Questions about reality

[Shadowraix]

@Scholar Statements are statements which is not absurd and not untrue. /joke

I get what you are saying that concepts need to be dropped eventually but they serve as useful pointers. Leo's whole work here is based on that and helps many. 

So while more constructions won't let you actually understand it can help you find what you are looking to understand. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Shadowraix said:

@Scholar Statements are statements which is not absurd and not untrue. /joke

I get what you are saying that concepts need to be dropped eventually but they serve as useful pointers. Leo's whole work here is based on that and helps many. 

So while more constructions won't let you actually understand it can help you find what you are looking to understand. 

I disagree, I think questions this fundamental require the absence of mental constructions, not a reconstruction. Making him believe that time is an illusion doesn't help him if he doesn't even know what time is, or what illusion is.

[Shadowraix]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I disagree, I think questions this fundamental require the absence of mental constructions, not a reconstruction. Making him believe that time is an illusion doesn't help him if he doesn't even know what time is, or what illusion is.

It's fine if pointers don't work for you but don't knock it for those it works for. Poking holes in the constructions with other constructions through self inquiry or assisted inquiry helps many drop them or see what they were sitting on. Different strokes for different folks

Edited August 24, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Scholar]

14 hours ago, Shadowraix said:

It's fine if pointers don't work for you but don't knock it for those it works for. Poking holes in the constructions with other constructions through self inquiry or assisted inquiry helps many drop them or see what they were sitting on. Different strokes for different folks

I don't think it works for him at all, he is deeply confused and anything short of direct experience will just make him more confused and ideological.

He doesn't need more fancy non-dual explanation. What he needs is to look at direct experience. This is like arguing what the color red is without ever having experienced it. Once you have clearly seen and identified it, we can move on to mental constructions.

[Shadowraix]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

I don't think it works for him at all, he is deeply confused and anything short of direct experience will just make him more confused and ideological.

He doesn't need more fancy non-dual explanation. What he needs is to look at direct experience. This is like arguing what the color red is without ever having experienced it. Once you have clearly seen and identified it, we can move on to mental constructions.

Good on you for giving advice on what you think will help! 

[poimandres]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

I don't think it works for him at all, he is deeply confused and anything short of direct experience will just make him more confused and ideological.

He doesn't need more fancy non-dual explanation. What he needs is to look at direct experience. This is like arguing what the color red is without ever having experienced it. Once you have clearly seen and identified it, we can move on to mental constructions.

Sensory deprivation tanks! 

Edited August 25, 2019 by poimandres

[poimandres]

On 8/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, Phoenixx said:

"the slime mold has no central brain or indeed any awareness of the overall problem it is trying to solve, but manages to produce a structure with similar properties to the real rail network."

The motion of slime mold has nothing to do with being conscious or being aware. I'm talking about beings that are conscious of their own existence, such as humans and animals. Movement is an illusion.

I'm more aware of my limits than you think. And I don't see myself as being separate, you just keep making assumptions without even knowing me.

As for your example, why do you tell me about physiological processes if you think that consciousness is separate from the brain? Do you really think that upon physical death your consciousness will somehow magically survive?

Not trying to judge you my dude. Just offering you another perspective. 

Of course that article will say it's not conscious. Science will define what is aware and isn't aware of self based on consciousness being electricity inside a nervous system. This is kind of like using the word to define the meaning of the word. I'm making an assumption here, that means that you don't think plants, fungus, or cells, etc without a centralized nervous system are conscious?

A radical interpretation of consciousness that I lean more towards everyday, is if it moves, it is conscious. Reality is ultimately groundless, so I could say it's all conscious to some degree. I believe the universe loves the game of hide and seek. 

I believe death is a transformation. While I may or may not be intelligent or conscious, I'll be something else: everything. I'll return to what I originally and always have been, still the universe. ?

In the west, we demonize the hell out of death. But I've heard a couple good quotes. No one has ever done it and lived to tell us about it. And dying is perfectly safe. ?

Edited August 25, 2019 by poimandres

[Phoenixx]

23 hours ago, poimandres said:

A radical interpretation of consciousness that I lean more towards everyday, is if it moves, it is conscious. Reality is ultimately groundless, so I could say it's all conscious to some degree. I believe the universe loves the game of hide and seek. 

I believe death is a transformation. While I may or may not be intelligent or conscious, I'll be something else: everything. I'll return to what I originally and always have been, still the universe. ?

It is said that motion is an illusion constructed by our brains just as time is. Plants, fungus, or cells are not aware of what time is and therefore are not conscious in that sense. They might as well be just your conscious brain imagining things living on their own. It's nonsense to think that they are communicating with concepts and perceive motion just the same we do because we know that isn't the case. There are different levels of evolution. Ultimately, real world doesn't care about what we want to believe. Walls are still walls and we're still humans experiencing the physical realm. If you want to believe that there are unicorns flying and we're not human, then science is not for you.

