Confusion about "appearance is reality".

[Galyna]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

1 I think I just defined it in the previous post. "undeniably present in my direct experience". Pick an apple and put in front of your face.. Call it "real" and here it is.. Call it" unreal " and here it is also!  That's what real is. 

Okay, gotcha. What about a dreaming state then? Is it real? it is also in your direct experience, right? But are dreams real?

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

2 there are  many types of proofs depending on the nature of the subject that we are trying to prove.

Sure, all of these proofs are based on the assumption that the observer is a separate entity! And actually!!!! those proofs separate both the observer and the observation. 

Here is the video for you that you can not separate the observer and the observation because they are intertwined. 

 

So basically you call "real" everything that is in your direct experience, material and solid, correct?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Is it real? I am not talking about the implication of the electromagnetic radiation such as UV, I am just talking about anything prior to the UV exposure.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Galyna

[Consept]

@Someone here 

Yes your state can be changed but there's always a witness of these changes. For example something can make me angry but I'm not the anger, there is a witness of the anger. Using your example of my blood sugar my state will change maybe mentally and physically but how would I even know that without witnessing it? So we're not talking about something mystical, however you're defining it, we're talking about something specifically experiential. 

There is an observed which is the sensations in your body, emotions whatever anything that is within your observation. Then there is the observer, this is the witness of everything observed, it is impossible to observe this because if you were able to observe it then that would be the observed. The observer is what we're saying consciousness is, this can be accessed by dropping any attachment to what's being observed, even if its temporarily, this is what you truly are. It's not mystical it's just changing your perspective 

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Galyna said:

Okay, gotcha. What about a dreaming state then? Is it real? it is also in your direct experience, right? But are dreams real?

Sure, all of these proofs are based on the assumption that the observer is a separate entity! And actually!!!! those proofs separate both the observer and the observation. 

Here is the video for you that you can not separate the observer and the observation because they are intertwined. 

 

So basically you call "real" everything that is in your direct experience, material and solid, correct?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Is it real? I am not talking about the implication of the electromagnetic radiation such as UV, I am just talking about anything prior to the UV exposure.

A dream is real so long as you are  inside of it. And also when you wake up it was real because you lived it.  Who said dreams aren't real?  They are 100% real.. You Live it! It's just not what you think it is at the moment you live it . Same could be applied to this reality. It might be not what we think it is  but in no sense whatsoever can it be "unreal." 

The observer is clearly distinct from the observed. They are separate. They are not totally isolated. You are immersed within the world yet the boundaries between you and the world are still valid and real and you can dream m it being otherwise but it's just not gonna work. 

As for the last question.. That's actually my question in this thread.. From common sense perspective these waves are real even if you don't perceive them. But Leo had another opinion that I can't make sense of. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Someone here

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

@Someone here 

Yes your state can be changed but there's always a witness of these changes. For example something can make me angry but I'm not the anger, there is a witness of the anger. Using your example of my blood sugar my state will change maybe mentally and physically but how would I even know that without witnessing it? So we're not talking about something mystical, however you're defining it, we're talking about something specifically experiential. 

There is an observed which is the sensations in your body, emotions whatever anything that is within your observation. Then there is the observer, this is the witness of everything observed, it is impossible to observe this because if you were able to observe it then that would be the observed. The observer is what we're saying consciousness is, this can be accessed by dropping any attachment to what's being observed, even if its temporarily, this is what you truly are. It's not mystical it's just changing your perspective 

The observer is certain centers in the brain according to science. Fu** with these  centers and say goodbye to the observer. 

[Consept]

@Someone here 

As far as I know science hasn't worked out what consciousness is or even if it comes from the brain. The observer doesn't dissappear it will always be there, but your ability to communicate it may not be. 

Do you have any studies that scientists have worked out consciousness? 

[Nahm]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The observer is clearly distinct from the observed. They are separate.

Water vibrates, ice says “ice is clearly distinct from water. They are separate”. 

