Edvard

Which is why I argued

I didn't really disagree, I'm just trying to investigate if there's some balance to the idea that scientists are soo closeminded. You seemed to assert that a simulation is not materialism. But I see that you wanted to make a point, although maybe Super Mario wasn't the best example, given that it requires having been simulated by the reality you're discussing whether is material or not. My notion is (of course): I don't know, given our limited minds, but I actually do believe that there is no such thing as a «base», or «real», reality. I do think consciousness is the ultimate reality. I like this one:

So, the majority (it seems) of scientists are not committed to the materialist paradigm, given that they're open to us being in a simulation. Although they may perhaps believe there's a base reality on some level.

@Leo Gura sure, you could label it like that if you want to. But you can't really have death without life, that's how the word «death» came up... words are created by there being distinctions made. So to me it makes more sense to use that label when this particular dream is over, if one is gonna use it at all.

Eckhart Tole quoted a Zen master who responded to a student asking why he couldn't give a clear answer of what happens after death. «Aren't you a master?», he asked. - Yes, but I'm not a dead master. I doubt you fully understand what death is. All you know is that you're dreaming. Not how or why you dream what you dream. Or do you?

I respect vegan's decision, but it seems that a lot if them tend to derive a sense of identify from it, thinking it's morally superior by definition. First of all, nature was created this way, and it just is: someone's death is another's bread. And it happens infinitely. Your reason for being a vegan may simply be purely for your own desire to survive, both physically, but especially as a self. For the self to be having a consistent sense of morality, justifying its own survival, it also must begin to justify the survival of other beings as well - because of really a paradigm of morality. You don't want to be mauled by a bear, and having evolved into a secular type of morality, we have to widen our moral definitions, for us to be consistent. Why? Because caring for animals directly affects our selve's survival, because if I say that I can kill and eat a sentient being, then one also has to wonder, why can't I cut @Socrates(don't worry, NOT gonna do it) open and eat him? That's the question we start to ask ourselves once we throw away the Bible, or the Koran - now we believe suffering in a general sense is what matters, which is wonderful, but recognize that it is really selfishness, and adjustment and evolution of an original belief that was more limited to humans, but now we broaden our scope - which of course is fine - I am selfish too. I love animals, and care for their well being. I can't help but despise cruelty against animals. But I also think that fish is great food. Now, I may transform to veganism moving into some future as it becomes easier and more natural by technology, so may society. But hey. I wanna live in a world where we care for each other. And so do probably you too. We can work towards creating such a world - a world that we wanna live in. Part of that could be stepping into the shoes of other being's suffering, imagining what it would have felt if we were them, because there are still certain things I would not like to happen to me, although it's ultimately meaningless and selfish. That's something we better recognize if we're gonna care about the truth. Recognizing the truth is also the way we do create a world we like to live in, instead of behaving according to a belief or idea confused with the truth - like saying, «veganism = Truth». Someone more evolved than me may call me a «truthist» now. So what I'm saying now is still just relative. I just think that humans seem to evolve towards what is true, ultimately. I could always be wrong about that.

? You said that freeing oneself from ego takes a very wise mind, and a lot of experience, which would suggest that stones have ego -- because they have awareness... so what I simply was asking you, if you know, was, where in evolution did ego arise? Pre self-replicating molecules, multi-cellular organisms, with lions, babies, or thinking? Just a question. Sorry if it sounded rude. Not the intention.

By that logic, stones have ego. So, where in evolution did ego arise? I was convinced it emerge by humans evolving the ability to conceptualize, meaning that we as humans eventually wil be able to «know» our true nature after a long history of suffering because of thinking, which began to distinguish us from animals. One can't trancend ego without getting it first.

I would say it's just because it statistically works, giving them an evolutionary advantage. Babies who cry are more likely to survive, so they just do it instinctively, without thinking, and «believing» anything requires thinking - but they don't even know any language, or how the world works. Why do they cry at childbirth? Because they made up a belief in the womb that «if I cry, maybe I will get stuff»? Where did they get that idea?

Well, I don't think there lies much conceptual intention behind babies crying, in the same way lions don't hunt antilopes because of some conceptual idea - which I have heard is pretty much the definition of ego. Identifying with thought. I don't think babies do that... Although I could see how 3-4 year old crying could be ego.