And death is transformation but not in the sense we think it is. The brain, together with all materiality - the universe itself - is contained within consciousness. Once we're dead, our senses and our conscious brain will be gone and there will be nothing like "me" or "you" left behind.

[Phoenixx]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:42 PM, Scholar said:

I don't think it works for him at all, he is deeply confused and anything short of direct experience will just make him more confused and ideological.

He doesn't need more fancy non-dual explanation. What he needs is to look at direct experience. This is like arguing what the color red is without ever having experienced it. Once you have clearly seen and identified it, we can move on to mental constructions.

You know nothing about me. I might be confused as hell but you're not far from it either. Time is an illusion in the sense that it is a human constructed dimension. It's stupid to think that time is nothing more but time. The flowing of time is something worth to think about and it is way more complex than just a word that implies nothing.

On 8/24/2019 at 7:02 PM, Scholar said:

Good and Evil exist too. It is clear as day, I can be directly aware of these two fascets of realness. They are as real as anything else could be real. To see the truth you must stop confusing different aspects of realness for each other. Time is time. Good is Good. Evil is Evil. There is nothing that is evil, there is nothing that is time, there is nothing that is round, there is nothing that is fast. Only fastness is fast, only roundness is round and only time is time.

Sorry but you're just talking nonsense. We could say that everything is what it is but it's silly to suggest that labels are the ultimate truth. It's like saying that every word we're using makes no sense. Words are pretty useful for explaining what things are, while truisms are nothing but useless usage of words. Better stop using words and live like a rock if reality is so uncomplicated for you.

As for the Good and Evil, this quote says everything:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

Edited August 26, 2019 by Phoenixx

[Scholar]

4 hours ago, Phoenixx said:

You know nothing about me. I might be confused as hell but you're not far from it either. Time is an illusion in the sense that it is a human constructed dimension. It's stupid to think that time is nothing more but time. The flowing of time is something worth to think about and it is way more complex than just a word that implies nothing.

Sorry but you're just talking nonsense. We could say that everything is what it is but it's silly to suggest that labels are the ultimate truth. It's like saying that every word we're using makes no sense. Words are pretty useful for explaining what things are, while truisms are nothing but useless usage of words. Better stop using words and live like a rock if reality is so uncomplicated for you.

As for the Good and Evil, this quote says everything:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

It would be more helpful for you cease interpreting my words from your own mental framework and instead try to learn from what I am trying to communicate to you. You have no understanding of Goodness and Evilness, you treat them as mental abstrations, when they are a very fundamental part of the way the ego constructs and interfaces with reality. Just look at it, look at how it is here right now, while you are denying that it exists. Your framework is so utterly confused that you still believe morality could reflect the outside world. But both morality and outside world are mental constructions within mind. You intermingle aspects of consciousness and further delude yourself. Just look at what is going on instead of creating new ideas. As long as your ego reacts to everything I am telling you with an attempt to debunk it to show off your intellectual superiority, you will not learn anything at all.

Goodness and Evilness only cease to exist once the ego ceases to create them. It has nothing to do with an external world, it has nothing to do with objective prescriptions or moral realism.

 

You keep operating within mental constructions while I am pointing you to the substance of realness itself. The flowing of time exist only as a mental idea in your head. As long as you cannot see that what I just told you is clearly and undoubtedly the case, you will be confused.

 

I am not pointing you to labels, I am telling you that all labels are just that, labels. What you need to see is things beyond labels, which you so clearly struggle to do. Otherwise you would realize that all the questions you asked are like asking what Santa Clause is eating for breakfast.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Scholar

[poimandres]

7 hours ago, Phoenixx said:

It is said that motion is an illusion constructed by our brains just as time is. Plants, fungus, or cells are not aware of what time is and therefore are not conscious in that sense. They might as well be just your conscious brain imagining things living on their own. It's nonsense to think that they are communicating with concepts and perceive motion just the same we do because we know that isn't the case. There are different levels of evolution. Ultimately, real world doesn't care about what we want to believe. Walls are still walls and we're still humans experiencing the physical realm. If you want to believe that there are unicorns flying and we're not human, then science is not for you.

And death is transformation but not in the sense we think it is. The brain, together with all materiality - the universe itself - is contained within consciousness. Once we're dead, our senses and our conscious brain will be gone and there will be nothing like "me" or "you" left behind.

So would you define life forms of single cell or multi/complex cell as conscious (that do not have a central brain) in any sense or they are not conscious? Please include a clear "yes, I believe things are conscious without a brain" or "no, I do not think anything is conscious if it does not have a central nervous system", or "not according to my beliefs currently, only things that have brains" in your reply if you have one. I don't want to assume, I do not care what the article thinks of consciousness, it's about what you deep down believe (if you are honestly looking to grow). Not trying to be a jerk!

