What Is Prediction?

[Scholar]

I can't get my head around this.

Why can we predict anything? 

 

So, Leo sits in a room, and looks at some of his psychedelics. He then thinks "Oh look, psychedelics, if I pick it up and put it in my mouth I will have an expirience of the absolute!", and he does it, and it happens.

Yet, once it happens, the entirety of what he thought is revealed as an illusion. What is illusion then, if it can predict? Why does there seem to be a mechanism that can explain anything. The problem is that even prediction itself will be revealed as illusiory, but yet it worked! And then he claims to be god, to be infinite, to be the absolute, but even that he was able to predict!

What's worse, using this illusiory tool, we can predict all of the minds actions! We can predict when enlightenment happens, we can predict what the resulting statements of the subject being enlightened will be, we can predict it all! But yet, prediction is illusiory...

 

Why can I create an illusiory map of the entirety of my reality, and then use it to predict what will happen when I take certain illusiory actions? Why can I explain what enlightenment is, outside of the expirience itself? What is the explanation? It's illusiory, it's not what really is happening, but yet it's describing something?

 

I mean, I can even predict that all of this prediction nonsense will seem completely illusiory to me once I take 5-meo-dmt! How?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[electroBeam]

@Scholar its that epistemic connection between a thought, and what it points to which is the real fascinating part about consistency and illusion, and its relation to god.

But don't forget though, the mechanism of prediction only works in illusion. You cannot predict god.

Yes you can predict that psychedelics are going to give you ego death. But psychedelic, and ego death is a concept. The actual experience is infinitely far away to what you have predicted. You have predicted a concept you call ego death, what actually happened cannot be spoken. Even happened is a concept. 

Really when you inquire and investigate, and you feel the experiential the lack of free will an ego has, you realize that prediction is just as illusory as free will. The prediction already happened before it was predicted in a sense. Its hard to communicate that fact without giving him a taste of non duality though.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@Scholar its that epistemic connection between a thought, and what it points to which is the real fascinating part about consistency and illusion, and its relation to god.

But don't forget though, the mechanism of prediction only works in illusion. You cannot predict god.

Yes you can predict that psychedelics are going to give you ego death. But psychedelic, and ego death is a concept. The actual experience is infinitely far away to what you have predicted. You have predicted a concept you call ego death, what actually happened cannot be spoken. Even happened is a concept. 

Really when you inquire and investigate, and you feel the experiential the lack of free will an ego has, you realize that prediction is just as illusory as free will. The prediction already happened before it was predicted in a sense. Its hard to communicate that fact without giving him a taste of non duality though.

Yes, but I can explain it all. I can explain why it is infinitely far awy from what I predicted. I can create concepts that explain the entirety of enlightenment in a perfectly predictable and rational way. Why is that?

I can explain what non-duality is, and I can explain perfectly why it is happening when taking psychedelics or doing meditation. I can even explain why people who expirience it was so certain of it. Yet, all of the explanation is itself in this illusion! So, the explanations are not real, just as no explanation is real. The words you use are complete and utter nonsense when in the state of non duality. It's not god, it's not anything, because it is beyond thought. And I can perfectly explain why it is beyond thought.

But yet, I know that it is creating thought. How is that possible? I know the explanation is illusiory, it must be, because that's part of the explanation. But then, what is the explanation really?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Dingus said:

What makes you so sure we can?

(this is not a frivolous question and certainly not a trivial one, it's well worth contemplating at length)

Nothing, it seems to be that way though, doesn't it? It seems like I can't be sure of anything at all, but even that seems to be not sure. I can take a pencil and say that it will fall once I let it go, and it will.

[electroBeam]

@Scholar it comes down to awareness. 

It comes down to that mechanism, which allows one to get sucked into movies and books and games, even if they aren't real.

Its involves that mechanism that allows us to zoom in and out of identification which allows us to explain things and predict things in this way.

This is when you shall take @Dingus advice, and contemplate. Because no thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, electroBeam said:

@Scholar it comes down to awareness. 

It comes down to that mechanism, which allows one to get sucked into movies and books and games, even if they aren't real.

