UnbornTao

Oh no I hold a different opinion

So "opinion is existential" is what you're saying?

Alexa, clean up this mess.

What result do you hope to achieve by doing that? Is it really useful or necessary? What other effective options do you have at your disposal? These are not rethorical questions, by the way. You can always ask a good question, preferably an open-ended one. Also, make sure it's really about them, not you trying to sound smart or impressive. For communication to occur you first need a listener. Are they willing to listen? How can you get your experience or point across? And again, clarify your purpose for doing this.

How could a conclusion or logic be existential? This is the distinction we're trying to make here. It's relatively straightforward. You already recognize that there's something operating - let's call this objective reality - that, no matter how much you try to mess with it, either conceptually or physically, will stay relatively the same. This isn't the only criterion but it makes the point. The fact that objects fall down isn't a logical conclusion. It might not be ultimately "true," but you experience it as a solid reality every day, even as a baby before you could make sense of it (even though you did have to learn to align with it). There's no need to bring in abstract considerations like solipsism or duality.

@Yimpa Oh, you meant weed? According to Google it's also Easter Sunday... hence my joke.

So... who is this Jesus guy again?

Was this AI-generated?

People really believe they do. And they want to believe the substances can. But it's always about a relative phenomenon. Again, the analogy of taking an stimulant within a dream may illustrate this point. At the end of the day it's an experience. Not that one cannot grasp it regardless of circumstance - and independent of whatever's perceived, etc.

He doesn't base his take on his experience with drugs, but on his direct consciousness!

Ramana went through an experience of terror while simulating his own death on the floor - before his massive enlightenment. What you think enlightenment is is not what it is. It's like drinking coffee within a dream in order to wake up from it. You may be stimulated but it can't wake you up; only you can do it, directly. Oh, and it has nothing to do with the brain either. It's not an experience, so that is irrelevant in this context.

Don't insult dinosaurs.

Is this your first account on the site?

Why so abstract? Ground your questioning: What's opinion, in your experience? Besides, you could clarify your take above.

Guys, focus: porn.

And what I said above is that enlightenment isn't an experience nor a state change. The difference is like being bored at one time, and hungry at another. No difference in that these are experiences. Now apply that to your state changes.

😁 No need to sing, though:

This doesn't change the fact that both are perceptive-experiences. Reread what I wrote above.

Sure, but not just me. So are Ramana, Ralston, Adi Da, Meher Baba, and Ken Wilber - for a reason. The destruction of the universe would still be irrelevant when it comes to enlightenment. So why would changing the chemicals in your brain be any different? I'm afraid buying into this belief is just a mistake born of having had moving experiences and dramatically unusual changes of state. No state is direct consciousness, it is only a state, no matter how grand or exciting or mind blowing it is. Altering the brain can't produce enlightenment - what it does is change its activity. In essence, it's not much different from getting drunk, hitting your head on the bathroom counter, or falling in love - they're experiences. This is not enlightenment no matter how much people want it to be.

Keep it civil guys.

@Daniel Balan Drugs cannot produce direct consciousness or lead to enlightenment, so you'd take your breakthroughs as simply "experiences" that might inform you of something or open your mind in some way, but aren't "true."

What are reality and meaning?

@Hojo Personal opinion is determined by you, whereas fact is not - what you feel, prefer, or believe is often irrelevant, except perhaps when it pertains to your subjective world ("I feel bored," for example.) The point is that a fact doesn't change or stop being "real" when you forget about it - you're simply ignorant of it. We don't have to be dense either: in your examples, that you fell, hit your head, and got amnesia can itself be called a fact. That you are alone may also be considered factual. It's an observation that we can agree on (even though consensus isn't the only criterion for establishing fact). Even when alone, it's still valid to say that other people exist, though at that moment their existence may only be a concept for you. This may help us ballpark the investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion "Factual" doesn't have to mean "ultimately true," but it does require accuracy and grounding in something real - usually something objective, observable, or consistent. You don't have to solve the mysteries of the universe to know that lasagna is made with certain ingredients. Opinion isn't an existential aspect of reality, so there's no reason to conflate the two. It's more like thinking you can fly and then being confronted with the reality of gravity. So, look at what an opinion is. Sorry, no synonyms for 'fact' today.