Defining Thoughts. What Is Map And What Is Territory?

[Neo]

Quote

I think there will come a point (if it hasn't come already) where we can't get the answers we seem so desperate to find. We are just a biological entity, a part of reality itself, trying to analyse reality itself from the confines of our biological being. There are limits to that. Limits we seem to be ignorant of.

Wouldn't it be interesting if already we've reached that point, where questions cannot be answered. I often ponder the famous two slit experiment, where if it is being observed (with a detector), acts as a particle and when not observed as a wave. Maybe there is something in the greater consciousness which explains this?

[Electron]

@FindingPeace Quantum mechanics is already being used in today's tech and its probably the best advancement in the entire history of physics. I don't know what documentary you saw, but to be clear, most scientists are aware of the insufficiency of the concept or theory underlining the math. Theories are just used as a way to comprehend the relationships b/w the events as described by the math unlike the good old days when physics was mainly guided by theories and philosophies and then the associated math was described. Models are a way to grasp the math, but nonetheless, the math is the real deal. Physicists are completely aware that the models are futile and imperfect and mere stories in their minds. Also, there can be at times, many models to conceive the same math. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Electron

[FindingPeace]

@Electron I'm not saying that quantum physics doesn't work. Most of our science 'works' and becomes useful to us. All I am saying is that we think that our models and theories provide evidence of the truth of reality when really we cannot make that assumption at all. Our models are just models. They predict the outcomes of specific circumstances. What science is doing is finding ways to predict the cause-and-effect nature of existance but it isn't explaining existence itself.

We can observe the causes and effects of perceived nature but we can't see the mechanisms that operate in between. We can only construct models that explain the behaviours of the mechanisms. So in this sense, we are not really learning about the fabric of reality. Just rearranging ideas and concepts until they provide a viable representation of it.

[Electron]

@FindingPeace Ya this indeed is the case. If you think about it, we can only possibly answer questions like "how" & "why" in science. As soon as you try to question "what" the answers simply break down to a label and can't be questioned any further without getting more labels as answers. The problem is most people accept that label as an answer to "what" when in fact there is no answer. Things just are. 

Also, scientists live for knowing about the world around them. If they accept that there is no point in knowing, and realize that only being is important, why the hell will they know? So in a sense they kinda need to be ignorant of the possibility that they might not be really knowing the reality but playing with a bunch of models about the reality.

[Galyna]

@FindingPeace

Thank you very much for your structured and detailed response. Let me ponder about your words for a while. I will hold on to your idea and will get back to this matter in a few days.

I do appreciate your time and prompt assistance. It is very interesting to read all your view points. Really!

I absolutely agree with you, however  I still feel inferior toward science and very excited to discover new things. Maybe they are not capable to manifest the Truth yet,  but still human society made a huge progress within the last century and we can not deny this fact for sure. Only this fact that we are separated by the ocean and still can communicate without any borders, makes me feel very humble toward these people.

Thank you.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Galyna

[cetus]

@Neo I often wonder how many other dimensions have influence over this 3rd+T.  Also, how much influence does consciousness have over the outcome of an experiment? Could conscious awareness play a role in the research happening at CERN as far as waves vs particles and their interaction with different dimensions?

[Costa]

 

17 hours ago, Galyna said:

@Costa

 "because we know that the world extends beyond our perception" - we do not know this, that is the point. 

just in the previous post you speak abou science, beyond your direct perception  i dont think i understand what you mean.

To say that the world is just our direct perception is just playing with words, because the next second everybody talks about something someone else experienced.  like you just did. 

[Costa]

10 hours ago, FindingPeace said:

"We can't see atoms and sub-atomic 'particles'. Or energy fields, or photons, or em radiation. Or strings or quarks. We can only theorise about and model these things. We don't even know what they are or even that they really exist. Afterall, they are only a part of the illusion of our interpretation of reality."

"I watched a few tv documentaries recently about quantum science. It makes me laugh. "

this is a real image of an atom wave function from 2013, they utilized a new quantum microscope.

not the real atom because at the moment it is not possible to do that, but it exists. 

 

Quote

 

[Costa]

@Galyna @FindingPeace

I think there is a real problem here, because people are talking about science, and especially quantum mechanics which is very hard to understand. 

But they say " i saw a few documentaries". 

I saw thousands of hours of science content. Hundreds about quantum mechanics, and General Relativity. 

All the top scientists say and agree than reality is mutch beyond our perception! this is quantum mechanics, and General Relativity!

The models are used to understand it within the LIMITS OF OUR PERCEPTION. 

QUANTUM MECHANICS AND MOST OTHER "MODELS" HAVE PRACTICAL USE IN TODAY'S TECHNOLOGIES.

Most documentaries use language for ignorant people like us, so that we can understand something. Do not think you understand something because you watched some program about it.