This answer, defines your beliefs and if you are open or not to other interpretations of consciousness,which science hasn't proven yet (because philosophy is the thorn in science's side, or mirror image). It also appears to me that viruses and bacteria, like funguses are indeed conscious. They have within them the drive that we all seek, survival (why would plants care which area provides the most light?) and replication. Which are transcendental qualities, not physical nervous systems. Except as humans, it's survival (depends on spiritual maturity), replication (for survival as well), or immortality (physically because of a fear of death, or spiritually, because psychological needs, and the game of hide and seek). And this is really the crux of science vs philosophy, one seeks concrete evidence (which will never prove reality), while the other recognizes transcendental qualities (which have to be sought out. It is the initiate's responsibility to prove it to him/herself). You need both to get a better vantage point. Maybe that means I believe in unicorns. ?

 

Let's look at it like the five blind men and the elephant. Forget about time or motion, or anything else where my interpretations are wrong. Science is one of those blind men just like every religion or world view that could possibly exist, reality is ultimately ineffable by one vantage point alone (which you will always have in a human, sober, body), or any combination of them we could think of or to come. Every person and thing (personally, I would include everything, plants, rocks, cells, animals, humans, and higher systems, as well as lower ones) with some sense that can interpret an objective reality (the scientific definition of reality), is a vantage point (or even a combination of them that we could achieve as humans). Therefore, you will find what you seek in reality in alignment with your beliefs system (psychological processes, web of beliefs, how you were raised, current and deep rooted psychological needs). The quote from Dawkins, is exactly what his web of beliefs was, reality is meaningless (this is his opinion based on what he has found, which is tainted with his beliefs, and aspects of his subjective reality), or he just hates his father according to Freud (I don't actually believe this, joke!)?. My interpretation and opinion is the same way, even now. One man's trash, another's treasure. By his works, it's doubtful he's even considered philosophy, psychology or religion serious pursuits of study. I wasn't saying science is wrong, it's correct, just not complete and never will be. Every system (by systems, I mean, science, religion, political worldviews, atheism, philosophy, psychology, etc) that attempts to describe reality is this way, not one of them is complete or will ever be. But they are all simultaneously correct in ways and incorrect in ways. So, your worldview is correct according to your vantage point (which is a culmination of a huge number of variables, but not all of them).

 

What were we debating again? ?

Edited August 27, 2019 by poimandres

[Phoenixx]

10 hours ago, poimandres said:

What were we debating again? ?

Time.

10 hours ago, poimandres said:

So would you define life forms of single cell or multi/complex cell as conscious (that do not have a central brain) in any sense or they are not conscious? Please include a clear "yes, I believe things are conscious without a brain" or "no, I do not think anything is conscious if it does not have a central nervous system", or "not according to my beliefs currently, only things that have brains" in your reply if you have one. I don't want to assume, I do not care what the article thinks of consciousness, it's about what you deep down believe (if you are honestly looking to grow). Not trying to be a jerk!

I would define consciousness as being the perception of time. For the normal meaning of consciousness in psychology and neuroscience, biological cells would not be considered conscious. One could, however, expand the definition of consciousness to includes cells, at least in a metaphorical sense. But that doesn't make cells aware of their environment. Cells function more like cogs in a complex machine than like autonomous creatures seeking out a life in an uncertain world. I already mentioned that they might as well be just your conscious brain imagining things living on their own. Nobody knows for sure what reality is, but since the flowing of time is an illusion, it's fair to say that the physical world might be an illusion as well.

Even so, you can't make a cell aware of its environment. A cell is just a cell and we're still humans, no matter how much we'd want things to be different. The temporal perception of things makes our understanding pretty limited. That's why science struggles to provide an objective answer beyond the limited perception. It's the most accurate tool that we currently have. If you don't believe in real world - and I believe only what I see / experience because that's the only way of knowing - then you're free to believe in abstract things that cannot be proved. I prefer to stick with science.

And I don't claim to know the truth, that's why I opened this topic. I'm searching for explanations that science might have missed. But all I get are just repeated thinking patterns. No one has said nothing new here.

[poimandres]

4 hours ago, Phoenixx said:

Time.

I would define consciousness as being the perception of time. For the normal meaning of consciousness in psychology and neuroscience, biological cells would not be considered conscious. One could, however, expand the definition of consciousness to includes cells, at least in a metaphorical sense. But that doesn't make cells aware of their environment. Cells function more like cogs in a complex machine than like autonomous creatures seeking out a life in an uncertain world. I already mentioned that they might as well be just your conscious brain imagining things living on their own. Nobody knows for sure what reality is, but since the flowing of time is an illusion, it's fair to say that the physical world might be an illusion as well.