I actually read some research suggesting that babies cry at night because it reduces the likelyhood of getting siblings, and by that avoiding competition, likely for evolutionary reasons. How can babies have ego if they don't conceptualize? They just follow instincts like animals in the stage of evolution prior to thought. And when thought comes in, they (the thoughts) start to construct this identity, thinking it knows better, unaware of the hell that awaits as a consequence of biting the apple from the Tree of knowledge...

I actually doubt that infants suffer. Just a thought that appeared when I read this (not that I think infant crying for food is comparable to cry of beauty). Cuz infants don't conceptualize. They just do whatever they need to do to manipulate their providers, totally instinctively. Being an infant is the best part of life until you have eventually come out on the other side, trancending the ego you at some point developed, and by that moving out of hell - and then you could start crying again - because of beauty...:)

But why do you lie?;) You say that you are in my dream, but given that every human being in my dream behaves as if they have their own perspective, you're lying! Cuz then you're not in my dream; I am in «your» dream. There's no one but you, yet you're saying you're in my dream... well... it's true that I behave as if I have my own perspective in your dream, so you wanna tell it to me even if I am illusory, because that's how you choose to relate to an illusion which behaves like it's real and has a perspective, or a «separate consciousess». Too bad it's the other way around... wanna fight over that? You could say you're «me», but not really. More accurate to say that you're behaving like «me» in a different life, and in that sense you're kind of a reflection. Just talking about ideas here, of course...

What is randomness, really? I'm not sure.

Okey, fine enough. But I don't assume anything. That's what I do if I just accept your claim that mutations are intelligent. Does complex and counter-intuitive = intelligent? I don't even know what you mean by intelligent. It could certainly be right, but obviously my understanding is not deep enough. And any scientist can do research, so because you have read something about this doesn't automatically make you right. We could still talk about potential intellectual fallacies, if they exist, or your reasoning behind your claims. And you don't claim to intuit or believe this -- you actually claim to know it... which means that somewhere you read something that made it extremely obvious, you had an insight, or even an experience. But if experience alone did it, then it's only a matter of increasing consciousness and not discussing it intellectually, but you are discussing it intellectually, so there has to be an obvious intellectual understanding about it somewhere - given that you know it. And then we're also playing with the definition of knowing here... But look forward to your video on this.

You can't get much more ambiguous and unclear than this. I'm onboard with Einstein here, that if you can't explain something simplisticly (preferrably so a four year old gets it), you don't really understand it yourself. Seems like you've somehow picked a side by rationalizing because you thought something you've read criticizing science sounded plausible. And, «the laws of information theory». Your not trying to use some logical («iiiik») theory some scientist came up with, are you? I'm just telling you how it appears to me...

So how did you figure this out? How to research that mutations may be intelligent and paranormal phenomena? Mutations is a process, so it can't be it you refer to as intelligent. Or do you mean that it's intelligent because God made everything? And by that everything is intelligent. What regarding mutations are intelligent? The DNA? Or everything? And, you know, intelligent is a word. So what do you mean by that word?

We're all experiencing consciousness directly right now. Most of us are just experiencing it from a limited view point, so to speak. Contemplation can also do wonders, IMO. I don't think any experience could reveal to you the WHY of anything, which your question stresses, only the WHAT IS. The why, or how, is for the limited human mind to contemplate. And that can only be done by the form (or God through the form, if you will). So when you're asking these types of question, at least I wouldn't expect a direct experience insight to the why, although that could help, of course. But as I said, we do experience consciousness right now (or better stated; we are consciousness right now), so it kind of becomes a question of interpretation and intuition, or logic.

Point is, you realize it is nothing. When turning inward and becoming aware of your unconscious reactions to the different sensations and experience it as itself rather than for you (as the surviving entity you think you are). To become pure awareness without seeing the world from a survival perspective, or through the lens of concepts. Problem is that there is really no word or concept that ultimately describes what consciousness or awareness actually is, just because they are not it. Maybe there is nothingness without awareness or consciousness... but not now. Now is now, even if there was nothing, there would still be now. But now is not you, or me... let me try this: one could say that consciousness is absolutely nothing. Who said that consciousness is something? Only we, humans did. What if it's the basement for everything, being it "nothing" or "something". We tend to assume that consciousness is something that is added on top of nothing, without thinking that maybe it is the basis for everything, including nothing; that consciousness is more fundamental than "nothing at all", itself. Like I said, awareness can't be eliminated, because it is just now. That's what it comes down to; now. Take it away, and it would still be now. Now can't be eliminated.

