I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[winterknight]

6 minutes ago, seeking_brilliance said:

@winterknight Thank you so much for helping to evolve the understanding of serious seekers on this forum. I am selfish and want you to keep this thread going forever! Especially as more questions arise.   So funny the mob mentality when you first opened this thread.... hopefully everyone's off topic banter on here won't get this thread closed. Please bear with us for at least a few more days, I can really sense the rise in understanding already across the forum, and my own. Conversing with you, and my guide on liberation unleashed forum, "I" had a glimspe into no-self (no thinker) the other night. I know its only the beginning, but so glad its begun. 

Oh, have you read "Butterflies are free to fly", by Stephen Davis? 

 

You're very welcome. I will try to keep the thread open for as long as I can and it seems helpful . Haven't read Butterflies are free to fly. What's it about?

5 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

That is why they seperated psychology, or the cuckoo science, from the rest of science..

Ha. Too bad academic psychology (not psychoanalysis) itself is trying so hard to be like the other sciences now.

2 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

So what is fear, existantially?

N.B - i hope i am not making you annoyed. I just want going into the core of it.

What do you mean by "existentially"? Fear is a feeling connected to an interpretation of the world. You feel fear when you feel a threat to what you think you are. 

2 minutes ago, seeking_brilliance said:

I know you aren't asking me over here, but kind of reminds me of synesthesia

Ha, yes, true.

3 minutes ago, Outer said:

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.

Ok, great. If that's true, then that means that science cannot know or access people's world models, right? Because as you say, even if it was on a screen, the scientist has their own world model, right?

[Emanyalpsid]

[Outer]

Just now, winterknight said:

Ok, great. If that's true, then that means that science cannot know or access people's world models, right? Because as you say, even if it was on a screen, the scientist has their own world model, right?

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

[winterknight]

Just now, Outer said:

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

Right, but the point is that if that's the case, then science cannot access other people's world models. As you said, you cannot know -- and no one can know -- no scientist can know -- if someone else is experiencing the color green as a binary number.

If that is the case, then science cannot account for the experiences that people have within their world models. It cannot account for it because it cannot access it.

All it has access to is brain data and words. Not the experiences that people have within their individual world models.

Correct?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

 Do you understand the idea that if, for example, someone experienced the color you see when you look at grass when they looked at a clear sky, and the color that you see when you look at a clear sky when they looked at the grass, but still called the sky "blue" and the grass "green," that science would never be able to detect this?

Be careful using the term “never”. It is a hyper-limited term. A finite mind cannot imagine what science will be expressed or discovered in the next 1,000 years. Phenomena and concepts we don’t know exist today will be revealed. Saying “never” is a huge assumption that finite minds have made throughput history. It is just a limited concept.

Reality is infinite and can do whatever it wants, including things a human mind considers “impossible”. 

It would be more accurate to say “with our current level of knowledge and how science is currently been conducted - has been unable to detect this.

[Outer]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

Right, but the point is that if that's the case, then science cannot access other people's world models. As you said, you cannot know -- and no one can know -- no scientist can know -- if someone else is experiencing the color green as a binary number.

If that is the case, then science cannot account for the experiences that people have within their world models. It cannot account for it because it cannot access it.

All it has access to is brain data and words. Not the experiences that people have within their individual world models.

Correct?

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.

[winterknight]

Just now, Outer said:

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.

Ok, but again: how would the scientist ever know whether someone else was seeing binary for green in their world model?

[Emanyalpsid]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, but again: how would the scientist ever know whether someone else was seeing binary for green in their world model?

Statistics and comparing images. Science is not 100% accurate, but we know this and accept this as there is no alternative besides religion/spirituality. And with religion/spirituality I mean believing in something without it being falsible.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Outer]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

Ok, but again: how would the scientist ever know whether someone else was seeing binary for green in their world model?

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

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, but again: how would the scientist ever know whether someone else was seeing binary for green in their world model?

How were scientists able to see microbes? 

Just because you can’t imagine something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or will not appear. 

We each have less than one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of all available information. That would round off to zero. Be aware of making assumptions based on essentially zero knowing. 

[Emanyalpsid]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

How were scientists able to see microbes? 

There is a big difference between psychology, what outer and winterknight are discussing and natural science. This is just a note for the readers.

