I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Outer]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, so if scientists have no reason to explain things that might be happening in other people's WMs, then those things won't be explained. Do you see that?

If that's the case, then science will not explain those things, because scientists have "no reason" to explain them. They cannot know if they are going on. But they might be going on.

Right?

So if that's the case then there is a group of phenomena -- that is, what's happening in other people's WMs -- that science cannot explain, because scientists cannot know if they are going on.

Do you see this?

But it is explained by that model of Consciousness I am talking of. If you explain that you can't explain because of "this" and "this", that is an explanation. Or am I wrong when it comes to you?

 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Outer said:

But it is explained by that model of Consciousness I am talking of. If you explain that you can't explain because of "this" and "this", that is an explanation. Or am I wrong when it comes to you?

So you consider something explained when you can't even know that it's happening? "Binary for green" is explained by suggesting that we can't know that it's happening? That's what you call an explanation?

[Jack River]

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

One facet of true freedom is zero attachment to anything. Regardless of how spiritual the idea is. Can a buddhist monk let go of all his profound beliefs and experiences? How about an advaita master? How about a scientific master? Can they let go of them like they were just a fantasy dream? Or do they actually believe them?

As attachment implies a lingering resistance. It’s a clinging to the known, which is not actually different from the knower. This can be seen as a kind of resistance to die. 

[Outer]

Just now, winterknight said:

So you consider something explained when you can't even know that it's happening? "Binary for green" is explained by suggesting that we can't know that it's happening? That's what you call an explanation?

The explanation is WM itself. I'm explaining to you. Color is something in the WM created by the Experiencer. That  is the explanation. It is not perceived. Scientists deals with perception and what gives arise to the Experiencer/Doer/Thinker.

[winterknight]

Just now, Outer said:

The explanation is WM itself. I'm explaining to you. Color is something in the WM created by the Experiencer. That  is the explanation. It is not perceived. Scientists deals with perception and what gives arise to the Experiencer/Doer/Thinker.

Your model is not a scientific explanation, it is an explanation of why science cannot explain it.

Scientific explanation means noticing a phenomenon and explaining in terms of causes and effects -- in theories that anyone can test publicly.

For example, when science explains how a disease works, it looks at phenomena that everyone can see: particular symptoms.

These physical symptoms are linked to certain biological changes. All this can be seen with scientific instruments. Anyone can use these instruments. 

Changes can be predicted.

Explanations can be tested and falsified.

That's what makes for scientific explanations.

When we are dealing with experience in someone's WM, science cannot do any of these things. It cannot even see it, let alone predict it, or talk about its mechanisms or causes.

That means that there are things that science cannot explain. The WM model shows that to be the case.

[Outer]

6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Your model is not a scientific explanation, it is an explanation of why science cannot explain it.

Scientific explanation means noticing a phenomenon and explaining in terms of causes and effects -- in theories that anyone can test publicly.

For example, when science explains how a disease works, it looks at phenomena that everyone can see: particular symptoms.

These physical symptoms are linked to certain biological changes. All this can be seen with scientific instruments. Anyone can use these instruments. 

Changes can be predicted.

Explanations can be tested and falsified.

That's what makes for scientific explanations.

When we are dealing with experience in someone's WM, science cannot do any of these things. It cannot even see it, let alone predict it, or talk about its mechanisms or causes.

That means that there are things that science cannot explain. The WM model shows that to be the case.

There are plenty of things that science can and will explain however, and if your model isn't taking those into account,  you are ignoring things that are explained.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[Jack River]

29 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Actually in Vendanta, it is one of the core principle that the methodology/scripture itself can never produce or reveal the Self. It is only a thorn to remove a thorn(ignorance)

So you use the thorn ( adhere to knowledge/methodology/scripture or thought) to take out another thorn of self knowledge? 

And I seemed to understand holistically knowledge/experience/memory and its relationship to psychological movement, and therefore that psychological movement doesn’t continue. The insight itself stops that movement in its tracks. 

