change the results me nor my friends get. But what if I hallucinated an object was not just farther away but not there at all? Would I not walk into it? These are the only questions I have. If I understand how this works my philosophical outlook is basically complete.

What do you think of the idea that even quarks etc have some form of awareness? Being inside of awareness, they are made of it. So surely they must do? Same for a human under general anaesthetic etc. Is there some base experience of a quark interacting with another? Quantum entanglement suggests perhaps knowledge of some descriptor between particles. Unlike a rock moving downstream which would not require awareness, the reaction is based on a property of the particle. What about the dual slit? People get mad that IFLS type articles clickbait that human consciousness is what alters it only to point out it's just any measurement. So is it the case there is some form of aware interaction between the gate/measuring device and photon? Is panpsychism the way to bridge understanding of the material universe within a framework of Brahman?

There must be a universe of floating chairs. But chairs aren't a thing unless perceived. Put a human in the dimension and they see chairs. Now, was it always chairs even before the perceiver arrived? Was that nothingness a bunch of nothing-chairs waiting to be perceived? If a nothing-chair crashed into another nothing-chair and there was no perceiver, what happens?

Well really you can say "how or why" is also imaginary about basically anything, but Leo is able to sit for hours explaining the mechanisms behind how and why nothing is everything. So I think there is a how and why, I just haven't found it. If those things were collapsed (subject and object) there would be absolutely no experience at all, and because there is no external world everything seemingly external would be nothing??? Not even consciousness (except the Advaita type conscious Brahman which is really nothing, but equivalent to consciousness in deep sleep so no difference). Unless quarks etc are conscious in some form, then I cannot grasp the mechanism behind the movements of the universe of literal nothing (the state of the universe before it is perceived). I also feel that after all localized minds end in this universe, it will continue as science predicts down to the last dying star BUT, all those things it is predicting, despite happening, are then nothing. Why is it that a bird with zero perceptions of a wall cannot fly through it considering the wall is not actually there? I understand the wall being perceived differently but still working as a barrier, for me that is very easy to grasp. But what if an animal did not perceive it at all? And nothing else is there to perceive the wall to watch the animal fly straight into it? The external world as mentioned cannot exist, I think that can be proven (that it is nothing at all) through various means. The simplest of all being that things cannot be "like" anything separate from a perceiver, and the only thing that isn't "like" anything is literal absolute total nothing. But then what are the evolutionary pressures causing us to experience solids etc etc, if it is purely nothing. I am positive there is a how and why just as there is for literally every other aspect of this philosophy.

Right it's happening now. Is this the best explanation though, for how the cosmos all came together before it was perceived from within space and time? Is there another explanation? What about a universe of just chairs that is never perceived, for in total infinity this must exist (and really should since nothingness is legitimately without boundary). Though in chair universe the chairs wouldn't objectively be anything, until a human or something is plopped down into it and suddenly the chairs are there.

Right but how or why is it happening before a conscious perception of the material world exists? Because to experience something you have to be localized and finite. Say there is a universe with just chairs? Without a perceiver that entire universe is simply nothing. So how can it be going through cosmological changes? Once the nothingness is perceived it becomes qualia. If we finite selves perceive a wall, even some animal with no senses would fly straight into it. It could be perceived totally different and the model of reality would still work for that creature (eg it could seem longer or shorter, wider or narrower) but the creature's own physical form stretches etc with it so the model still works. But there is no wall there. So creatures which perceive nothing, why don't they go through the wall?

I'm familiar with Bernardo. What I'm suggesting is that even in a field of consciousness, if experience does not exist, there is no act of perception since experiencer requires experienced. Else that field of consciousness is resting in oblivious deep sleep. Perception does not exist without something which can perceive. Now when the big bang happened, I am guessing that at that very point there were no things which could perceive, and without perceptions, things exist as nothing. Perception makes them something. So they are all nothing, in nowhere. Yet formed the entire universal space. There is no external world right? So when all of this was happening, without being perceived the atoms etc were all nothing and nowhere. And I am wondering how the universe formed galaxies etc without any perception taking place?

Instead of seeing you as something which is filled with awareness, mentally reverse this. You are an appearance inside the one singular awareness. This appearance that you know as whatever-your-name-is, is a brain. Awareness experiences the dream known as the material universe through something inside the dream of the material universe which is a brain. That is self-you. Self-you is an illusory plaything inside infinite nothingness/somethingness (the Tao, Brahman, w.e.), you see?

Today I zoomed around the supermarket on a trolley (tbh I never stopped doing that when I became an adult just lol). We ought to feel ecstatic, for we are infinite. We cannot die. We're dancing with ourselves in an endless nothing. I wonder how the suffering people feel however. This is very first world. But those moments feel quite freeing.

Everything comes from nothing. Nothing IS what manifests as everything. People forget often that they too are part of the dream. Hence why there is nothing external. And we think automatically that means external to our eyes or hands or w.e., forgetting that our eyes and hands are also external and hence part of the dream. I'm not sure there's any incompatibility with the big bang etc at all, tbh.

There are various forms of meditation, I have tried a few but it's so muddied by "hey bro this shit will make you feel relaxed!" Like fuck. I want to find God not chill out. Transcendental implies by name, that it will induce ego death or something. Is that right?

The mystical states are produced in the finite self by manipulation of the brain. This does not matter when you understand nonduality. Nonduality cannot be experienced fully by a finite self, it causes "cessation", so you can only come very close. The finite self that you mean right now is a brain. Like how to experience a dream you must be localized in the dream (proveable), to experience the dream called material universe you must be localized in it. Which we are. As brains. The brain causes the finite self to interpret raw data in an array of ways (qualia), it does not itself PRODUCE the qualia or consciousness. Imagine there is a canvas covered in many colors. On top is a blank white piece of cardboard. That represents the finite self (brain). Now take a hole punch and make some holes in the cardboard so the colors on the canvas show. That is what your brain is doing. Just like when a magician pulls a rabbit put of the hat, only a fool believes the rabbit was not already there.

There are and for anxiety too. I'm well versed in this topic.

I'm not sure whether the Buddhists use it metaphorically. But for example even while living you are being born, almost constantly, since there is new life birthed every second across the animal kingdom. There then is another finite self. The terminology, that you escape the cycle, seems to imply that you can choose to end this process. I think someone said, like, as God you can choose to not incarnate. Here is where it makes no sense. Every single birth is a birth of you. To prevent your birth would be to prevent ALL births of life forever.

When you say euthanasia is being considered, is this because she in fact has some incurable disease or cancer etc, the depression and such being secondary to this?

The seeking of this thing, is something the finite self does. Perhaps out of curiosity. The finite self does not know its infinite nature, it is the finite self that desires this realization.

It would somehow separate some element of what you are, from existence. If birth takes place, you are being born. If death takes place, you are dying. Wherever there is experience there is you. To somehow never experience birth again would imply you are no longer simply God, because God experiences those births and always will. This makes no sense at all. The idea is not right if that is the implication.