Its involves that mechanism that allows us to zoom in and out of identification which allows us to explain things and predict things in this way.

This is when you shall take @Dingus advice, and contemplate. Because no thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality

I know though, but the problem is, I can explain why no thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality. This is the very problem I am talking about! See, you think "No thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality", and that is a thought! So, what does it explain?

You say "It comes down to mechanism which allows...", which is a thought aswell. You say "it involves.." which is a thought aswell! All illusiory, yet you claim it to be true?

Coming down to awareness is a thought aswell. It's a prediction itself!

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[electroBeam]

@Scholar yes I realize. You're asking, what is the connection between the map of reality, and reality itself. 

You're asking, how can "No Thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality" that explain something, and be useful in the real world, as in the actual real world, the present moment.

And the answer is a very profound one. And it involves that mechanism that allows one to identify with thoughts  There's something special to it, that you might be missing.

[Scholar]

Just now, Dingus said:

Yes it seems that way, but as you should know, nothing is what it seems (nor is it not).

Your question was "What is prediction?", and I'm saying that maybe it's not what it seems.

 

When that pencil is on the floor, how do you know that you had it in your hand and then you dropped it?

Go at it from every angle, but don't expect to come up with a final answer.

"My job is not to answer your questions, but to question your answers." -- Adyashanti

(Adyashanti is wrong by the way... that's not his job, it's yours ).

 

How do I know that though? Maybe everything is exactly what it seems!

The problem is, as I said, that I already know, I can already predict, where this questioning will lead me!

2 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@Scholar yes I realize. You're asking, what is the connection between the map of reality, and reality itself. 

You're asking, how can "No Thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality" that explain something, and be useful in the real world, as in the actual real world, the present moment.

And the answer is a very profound one. And it involves that mechanism that allows one to identify with thoughts  There's something special to it, that you might be missing.

See, you are still using the system of prediction to explain things. What is even a mechanism? What is identity? What is thought? It all makes no sense because it can be revealed as an illusion, yet you use these tools to create a sense of truth! You still talk, yet it can be revealed that all talk is illusion. All concept a mere fabrication. Not just the concepts that you like and don't like, that seem true and don't seem true, but all of them, without a single exception.

1 minute ago, Dingus said:

@Scholar Here's more fun to contemplate:

You assume that you're part of other people's experience of reality, but how do you know that you are?

Also, how do you know that the things you see yourself doing are seen by others?

And the most fun one: How do you know that others don't see you doing stuff that you never see yourself doing?

Why is that fun? I cannot know any of that, I never will, yet "we" all still do it. It doesn't seem to matter in this discussion at all.

This is the very problem I am talking about. I cannot know anything, yet, what I claim to know might be the complete truth! I cannot even know that, so it's circlejerk, that will lead me to just accept everything as it is. I can predict that, and I cannot even know if I predicted it!

[electroBeam]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The problem is, as I said, that I already know, I can already predict, where this questioning will lead me!

dude! Don't you see that "I can predict" is merely illusion? 

What if the world was created by aliens 2 seconds ago, and your memories and brain was created 1 second ago by these aliens. Is that possible based on experience? I think it is. You have no empirical proof that, that didn't happen. If that happened isn't it clear to you that prediction might be merely an illusion, and question does matter?

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

See, you are still using the system of prediction to explain things. What is even a mechanism? What is identity? What is thought? It all makes no sense because it can be revealed as an illusion, yet you use these tools to create a sense of truth!

How does one show you the matrix is an illusion without going into it?

[Scholar]

I don't get it. How can you do anything without having a position? Why is Leo making videos if he has no clear positions. He thinks people are watching the videos, he thinks he is helping people, he has the position that anything outside of him exists.

Just as all of you do, and me. Every thought needs positions, otherwise the thought wouldn't even come to be. Why would it? 

 

What if some positions are just true, and others are not? That might be the case, and it seems to be the case from my perspective. I can never know, so it's like a lottery.

 

Just right now you assume that I do not understand. That is a position. Maybe you are reading the words of god, right now. You seem to be farely certain that they are not, why is that? Just look at your own actions, at Leo's actions, at my actions. We all hold positions, always, at all times, it seems. Even this is a position. 