TOP PEOPLE FROM ALL AREAS SAY THE SAME THINGS WE SAY HERE ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY. (actualy mutch better things, we are like children when compared to some people)

You find them funny? :) I find funny that people is some forum on the internet make fun of some of the most brilliant minds of all time!  

And speak like they understand them  

You see this ego response?  i watch myself write this, and i will not stop it from sending  

I do not think this is the right forum for me. 

 

(english is not my first language, sorry if i misspelled something)

 

 

 

 

 

[FindingPeace]

@Costa

You are right that people can't watch a few lame tv documentaries and pretend to know anything about the subject. Noone here is actually doing that. I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I am not making fun of science. Sure, it makes me laugh, because at times I can see the futility and neuroticism of it. My relationship with science goes way back. As a child I wanted to know how everything worked - including the universe. I have always questioned everything and I still do. Science was where I looked for answers, it seemed to make the most sense. Physics and maths were my best subjects at school and led me to study degree level electronic engineering. Yes, we touched upon quantum phsyics in that, but that's not really what this is about.

I had an epiphany one day while sitting in a lecture about analogue filter circuits. As the lecturer described the mathematical models that could be used to design and predict the behaviour of a circuit I tried to sit there and imagine how the circuit actually worked. How, when you have hundreds of frequencies oscilating around in a wire, you can isolate an idividual one. Tried to visualise those electrons moving around, oscillating back and forth through inductors and capacitors. But it occured to me that not only could I not visualize how it physically worked, but it wasn't even explained to us because...well..here's the maths...that's all you need to know. Noone cares how it works, they just care the the maths explains that it does. Which to me is a massive blindspot. Sure we can design and build working technology based on these calculations but noone tries to understand the mechanics of what is really going on in those wires. To even ask the question is met with a look like you have two heads.

So what I am getting at with the science thing, is that we base a lot of science on models and maths that only explain the behaviour of reality and not the real-world mechanisms at play. It seems to me that if we get a better handle on the mechanisms then perhaps we will get better understandings of the bigger picture. We're not really exploring the nature of the fabric of reality, we are only findng ways to describe the behaviour of it. It just seems like a huge blindspot that we ignore, because, well, we can't actually see it even if we wanted to.

Your picture of the atom above is not a picture of an atom. It is an image representative of an atom, caused by what we think is an atom, but it isn't the atom itself. You even stated this:

12 hours ago, Costa said:

this is a real image of an atom

 

12 hours ago, Costa said:

not the real atom because at the moment it is not possible to do that

This is the point. Science isn't as empirical as we think it is, but more an approximation. Because, as yet, we haven't been able to directly experience the fabric of reality, and it's entirely possible that we never will. Models will have to suffice.

12 hours ago, Costa said:

You see this ego response?  i watch myself write this, and i will not stop it from sending  

I do not think this is the right forum for me. 

The point of this forum is to exchange ideas. We're not here to be dogmatic. Sure, we don't all agree but that's the nature of it. It's no biggy. Don't give up on the forum, stick around, your input is valuable.

[Costa]

@FindingPeace you made some editing, I said atom wave, not just atom.

We can never see pass a certain small point because the light wave is bigger than that thing we are trying to see.  So we can't see with our eyes but we can fire particles against it and get a reading. This is not some fantasy image, it's a computer image. This is absolutely amazing, but for you is not enough. You must have all the answers now and with self development people say " this is reality" and that is that! And you find this to be suficient. 

The good thing about science is that all must br proved. So they don't make afirmations like we make here and then think we know something about reality. 

And this is were I agree with you, our perception may never give us the possibility of truly knowing reality, just an aproximation. And that is all we can do. Yet... this is what we can do at the present moment, the future is impossible to know. Impossible. 

[Purple Jay]

On 3/9/2016 at 11:08 AM, FindingPeace said:

I watched a few tv documentaries recently about quantum science. It makes me laugh. Scientists arguing over the theories and models that may or may not prove that something may or may not exist and how it might work.

Yeah cause even if they found out how it works it just doesn't matter. I mean, why would anyone care? Let's say we discovered that the world is made up of "whatever". Big woop. Now we think we know the secret of the universe but we're still suffering and we still don't understand anything about our own psychology. ^~^

[Emerald]

Thoughts are real but the content of the thought is not. A thought is a sensation that carries a particular type of content. The issue with thoughts is that we get caught in the content like a fly caught in a spider web. We get too involved with it... we judge it, we identify with it, we agree/disagree with it, etc. Our human experience is comprised of six things within the field of awareness: thoughts, sights, sounds, sensations, tastes, and smells. There is also pure awareness but that awareness can't be aware of itself. 

So, thoughts are one of the pillars of our subjective reality. They are real, but the content is not. You are not your thoughts. You do not control your thoughts. You do no cause your thoughts. You cannot steer your thoughts in any direction. You are not responsible for thinking. You are not a thinker. Thoughts just arise within the field of awareness. You have as little control over thoughts as you have over the contents of your visual field or any other sensation. So, an important step toward enlightenment is to truly disidentify with thoughts.