Even so, you can't make a cell aware of its environment. A cell is just a cell and we're still humans, no matter how much we'd want things to be different. The temporal perception of things makes our understanding pretty limited. That's why science struggles to provide an objective answer beyond the limited perception. It's the most accurate tool that we currently have. If you don't believe in real world - and I believe only what I see / experience because that's the only way of knowing - then you're free to believe in abstract things that cannot be proved. I prefer to stick with science.

And I don't claim to know the truth, that's why I opened this topic. I'm searching for explanations that science might have missed. But all I get are just repeated thinking patterns. No one has said nothing new here.

I understand where you are coming from now. Basically, I'll explain my stance like this, there are two ways (duality) to see the whole. Science/Math/Mechanical/Logic/Hard Sciences/Active/Tragedy (your stance), or Art/Mind/Living/Creativity/Liberal Arts/Passive/Comedy. Notice how I listed these in order to their correlations to each other. You need both. Nonduality explained dualistically. I'm not saying science isn't real. I completely agree it's the best option we have, for physical confirmation of philosophy. They keep each other in bounds. But science will never be complete because the Omniverse/multiverse/universe (whatever term you want to use), reality, Brahman is infinite. Waves, within waves, within infinite waves, hence the allegory to the ocean a lot of the time.

I don't know why you base your whole philosophy on the passage of time as consciousness or why time is so important, then claim it's an illusion. If consciousness is perceiving the passage of time, but time is an illusion. By this thinking, then awareness and consciousness is just as an illusion as well. Thinking is not real, then. This is where we diverge. The foundation of my philosophy is based on everything consciousness becoming conscious and aware of the whole.  Not time. But this process does require the passage of time.

As far as empiricism, it is only one way to see the world, see my last post (this is a single vantage point). It's a system, that isn't perfect, but does contain partial, very real (as real as any other system or science), truths. It appears to me, that if you sincerely want to grow, I'm not asking you to believe in unicorns or adopt empiricism as your truth, but read a philosophy and be open to the idea that there is some truth to be found there. Then understand the intention, and where it's coming from without the filter of science (for a minute, you can always put back up the psychological wall). Unless you just want to prove me wrong with science. Which case, I yield it is superior and I need to come back to reality.

Cells are very aware of their environment. Or they would not give a damn about waste in their cell. They would just have urine in their cell and die (with you as well). Even if this act is mechanical, it's conscious. There's a whole nother universe that takes care of the filtration process made up of another countably infinite (trillion) cells, collects it, and deposits it in your blatter. How can you be conscious, but your cells not? Systems within systems that are synchronously working together. Holons as Leo said.

The point that we are making that you decline at, is that the idea or philosophy that you are the universe. You are claiming not. To claim this, is claiming that you arrived here from a space ship (or birds arriving on a new tree from flight), instead of a byproduct of the universe like an apple growing on a tree. According to you, the Apple doesn't have the capacity to become aware, but you do. This is enlightenment. By allegory, because you can become conscious of this fact, the universe is also conscious. Which is where I stand, but doesn't mean my ideas are superior. It is mind, and the game of hide and seek begins again.

We are all made of the same thing. ?

Unless my awareness or consciousness is an illusion and I am wrong again. I arrived here by my parents and I yield (which is only one half of the truth).

Edited August 27, 2019 by poimandres

[Phoenixx]

@poimandres Thank you for the elaborate answer. From my perspective, consciousness is a human concept and cells aren't conscious because they don't know what consciousness is. I could say that everything is an illusion and nothing exists at all but that would be counterproductive. As long as we can communicate with concepts, we can share ideas about everything we know. But that doesn't mean that consciousness is beyond time and space. It's still within this physical realm, be it real or not. As for the idea that you are the universe, I see myself as a micro universe living in a macro universe. I also think that everything is connected. However, I don't see myself more than just a human. Not in this physical realm. Maybe after death we'll all be free of all illusions.

[poimandres]

10 minutes ago, Phoenixx said:

@poimandres Thank you for the elaborate answer. From my perspective, consciousness is a human concept and cells aren't conscious because they don't know what consciousness is. I could say that everything is an illusion and nothing exists at all but that would be counterproductive. As long as we can communicate with concepts, we can share ideas about everything we know. But that doesn't mean that consciousness is beyond time and space. It's still within this physical realm, be it real or not. As for the idea that you are the universe, I see myself as a micro universe living in a macro universe. I also think that everything is connected. However, I don't see myself more than just a human. Not in this physical realm. Maybe after death we'll all be free of all illusions.

Good luck on the journey! 

[Phoenixx]

44 minutes ago, poimandres said:

Good luck on the journey! 

Thank you.