Why would you do anything, if you do not hold the uncertain position that any other moment will exist? If you are not certain that the next moment exists, why would you initiate any actions? It makes no sense to do that without a certainity that "future" will come, on a fundamental level.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[zazed]

Who is it again that is predicting things?
Who is it again that has a stance or position?
Who is it  that has a perspective?

The self/brain/mind can think, and through mind can understand concepts. It can make calculated predictions based on past experiences.
But it doesn't mean anything. By making predictions you are living in the past and future as a separate self. You are going away from enlightenment.

Consciousness doesn't make predictions. These predictions are irrelevant to it, just something it happens to perceive.
Additionally, if consciousness were to identify with your predictions, it would self-identify as @Scholar. Which seems what is happening here.
The predictions of @Scholar, of @zazed of @Dingus and @electroBeam all have equal and zero value for "your" consciousness. 
You are mistaken the dreamt for the dreamer.

 

In this sense, your predictions from your self can be accurate. They can be a valuable tool in life, to do a job and earn an income.
But they are not related to consciousness in a 1 on 1 manner, what you are, is what is perceiving them, not what is thinking them.

[electroBeam]

@Scholar short answer: the reason why you can predict things is because you think you can.

If you didn't think so, then no one wouldn't

Asking why we can predict things is like asking why a certain painting is ugly. The answer is because you think so. Its purely subjective.

This wont make sense until you ACTUALLY view it from the present moment.

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, zazed said:

Who is it again that is predicting things?
Who is it again that has a stance or position?
Who is it  that has a perspective?

The self/brain/mind can think, and through mind can understand concepts. It can make calculated predictions based on past experiences.
But it doesn't mean anything. By making predictions you are living in the past and future as a separate self. You are going away from enlightenment.

Consciousness doesn't make predictions. These predictions are irrelevant to it, just something it happens to perceive.
Additionally, if consciousness were to identify with your predictions, it would self-identify as @Scholar. Which seems what is happening here.
The predictions of @Scholar, of @zazed of @Dingus and @electroBeam all have equal and zero value for "your" consciousness. 
You are mistaken the dreamt for the dreamer.

 

In this sense, your predictions from your self can be accurate. They can be a valuable tool in life, to do a job and earn an income.
But they are not related to consciousness in a 1 on 1 manner, what you are, is what is perceiving them, not what is thinking them.

But all of this is conceptualizing. Everything you say is concept, all of it. What else would it be? But you claim it to be true, you really belief that it is true. You are completely certain of it. "Consciousness doesn't make predictions" is itself a prediction. What if it decides to just do it? You are farely certain that it will not, which means you are using the tool of prediction yourself. Yet, you say it's illusiory.

But to say it's illusiory, you need to use it yourself!

Do you understand what I mean?

 

I am having this problem, because as I said, I can create a model that explains to me what enlightenment is, and why people are so certain of it when they expirience it. 

3 minutes ago, Dingus said:

You CAN know, it's not random. Positions are relative, truth is absolute. Bam, problem solved. Start questioning your answers!

I can explain why Dingus is saying this. Why he can be so absolutely certain of it. Yet, I "know" the explanation is not what really is happening, but it seems to create something that is there.

 

2 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@Scholar short answer: the reason why you can predict things is because you think you can.

If you didn't think so, then no one wouldn't

Asking why we can predict things is like asking why a certain painting is ugly. The answer is because you think so. Its purely subjective.

This wont make sense until you ACTUALLY view it from the present moment.

How can you not see the irony of what you are doing? You are using the very tool of prediction to predict why prediction is not real...

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[Principium Nexus]

As long as you believe the predictions reflect your actual reality, they will hold true as a genuine interpretation of what you think that happens. Believing is experiencing, you change your mindset. Still those believes can be far from the truth but be experienced as 'real' expectations.

[electroBeam]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You are using the very tool of prediction to predict why prediction is not real

How are you so sure that electrobeam is not a hologram in your mind, a mere illusion, a tool to help you keep put in your views?

