The egg experiment

[Salcedoop]

17 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Sometimes I am just astound by hos many crazy people are out there haha. The internet is a weird place. I think I'm starting to get a kick out of messing with their beliefs. I should be careful here, could create an eggo. 

hey bud, seems like you take pleasure in stepping on other's gardens. that's fun, we all go through that...  usually it's how we spend our time while our own garden is either drought, non-existent, destroyed or abandoned. I hope you may go back and grow it again, meanwhile have fun, just remember to always pick on someone your own size! n_n 

[Salcedoop]

@Rilles rofl family guy

[luckieluuke]

5 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

If the egg would only consist out of matter, or consciousness, or absolute infinity, it would exist upon itself. Because then it is not dependent upon something else to be perceived.

Help me understand: It seemss quite different saying that the egg consists out of matter or consciousness:

1. If the egg consists of consciousness it would exists upon itself
2. If the egg consists of matter it would exist upon itself

How are these the same? I feel like that goes back to the question I asked before which would be nice if you answered to understand the context: Does the brain produce consciousness or does consciousness produce the brain? Or is that up to us to decide?

Lets use No 1. consiousness:
"If the egg would only consist out of  consciousness, it would exist upon itself. Because then it is not dependent upon something else to be perceived"

How is it "proof" that if it consists out of consciousness it has to exists upon itself? To me that sounds like it is pointing towards that it it does NOT exist upon itself? Like you continue: "then it is not dependent upon something else" which points to that it is NOT seperate from consiousness. And from I understand you are trying to make the point that it DOES exist seperate from "I" or consiousness. The way I see it the egg is consiousness and me perceiving it is "real" but the egg is an illusion.

If we use No 2. Matter:
It seem like I am made out of matter and the egg out of other matter and we are seperate from eachother.

BTW thanks for the link to foundations... will give it a read

Edited September 26, 2018 by luckieluuke

[Emanyalpsid]

5 hours ago, here-now said:

@Emanyalpsid Maybe I'm mis-reading you though when you say, "Your consciousness of the egg is dependent... etc"? Maybe you mean "Your perception of the egg is dependent... etc"?

What is the difference?

[Emanyalpsid]

3 hours ago, Salcedoop said:

hey bud, seems like you take pleasure in stepping on other's gardens. that's fun, we all go through that...  usually it's how we spend our time while our own garden is either drought, non-existent, destroyed or abandoned. I hope you may go back and grow it again, meanwhile have fun, just remember to always pick on someone your own size! n_n 

Sorry, if I have offended you.

[Emanyalpsid]

54 minutes ago, luckieluuke said:

Help me understand: It seemss quite different saying that the egg consists out of matter or consciousness:

1. If the egg consists of consciousness it would exists upon itself
2. If the egg consists of matter it would exist upon itself

If the egg only consists out of consciousness, it would exist only upon consciousness. Meaning; it (consciousness) would exist upon itself (consciousness). 

If the egg only consists out of matter, it would exist only upon matter. Meaning; it(matter) would exist upon itself (matter).

You can insert any name you want here; absolute infinity, etc. Depending on how you call it. 

[Rilles]

But then what are eggs made of? Whats an egg when you remove the label of ”egg”? 

Im genuinely curious, not a trick question.

[Rilles]

That will take us down the path of an infinite regress, whats an atom made of? particles, whats a particle made of? and on we go... the question is what do all these ”materials” have in common. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Rilles

[luckieluuke]

@Emanyalpsid I see what you mean, thanks
but still my biggest question is:

Lets use No 1. consiousness:
"If the egg would only consist out of  consciousness, it would exist upon itself. Because then it is not dependent upon something else to be perceived"

How is it "proof" that if it consists out of consciousness it has to exists upon itself? To me that sounds like it is pointing towards that it it does NOT exist upon itself? Like you continue: "then it is not dependent upon something else" which points to that it is NOT seperate from consiousness. And from I understand you are trying to make the point that it DOES exist seperate from "I" or consiousness. The way I see it the egg is consiousness and me perceiving it is "real" but the egg is an illusion"

That is, experience is all that is. Everything else is an illusion including you. You might say that you doent exist or that you are everything, its just two sides of the same coin. You are God and you are nothing.
The egg is me experiencing it. Again where it comes from doesn´t matter because all that is is NOW and where it comes from is just backstory. Everything comes from big bang so in that sense we all come from the same source in a materialistic way and are all one as well.

So it would seem to me at every angle I look at it the egg is not seperate from me because it´s an illusion. As much as my Ego is an illusion. My ego is holding the egg that makes the distiction and seperates the two. But that is an illusion.
Or I might say that yes the egg is seperate from me because its an illusion and the real "i" is not. Kindof the distiction between creator and creation (but not really at the same time)

"it is not the spoon that bends" :-)

Edited September 26, 2018 by luckieluuke

[luckieluuke]

15 minutes ago, Outer said:

An infinite regress of questions but not of answers, because the evidence is that particles is the smallest.

Really? isnt it blatantly obvious that we once thought that objects were the smallest, then we invented microscopes and saw bacteria, then we saw even smaller stuff, then molecules, then electrons, then plank lenths. Do you really think we will stop there? that we say "ok everytime in history we said we found the smallest thing we were wrong, but this time we are right!!"
No my friend, the universe is infinitly small and you can keep going smaller and smaller. Or maybe science has done it! maybe there is no smaller thing to discover?! yea right...