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Outer said:

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

Ok, if the scientist can't tell if someone is seeing binary for green, then how can he know how the brain connects to that experience?

The scientist cannot even know that it's happening. How can the scientist use the brain to explain it?

[Emanyalpsid]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, if the scientist can't tell if someone is seeing binary for green, then how can he know how the brain connects to that experience?

The scientist cannot even know that it's happening. How can the scientist use the brain to explain it?

They will have trouble calling it consciousness as consciousness is what you are and not the concept you have of consciousness, so you can not define consciousness for you are consciousness. So scientists might be able to explain how consciousness works, they will not be able to relate it to consciousness. Because to see the results of a scientific experiment, to figure out if something is consciousness, is using consciousness (the seeing) to verify the evidence. So consciousness is looking for consciousness, but it will never find itself, as our perception is always changing, and therefore that what constitutes consciousness also.

So they might be able to find the chemical functioning of consciousness, it will never be consciousness itself. As consciousness is just perception; everything that you experience. The same as that the functioning of a car is not the car itself.

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

There is a big difference between psychology, what outer and winterknight are discussing and natural science. This is just a note for the readers.

Yes, however that is not the distinction I am making. Be careful of using previous paradigms as the basis of future paradigms.

The point is: just because you can’t imagine something - doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or cannot appear. This is a classic assumption error. Reality can create an infinite number of tools. Of which, 99.999999999999999999999% you cannot imagine. 

For example, the old paradigm was that science only studies the material world. This is a limiting belief. We are seeing scientific discoveries in the immaterial world (e.g. in quantum mechanics).

How science is conducted and expressed evolves. There will be scientific revolutions in the future that we cannot imagine today. If you were transported 1,000 years into the future, it would be so far outside of your limited beliefs that you would likely go insane.

[Outer]

5 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, if the scientist can't tell if someone is seeing binary for green, then how can he know how the brain connects to that experience?

The scientist cannot even know that it's happening. How can the scientist use the brain to explain it?

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.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[seeking_brilliance]

16 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Haven't read Butterflies are free to fly. What's it about?

It would probably be of no use to you at this point, (whatever the hell that means). But it covers alot of topics from quantum physics and interpreting the books of jed McKenna. But that's still only a small part of what it covers, and I'm only about halfway through. It's a free e-book on Amazon and not short. 

He uses an analogy of being in the theater, which is a play on Plato cave. ( There are the ones who are (falsely assumed) stuck in chains and identify with the movie being played, and there are those who have stood up and wandered to the back of the theater. He says that all teaching or what not is just happening in the back of the theater. Then there are those that exit the theater altogether.  He likens this to entering the cocoon stage of becoming a butterfly, whereas emerging as a butterfly is enlightenment. The ones identifying with the movies are larvae, and the ones who wander the theater are caterpillars. 

Of course I probably screwed that up all too hell so of course the book explains it better.  Well anywho the only use it would probably be of to you is to expand your mind on certain ways to express what you have learned (and unlearned), not that you really need any help with that. 

[winterknight]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

How were scientists able to see microbes? 

It's fundamentally different. That was just a matter of augmenting the senses (that's what all scientific instruments do). Here, even if you knew the state of every atom in the universe, you'd still be faced with the same problem.

5 minutes ago, Outer said:

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.

We're getting confused here.

Again, let's assume X sees binary for green -- because of what you call X's world model.

How would someone else, Y, a scientist, ever know this? You already said he couldn't. Because Y is within his world model. 

If that's the case, how would Y ever explain that binary-for-green phenomenon in X, given the fact that Y cannot even know it's happening?

Edited November 12, 2018 by winterknight

[Outer]

Just now, winterknight said:

We're getting confused here.

Again, let's assume X sees binary for green -- because of what you call X's world model.

How would someone else, Y, a scientist, ever know this? You already said he couldn't. Because Y is within his world model. 

IF that's the case, how would Y ever explain that binary-for-green phenomenon in X, given the fact that Y cannot even know it's happening?

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

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

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

Correct, he wouldn't. But he knows it could be the case. He cannot know if it is actually happening.

So the point is that things might be happening in people's world models that scientists will never be able to know are happening. Do you see that?

[i am I AM]

Just now, winterknight said:

I don't understand. Can you rephrase this question?

I can. It is being rephrased in every moment.