How are you so sure that purely subjective interpretations that you have gotten from reading these pixels on the screen are implying that i am predicting something?

Maybe you are interpeting these words in your mind in such a way as to firmly give yourself a reason to be dogmatic and not contemplate?

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Principium Nexus said:

As long as you believe the predictions reflect your actual reality, they will hold true as a genuine interpretation of what you think that happens. Believing is experiencing, you change your mindset. Still those believes can be far from the truth but be experienced as 'real' expectations.

I don't seem to believe that the predictions reflect my reality. There is a position that the predictions are part of reality, or "my" reality, which is reality itself, because literally everything I expirience is all of reality that I have access to, it seems?

I know the map is not the territory, but the map seems to be pointing to something. Now I have a decision to make, I can either decide that the map is the territory, that "my" reality is all that exists because everything else is inaccessable in an absolute way (otherwise it would be part of my reality) or I can assume that there is an inaccessable reality that is beyond my reality, that this reality cannot access whatsoever.

And that inaccessable reality is something interacting with mine, in a way that I can create a map of it. See, but I just created a map of the map of the territory? And even this is another map, everything is.

But some maps just seem to work. If I gauge my eyes out, I am farely certain that I will lose my eyesight. Yet, I cannot know, and I will not know until I try. But what does that mean? The assumption about it exists, and the assumption is never truly what is happening. But, from the assumptions perspective, once taking the actions within that assumption, the assumption will come true.

So the map works as a map, and everything I "do" is happening on the map. This is all there is, the map is reality, atleast from my perspective.

But as I said, all of this is just another map. But yet, it can explain all of enlightenment and all the assumptions and beliefs that result in it. It's not true because it's just a map, but yet, it works?

 

4 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

How are you so sure that electrobeam is not a hologram in your mind, a mere illusion, a tool to help you keep put in your views?

How are you so sure that purely subjective interpretations that you have gotten from reading these pixels on the screen are implying that i am predicting something?

Maybe you are interpeting these words in your mind in such a way as to firmly give yourself a reason to be dogmatic and not contemplate?

To even form any of those questions needs a hideous amount of ungrounded assumptions and positions. Is the conclusion that some positions just have to be taken to be able to do anything?

[zazed]

Just now, Scholar said:

"Consciousness doesn't make predictions" is itself a prediction.

How can "being" make predictions? Well, being is just being, it takes no effort, you already are doing it.
To be enlightened, means to just let go of all these idea's and thoughts, and if they are gone, the only thing left is being, which you already are.
It's not conceptual, you just need to look to see this.

What i was pointing out, is that the human thoughts can never bring consciousness. You think you are this @Scholar person, but you are as much @zazed as well. The only difference, is you don't see my thoughts, and if you would, you would wrongly identify as @zazed. Your predictions, my predictions, they have equal value to consciousness, because you are not @Scholar at all. You just think you are. But what you are is just being and awareness of mainly you.

As long as you think you are @Scholar trying to find enlightenment, you will never find it. Because you are enlightenment that has mistakenly identified with @Scholar. You need to let go of @Scholar as an entity, and just become being itself, now. The self can never be enlightened, because it is an illusion that does not exist.

Rupert Spira described it as follows. You are a TV screen upon which a movie of @Scholar and @zazed and @electroBeam and @Dingus is playing. You are none of these But you think you are scholar trying to understand how to become a TV screen. The person scholar in the movie can never become a tv screen, and the tv screen never was scholar to begin with. So you always were the TV screen, you can only ever be the tv screen. And the thoughts scholar has, are just projections on the same screen, because of this they are not you. 

If you are being Now, which is what enlightenment is, there are no thoughts. There is no future, there is no past. There is just perception of everything. Why would it even want to make a prediction, it already has everything it needs.


 

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But you claim it to be true, you really belief that it is true.

you are right in part. It is a strong belief based on learning in one part, and watching Rupert Spira, Paul Hedderman, Mooji and many others. I have also done psychedelics twice, but can't get any DMT  .
But i also have been able to just sit and become being many times now. And it is a wonderful experience in which i cease to exist, together with all my worries and problems, together with the concept/idea of time.