[Emanyalpsid]

@luckieluuke I answered to the same question which you posted earlier. Did you do read it?

This was my answer. Let's say it is all created by our consciousness; for this experiment you still need an egg. Can you create the egg out of nowhere? No, so apparently your consciousness is bounded. How is it bounded? You need a chicken to lay the egg. So how is the egg created?

[Emanyalpsid]

@Rilles @Outer

Please not that there is a difference between trying to understand it and trying to understand the nature of it.

Trying to understand it; where does it come from? What is it? This is basically science and will never stop.

Trying to understand the nature of it is about; How does it come to be? What constitutes it?

Understand might also not be the best description. It is more about gaining insight; as a transcendental understanding. It transcends you and it, as you are also it.

[luckieluuke]

@Emanyalpsid Why do you assume I cannot create it out of nothing?
The egg and my body are part of big bang. Consider the possibility that what happens now can effect the past. The Universe creating itself. The egg is created so I can hold it. My body is created to hold the egg. I experience this.

You ask "....figure out if one can make a distinction between it and itself. 'It' being the universe, reality, consciousness, absolute infinity, or whatever you call it and 'itself' being the self of it"
If consciousness and absolute infinity is "it" then I´m not sure what you mean by "'itself' being the self of it"" Could you explain more?

[Emanyalpsid]

27 minutes ago, luckieluuke said:

@Emanyalpsid Why do you assume I cannot create it out of nothing?
The egg and my body are part of big bang. Consider the possibility that what happens now can effect the past. The Universe creating itself. The egg is created so I can hold it. My body is created to hold the egg. I experience this.

You ask "....figure out if one can make a distinction between it and itself. 'It' being the universe, reality, consciousness, absolute infinity, or whatever you call it and 'itself' being the self of it"
If consciousness and absolute infinity is "it" then I´m not sure what you mean by "'itself' being the self of it"" Could you explain more?

Yeah dude but where does the egg come from? Do you lay the egg? Does an elephant lay the egg? 

This is an experiential experiment, not conceptual. So don't think about it, but do it. Where do you get the egg? Maybe you have one in your refrigerator. If not, you have to go to a supermarket or to a neighbour or friend who has chickens. If you have one in your refrigerator, how did it get there?  Did you bought it in a supermarket? Where does the supermarket get their eggs? From a chicken farm. Go to the freaking chicken farm and see how a chicken lays an egg.

Don't overcomplicate things in your mind, focus on what you experience through your five senses.

The whole experiment is trying to find out if you can make this distinction. Read how 'here-now' did the experiment.

@here-now can you help me/ him here?

Edited September 26, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[abrakamowse]

20 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yeah dude but where does the egg come from? Do you lay the egg? Does an elephant lay the egg? 

This is an experiential experiment, not conceptual. So don't think about it, but do it. Where do you get the egg? Maybe you have one in your refrigerator. If not, you have to go to a supermarket or to a neighbour or friend who has chickens. If you have one in your refrigerator, how did it get there?  Did you bought it in a supermarket? Where does the supermarket get their eggs? From a chicken farm. Go to the freaking chicken farm and see how a chicken lays an egg.

Don't overcomplicate things in your mind, focus on what you experience through your five senses.

The whole experiment is trying to find out if you can make this distinction. Read how 'here-now' did the experiment.

@here-now can you help me/ him here?

So, your experiment is to make us believe in what our thoughts say about our senses? The idea is to believe in materialism? I don't get where you want to go with all this.

[PsiloPutty]

I get the feeling that if we reduce all this talk down, we'll find that we're all talking about the same thing. 

[Emanyalpsid]

2 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

So, your experiment is to make us believe in what our thoughts say about our senses? The idea is to believe in materialism? I don't get where you want to go with all this.

No, the experiment is about how you can see, literally, that what you experience through the senses has a nature and that this is different than the believe you have. 

[abrakamowse]

13 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

No, the experiment is about how you can see, literally, that what you experience through the senses has a nature and that this is different than the believe you have.

The problem with that is that there's not an objetive perspective. Everything you say will be relative to your point of view and beliefs. If you talk from an "ego" point of view you will see the objects with an independent nature and that they are separated and different from us. But if you see it from a more holistic perspective, you will notice that in fact that "separated nature" is just a concept. It's not true. You don't experience any object. You have "seen" something, colors, whatever... that your brain interprets as an object, but it can be anything.

But, I know what are you trying to do. Ok.

Edited September 26, 2018 by abrakamowse
grammar

[Emanyalpsid]

33 minutes ago, PsiloPutty said:

I get the feeling that if we reduce all this talk down, we'll find that we're all talking about the same thing. 

Indeed, most questions now are about understanding the experiment. But I think we covered almost all of them earlier in this topic. So I can advice the people who still have questions to read the topic again, as it is all explained really. If you don't understand the experiment after all, leave it be. 

Or do you mean in the whole topic we are all talking about the same thing? Then no.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[abrakamowse]

13 minutes ago, PsiloPutty said:

I get the feeling that if we reduce all this talk down, we'll find that we're all talking about the same thing. 

That's really very plausible....