[Costa]

@Purple Jay

6 hours ago, Purple Jay said:

Yeah cause even if they found out how it works it just doesn't matter. I mean, why would anyone care? Let's say we discovered that the world is made up of "whatever". Big woop. Now we think we know the secret of the universe but we're still suffering and we still don't understand anything about our own psychology. ^~^

This is the kind of thinking that gets humans to the dark ages.

When they were inventing the technologies that allow you to write this very words on a computer someone like you was saying  "who cares about this"

Electricity who cares... engineering who cares... physics... etc etc who cares... 

I just tell i don´t care while i live in my engineered building, using electrycity and physics all the time with my gadgets, my microowave, my television ...........

why would anyone care? seriously? 

advice: see the new series COSMOS with Neil deGrasse Tyson, all of it. Then you will understand, and you will never say anything like this again. 

( if you did see it already i give up)

 

 

[Guest]

On 2016/3/9 at 11:43 AM, Galyna said:

@Costa

 "because we know that the world extends beyond our perception" - we do not know this, that is the point. 

Depends what you consider yourself to be. If you consider yourself to be the body, then you are right, and we cannot know that the world extends beyond our perception.

Most people get stuck on this point in my opinion, by thinking that there is only perception and experience of the now, nothing else exists outside of our perception.

Is this not a fallacy of identifying with the body? Your perceptions are for all intents and purposes just spontaneously arising. But this is not you. How could it be? WHen we say the world "exists", it doesn't exist like you are thinking it does, i.e. in this form. This form neither does nor doesn't exist. It just is. Just like the body that you are experiencing things through. It is just blank essence. But that doesn't mean that the world doesn't extend beyond our perceptions at all. In fact, what it says is that our perceptions themselves are that blank essence. In other words, all form is empty. Your body and everyone else just is. There is neither meaning nor meaninglessness.

The problem is that you are breaking down everything with logic, there is no heart there, and that is what is missing from your equation.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by TwoDays

[Extreme Z7]

On 3/11/2016 at 8:03 AM, Costa said:

@Purple Jay

This is the kind of thinking that gets humans to the dark ages.

When they were inventing the technologies that allow you to write this very words on a computer someone like you was saying  "who cares about this"

Actually, that's a very backwards view of psychology. If you know anything about Claire Graves model of psychological development, the majority of people in society are in "orange stage" also known as "materialistic". What Purple Jay advocated in his reply was to stop caring about the external/material world.

You say that that kind of thinking would put as back to worse times but actually it's the exact opposite! In order to advance to the next stage of psychological development, we need more people to recognize that external and material gains will never make one happy. Ultimately, science can create all the technology you want to improve your life but it will ultimately lead to an unfulfilled life. The next stage is "green stage" or "personalistic". At this stage people care about other people and how to improve everyone's lives particularly through the help of good understanding with psychology.

On 3/11/2016 at 8:03 AM, Costa said:

Electricity who cares... engineering who cares... physics... etc etc who cares... 

I just tell i don´t care while i live in my engineered building, using electrycity and physics all the time with my gadgets, my microowave, my television ..........

Do you see the absolutely absurd way you aggrandize all those external and material objects in your possession? To somebody actually advanced in higher stages of psychological development than the "orange materialistic stage", this actually very ridiculous and quite ignorant. It's an ass-backwards way of valuing life. (I would actually be very interested if Leo made a video on "How to Properly Value Life")

Here's an article summarizing Claire Grave's model of Psychological Development: http://vievolve.com/values-systems-4/

And here's a video made by Leo explaining it in detail:

 

[Leo Gura]

On 3/7/2016 at 5:30 PM, Galyna said:

But can we really separate Reality from observer? @Costa

I do not think so....Reality does not exist without observer. 

The distinction between reality/observer is false. That's what ego is. A boundary which does not exist.

[Costa]

@Extreme Z7 do you think before you write? You post me a video? graves model? I have seen 100% of Leo's videos on youtube. 

You are very right, like a parrot. Everything you said is there, except you do not know the meaning of the terms used. I talk about the development of science and you confuse that with material possessions? Hahaha 

I was talking about humanity, not MY LIFE.

Of course If you were not just a parrot you would understand this without difficulty.  

Don't reply, because more parroting will not help this matter. 

[Costa]

@TwoDays i understand what you mean, but in this forum we are reduced to this logic and reasoning because what you are talking about can't realy be communicated by words/normal language, because words have diferent meanings to diferent people. 

I consider this to be a problem in this forum. 

[Costa]

@Emerald Wilkins there are more senses than those you stated. 

Balance, warm/cold, pain, the way you can locate things with your eyes closed ... etc look it up. It is interesting.