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, zazed said:

How can "being" make predictions? Well, being is just being, it takes no effort, you already are doing it.
To be enlightened, means to just let go of all these idea's and thoughts, and if they are gone, the only thing left is being, which you already are.
It's not conceptual, you just need to look to see this.

What i was pointing out, is that the human thoughts can never bring consciousness. You think you are this @Scholar person, but you are as much @zazed as well. The only difference, is you don't see my thoughts, and if you would, you would wrongly identify as @zazed. Your predictions, my predictions, they have equal value to consciousness, because you are not @Scholar at all. You just think you are. But what you are is just being and awareness of mainly you.

As long as you think you are @Scholar trying to find enlightenment, you will never find it. Because you are enlightenment that has mistakenly identified with @Scholar. You need to let go of @Scholar as an entity, and just become being itself, now. The self can never be enlightened, because it is an illusion that does not exist.

Rupert Spira described it as follows. You are a TV screen upon which a movie of @Scholar and @zazed and @electroBeam and @Dingus is playing. You are none of these But you think you are scholar trying to understand how to become a TV screen. The person scholar in the movie can never become a tv screen, and the tv screen never was scholar to begin with. So you always were the TV screen, you can only ever be the tv screen. And the thoughts scholar has, are just projections on the same screen, because of this they are not you. 

If you are being Now, which is what enlightenment is, there are no thoughts. There is no future, there is no past. There is just perception of everything. Why would it even want to make a prediction, it already has everything it needs.


 

you are right in part. It is a strong belief based on learning in one part, and watching Rupert Spira, Paul Hedderman, Mooji and many others. I have also done psychedelics twice, but can't get any DMT  .
But i also have been able to just sit and become being many times now. And it is a wonderful experience in which i cease to exist, together with all my worries and problems, together with the concept/idea of time.

This is what's confusing. Enlightenment is beyond thought, yet people who claim to be enlightenment think all sorts of beliefs and assumptions. If they just are, how can they be god, or infinite, or consciousness? All of that is concept, but they cling to it so desperately. None of them can just be, it seems, they all want to be "everything, consciousness, the absolute". But if they just are, they just are. They aren't any of these things because all of them are thoughts. It seems to me like there is this weird trick the mind plays. It's like "This is just being, but oh god, this is god! This is infinite, it's all, bla bla bla!", and they are so absolutely certain of it. But it's still the monkey talking, the monkey being the monkey. How can being be anything but being?

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Dingus said:

Yes! and it's not the monkey that gets enlightened.

 

So, why am I listening to the talk? The talk is not enlightenment, it's monkeyism, isn't it? So, maybe from the being perspective, you just let the monkey do whatever it wants, resulting in the monkey crying out it's god, infinite, consciousness and whatever? Because being is always being, isn't it? So all that changes it seems, is the monkeys talk.

 

Here it comes back to the whole predictions thingy though. Consciousness does not change no matter what the mind is doing. Yet, with the model of the brain, some day (even today), we can create an enlightenment expirience within a few seconds. It's a change in the mind, or if we look at it with the scientific model, a change in the brain. So, the change in the brain doesn't change anything about "being", does it? Yet, the mind, the brain, is what is claiming to be being. But it's not, it never will be.

So what's the point?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Dingus said:

 

Something like that, or if you're lucky you'll just shut up about it and go about your business.

 

Yep, but not just the monkey talk, also the mechanism that gives rise to the monkey talk. That's where the transformation takes place, and that's why the monkey talk changes. (note that the monkey will try to become enlightened by changing its own monkey talk, but as you can see that is backwards and doesn't work).

And this is also why all this monkey talk still won't get you anywhere. The only thing that will get you anywhere is the transformation itself. And even that's not true although it certainly seems that way.

 

I guess it makes sense now. But why is that? Why can it make sense? Why can there be a model that seems to correspond to what is happening? Yes, it's not really what is happening, but there seems to be this... I don't know how to describe it. As I said, why can we make models and predictions of something that is not model and prediction?

Are we just overcomplicating things? Maybe there are parts to reality that are just conceptual, and other parts that are completely beyond it?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Scholar