Outer

I think he means the physical buildings don't exist even though you think you see them.

So realization is like seeing reality but knowing it doesn't exist? Or that it is a mirage? It is a dream? I was watching a video about China developing and deploying solar panels and then I imagined (thought) about it in my mind's eye but then there came a barrier. There was no need to think about it. Or I did and it was just blank. It was a relief. It was similar to when I did self-inquiry to stop thought and I did, and then a bunch of thoughts came up that everything was obviously determined. Because I've seen it to be true.

Why are you a Liberal after Realization?

What were your political opinions before and after Realization? Were they any different or did they stay the same?

Follow the guidelines, to not do any other techniques, etc. Use only one pillow for meditation rather than to build a castle like some do because it will just distract you. Eat a lot of food. Get in sleep during breaks for instance, there is a longer one around lunch. Take with you a watch so you know when breaks are.

The experience of letting go is like choosing to not think obsessively anymore. Letting go of stirring up thoughts.

That's why I brought up dual aspect monism too. It seems as the researchers according to Dr. Carhart-Harris are tackling consciousness on the basis that it is circular with matter and not casually, linearly created by matter. Isn't subjective experience or dualism (or dual aspect monism) given credit by anyone's direct experience?

@winterknightSee the slide at 55:00. Matter do not create mind in a linear casual way, the relationship is circular.

Well, since you do agree the brain correlates with consciousness, it is a dual aspect monism going on. Different sides of the same coin. Around 44:24 and forward.

There are plenty of things that science can and will explain however, and if your model isn't taking those into account, you are ignoring things that are explained.

The explanation is WM itself. I'm explaining to you. Color is something in the WM created by the Experiencer. That is the explanation. It is not perceived. Scientists deals with perception and what gives arise to the Experiencer/Doer/Thinker.

But it is explained by that model of Consciousness I am talking of. If you explain that you can't explain because of "this" and "this", that is an explanation. Or am I wrong when it comes to you?

If there's a good reason to explain something, you can. But "is your green is the same as mine", is filed under the category of "not being the case". Also, it is technically explained by talking about WM's, if we exclude science. As not being the case. Also the fact that no two brains are alike. Because color is not something we perceive. What else do we not perceive?

They won't explain that because they have no reason to.

Scientists can however explain what is occurring in other people's WM, but can't experience it. That scientist brain is explaining what is occurring in someone's WM because WM's are ultimately created by the Experiencer, which is created by the brain. But that is experienced in the scientist's WM. You can explain something without directly experiencing it.

Yes you cannot experience anything but your WM. But you perceive the same world as the person whose WM green is binary.

Yes, you only experience your WM. You cannot experience another's WM. But you both perceive the same world. WM's can be and are different. Even people will spot it and explain it to others.

Why would Y explain it if Y didn't know it was happening?

It's the WM that the scientist experiences - created by the experiencer. The scientist doesn't explain it, his brain does. Just like your experiencer created your WM which your thinker is operating with.

You don't experience the world so you can't. You only experience the world model. But the experiencer creates the WM from perception.

What you experience is the World Model created by consciousness, what you perceive however is the world (red/blue/light going through the retina, for instance). Color is the world model, while the colorless light is taken up by receptors in the eye, which is perception. If you were cloned then your WM would be the same, however. For a split second. It's not whether science can access world models it's whether the scientist can access them, but it's still within the scientist WM.

It would be in the scientist's World Model, which is created by consciousness that is created by his brain.

I live in my World Model, not yours, so no I would not be able to tell if you saw binary rather than green. My World Model might not even have me in it. Just itself. If I had a screen in my World Model and it made a 1:1 picture of your fMRI data, that would still be my World Model.

Their experience IS different, as they have a different World Model, because their brain is different.