It's kind of hard to explain this, but the way I see it is that one can't not be conscious. Imagine that there is nothing at all - which really is what you are in essence (which enlightenment reveals), but there would still be an awareness there. That awareness is the real you, and that awareness has to be there, because that includes everything (I'll try to come back to it). It's true, you don't exist as anything but that awareness, which you may call God, and that was always there at all times, and is eternal. What Eckhart Tolle may refer to as "the Now", which is eternal, saying you are the light of consciousness. What else could there be? There is nothing at all, but that nothing is paradoxically you... or, the space of consciousness that again includes everything. And in some mysterious sense it created everything that happens in that consciousness - by what seems to be infinite imagination, so to speak. But still, what we "experience" in our lives is not that consciousness. That is not you. Only the one thing that it happens within is consciousness. So again, awareness has to be there, was my claim, even if there is nothing at all (which it really is). Why? Well, the best way to realize it is to have an experience of it, but IMO it can also be understood intuitively and even logically (which @Leo Gura may disagree with?), but what enlightenment is, is that you basically eliminate all the things that appear in consciousness, all reactions, concepts, and by that eventually sensations too - what then is left is that pure awareness which was always there. The "content" of consciousness is revealed to be nothing. When one gets there, one could realize that that awareness can't be eliminated, because it is just now. That's what it comes down to; now. Take it away, and it would still be now. Now can't be eliminated. It is always now. I'm recognizing it's extremely hard to explain, but I tried.

So what do you think «unconsciousness» is like, referring to my post? Maybe it helps to ask how there could not be conscousness, rather than how it could be.

Because you can't be conscious of being unconscious; maybe the most simple of the explanations What do you think «no consciousness» is like? It won't be experienced, and that's the point. If there is such a thing that we could call time, infinite time = zero in unconsciousness. But if infinite time = 0, what happens afterwards? So, there's another paradox. Even at the time I «followed» some materialistic atheists, this was the thing I disagreed with them about the most. Even if there was such a thing as death, time doesn't pass for the dead ones. The aliveness will always be there, cuz if it isn't, the experience wouldn't be there. And that's not, eh... sustainable... could be the word. It is always now, cuz if it wasn't, it is not now. Or, think of it this way: what happens when you become unconscious on Earth? Experientially you wake up immediately after, because only the time before and after is the now in experience. The time in between is not now. This logic doesn't explain reality, but how I see it it explains why there is anything at all, why there is consciousness.

Pretty much in the same boat. Am in my 2nd semester of a bcs in physics, and starting to doubt whether I really want this... but as now there's not really any other alternative for me. There are many paths I could resonate with to some extend. Now I'm trying physics, and it's hard. But now that I've chosen it I think I should finish the degree to get a bigger picture of the subject. I think the first semesters are the most theoretical and unmotivating ones, anyway, whatever I do I could regret. Dabbling around with a debt over my head without a plan is risky... anyway, one positive thing is that what you're doing is hard - which is good training. No matter what you do there could be some resistence, because everywhere in life there will be moments where you have to do things that aren't the most authentic, even in your most authentic field of mastery. I will probably do these three years in uni, and use the time to really think about what I want. And there are some important universal skills in physics - like problem solving, important for the future. Also, in times of uncertainty and resistence, I think that could be a great opportunity to practice unconditional happiness - trying to see every moment for what it is - we're not starving, we have shelter, trying to stay really present. If you could be happy in these circumstances, there would later be nothing to fear, you could go pursue whatever you dream of, all in, cuz you know you are happy no matter what happens to you ;). Not saying it's easy, but the truth is we have all we really need, and consciousness in of itself is amazing. Just being conscious of this opportunity, and practicing it I don't think is a dumb thing.

If you watch Leo's video The Deep Problem Of Marketing, one could see some of the logic of this decision. Great insights don't come to you on a silver platter or spoon, you have to go out of you way to find them. And I don't think reputation has way too much to do with quality of a post + I suspect a lot of the reason why trolls troll is to get that dopamin hit of reputation points now and then, just a guess.

I'm curious to what you regard to make it certain without reasonable doubt that the global warming that happens today is mainly caused by humans. What would you regard as compelling evidence for this? Given that 97 percent of all actively publishing climate scientist all over the world agree: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/