So you seemed to move positively towards and within the field of time to end time, and I didn’t move in time but stoped that movement abruptly by seeing the whole or what is known as to see the generative order. 

I would like to look more into the differences here. Would you say the above observation is correct? 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jack River

[Preetom]

4 minutes ago, Jack River said:

So you use the thorn ( adhere to knowledge/methodology/scripture or thought) to take out another thorn of self knowledge? 

And I seemed to understand holistically knowledge/experience/memory and its relationship to psychological movement, and therefore that psychological movement doesn’t continue. 

So you seemed to move positively towards and within the field of time to end time, and I didn’t move in time but stoped that movement abruptly by seeing the whole or what is known as to see the generative order. 

I would like to look more into the differences here. Would you say the above observation is correct? 

Consider two possibilities.

1) I used a thorn to remove the thorn stuck in my skin and then let go of both of them. Then I wake up and realize that it was a dream and no actual thorn was here at all. 

2) You are awake and see that there is no thorn for you. You're seeing clearly. But you also recognize that you could 'dream' about getting stuck with a thorn and thus stay alert not to fall for it.

Do you see that both of these cases lead to same conclusion? A holistic clear seeing and not falling for the illusions again  

[Preetom]

7 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Why do you guys/girls care so much about this world when the Truth is beyond this world?

Using intellectual conversations to find out the misconceptions and limits of intellect. A thorn to remove a thorn. Real inquiry begins after this.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Preetom

[winterknight]

12 minutes ago, Outer said:

There are plenty of things that science can and will explain however, and if your model isn't taking those into account,  you are ignoring things that are explained.

Ok, that's fine. The things that science explains, science explains. And it's very useful for that.

The point is that there are things -- experience in people's WMs -- it cannot.

If there is anything that science cannot explain, it destroys the materialist framework. Materialism says that everything can be explained scientifically. "Matter" means that which can be explained scientifically.

So if science cannot explain certain things, and if materialism is false, then we have to ask ourselves -- what are these phenomena that science cannot explain? 

It turns out that they are experience. Conscious experience.

So science cannot explain conscious experience. Science cannot explain consciousness. So consciousness is what cannot be captured in materialism or science.

If consciousness cannot be captured by science or matter, then that destroys the reason for believing that the brain generates consciousness. Maybe the brain correlates with consciousness, but it does not generate it. Why? Because it cannot explain conscious experience.

Consciousness is actually, at the very least, a separate substance from matter... and that has problems. What we really have is a situation where consciousness is the only substance, and matter is just a thought within it, and science is just a useful way of talking about that particular thought.

Edited November 12, 2018 by winterknight

[Jack River]

Just now, Preetom said:

Consider two possibilities.

1) I used a thorn to remove the thorn stuck in my skin and then let go of both of them. Then I wake up and realize that it was a dream and no actual thorn was here at all. 

2) You are awake and see that there is no thorn for you. You're seeing clearly. But you also recognize that you could 'dream' about getting stuck with a thorn and thus stay alert not to fall for it.

Do you see that both of these cases lead to same conclusion? A holistic clear seeing and not falling for the illusions again  

Hmmm I think I see what you mean dude

I will give that some more looking into. Thanks for the response. 

[cetus]

18 minutes ago, winterknight said:

 consciousness is the only substance, and matter is just a thought within it, and science is just a useful way of talking about that particular thought.

@winterknight Bohm would agree.

[winterknight]

9 minutes ago, Ero said:

@winterknightThe intensity of that realisation stayed with me for about an hour. It was a glimpse, yet something changed fundamentally. There's no longer a separation between outer /inner world. Don't know how else to say it... The identifications came back, yet now I realise them. Throughout the experience it was only the ego left. At the peak of the insight I used RM's self inquiry to disband even "its" identity. It just stopped "existing" as if it never has been there in the first place. That was for a brief moment. There was a neurotic reaction still. Thanks.

P. S Can't shake off the feeling that I'm communicating with myself. 

 

Btw it gradually deepens. Wonder what would happen. What did it start? 

Cool! Enjoy 

[Outer]

22 minutes ago, winterknight said:

If consciousness cannot be captured by science or matter, then that destroys the reason for believing that the brain generates consciousness. Maybe the brain correlates with consciousness, but it does not generate it. Why? Because it cannot explain conscious experience.

Consciousness is actually, at the very least, a separate substance from matter... and that has problems. What we really have is a situation where consciousness is the only substance, and matter is just a thought within it.

Well, since you do agree the brain correlates with consciousness, it is a dual aspect monism going on. Different sides of the same coin. Around 44:24 and forward.

 

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Outer said:

Well, since you do agree the brain correlates with consciousness, it is a dual aspect monism going on. Different sides of the same coin. Around 44:24 and forward.

 

Sure, dual aspect monism is more or less fine with me.  It's a working theory that opens up the door to the possibility of consciousness discovering itself... and that's what really matters.

[Outer]

@winterknightSee the slide at 55:00. Matter do not create  mind in a linear casual way, the relationship is circular.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, winterknight said:

If there is anything that science cannot explain, it destroys the materialist framework. Materialism says that everything can be explained scientifically. "Matter" means that which can be explained scientifically.

So if science cannot explain certain things, and if materialism is false, then we have to ask ourselves -- what are these phenomena that science cannot explain? 

It turns out that they are experience. Conscious experience.

So science cannot explain conscious experience. Science cannot explain consciousness. So consciousness is what cannot be captured in materialism or science.

If consciousness cannot be captured by science or matter, then that destroys the reason for believing that the brain generates consciousness. Maybe the brain correlates with consciousness, but it does not generate it. Why? Because it cannot explain conscious experience.

Be mindful of lack of direct experience and knowledge. I've spent well over 50,000 hours immersed in conducting and evaluating science. I became full immersed into science as an expert, then transcended science. From this direct experience, the views you offer on science appear naive. It seems you are making assumptions about science without a deep level of direct experience and knowledge.

For example, science is not limited to materialism.

[Outer]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Be mindful of your lack of direct experience and knowledge. I've spent well over 50,000 hours immersed in conducting and evaluating science. From this direct experience, the views you offer on science appear very naive. It seems you are making assumptions about science without direct experience and knowledge.

It's like you are speaking of the essence of a Peruvian tribe without ever visiting Peru.

For example, science is not limited to materialism.

That's why I brought up dual aspect monism too. It seems as the researchers according to Dr. Carhart-Harris are tackling consciousness on the basis that it is circular with matter and not casually, linearly created by matter. Isn't subjective experience or dualism (or dual aspect monism) given credit by anyone's direct experience?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[SoonHei]

@winterknight

Hi

I would like to know:

1. Once you awaken /  Once you are watching and witnessing life complete from the point of view of the absolute, then:

I presume that then there are still sounds, sight, taste, sensation etc ... But no "you" to be experiencing them as that duality has collapsed...

So if there is still those senses, there must also be pain (physical pain)...

For example if, God forbid, you slipped and fell and broke your leg as a result, there would be pain... Is the degree or intensity of the pain be the same for you (winter Knight) vs for me (ego SoonHei) ? 

Does an enlightened being feel the pain equally but someone is still free from it? Or it doesn't "hurt" them anymore? Could you try and explain the pain? I guess it must be felt the same way as other senses of taste. Feel, hearing seeing etc... 

But I'd like to hear your point of view

Thanks 

 

2. Is enlightenment largely the combination of the following:

i : quieting of the mind (and)

ii: if there is still some occasional mind, then having 0 attachment with that mind? And any thoughts which arise are seen as not you and merely observed.

 

So in conclusion, am I correct to understand this intellectually that with enlightenment, this body which I currently think I am.would basically been seen to self animate itself with all actions, walking, eating driving etc. All senses would work the same way and about talking, it would just arise "automatically" without a me there running the show... Without a mind... It would just be spontaneous and it would be in tune with the "best / optimal" flow of life.

 

Thank you winter Knight.

[NathanKa]

How can I truly surrender? Please, teach me to surrender with every fiber of my being.