[Consept]

@Someone here you might find this conversation between neuro scientist David eagleman and sadhguru interesting -

 

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Someone here 

As far as I know science hasn't worked out what consciousness is or even if it comes from the brain. The observer doesn't dissappear it will always be there, but your ability to communicate it may not be. 

Do you have any studies that scientists have worked out consciousness? 

I didn't say they completly figured it out. But for now all evidence point  that it's linked to the brain. You can  scan the brain activity of a sleeping person.. Dead person.. And normally aware person and see the link between their awareness and their brain activity.  

What you call the observer is  simply the center of experience. The center of vision is a physical part in the brain.. Pick with it and there will be no observer (center of vision) but ofcourse there will be center of hearing and sensations in the body.. Keep getting rid of these centers in the brain and "you" are gone!  Just like in deep sleep. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting anything else but the physical organs to be responsible for awareness and experience. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Someone here

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Water vibrates, ice says “ice is clearly distinct from water. They are separate”. 

Intersting example but I don't think it fits well with our subject.  The ice and water are literally the same substance with different temperature.   A human being and an apple are not the same substance.. Now you might say if you go really really deep they both came from basically the same stuff (stardust or whatever) that's true but the end result is they are totally different now. They are two distinct objects with radically different properties. They are not the same by any means! 

[Someone here]

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Someone here you might find this conversation between neuro scientist David eagleman and sadhguru interesting -

 

Will watch it. Thank you! 

[Galyna]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

The observer is clearly distinct from the observed.

With all my respect to you, I am done talking about this. 

I think you just enjoy talking. If this is the case, lets start another thread and maybe talk about something else. I promise I will throw something meaningful. 

Now, let me tell you about myself.When I argue with someone, I at least, educate myself about the facts I am going to present. If I do not know something, I will not be saying it just for the sake of saying something. ("The observer is clearly distinct from the observed.") even a quantum mechanics scientist does not know this unless he is enlightened, LOL. You have not watched my video, have you? Do you want to grow here or just talk? I am sorry but I am not interested to talk about something just for the sake of talking. I want to interact with others and learn something.

Was nice talking to you. I am sorry if I am being rude. I hope you will find your answers.

Hugs.

[Galyna]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

The ice and water are literally the same substance with different temperature.   A human being and an apple are not the same substance..

You lack some knowledge here, my friend. 

There is a good book by Rachel Carson "The Edge of the Sea", she explains it, being a scientists, how there are no actually any boundary between humans and Earth creatures, including water and marine life. If you prefer a male writer, Loren Eiseley is another great example when scientists and a good writer together, using various techniques to educate the reader about the origin of Earth and life on it.

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Intersting example but I don't think it fits well with our subject.  The ice and water are literally the same substance with different temperature.   A human being and an apple are not the same substance.. Now you might say if you go really really deep they both came from basically the same stuff (stardust or whatever) that's true but the end result is they are totally different now. They are two distinct objects with radically different properties. They are not the same by any means! 

I’ll admit, it doesn’t fit well with there being a subject. Visually speaking, can you think seeing, or see thinking?

[Carl-Richard]

You propose that the world is made out of atoms, because for something to be "real", it must be possible to reduce it down to smaller components that can explain how it arises, right?

Then naturally the next question is: what are atoms made out of? Quarks? Ok. What a quarks made out of? Strings? Quantum fluctuations? Ok. What are quantum fluctuations made out of? What causes these things to arise?

Now, you may have noticed how this leads to the problem of infinite regression. What does that show? Well, either reality is infinite in substance, or you must concede that something being "infinite in substance" defeats the purpose of calling it a substance in the first place.

Behind the horizon of the next step in the series of steps progressing towards infinite regression, there is an empty void of nothingness waiting to be filled. This way, literally nothing is causing anything to arise.

This is just one of many ways to conceptualize the idea that there is nothing "behind the scenes", or "it's appearance without substance", but I think it can be helpful for those haven't yet had a profound awakening experience.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Galyna said:

With all my respect to you, I am done talking about this. 

I think you just enjoy talking. If this is the case, lets start another thread and maybe talk about something else. I promise I will throw something meaningful. 

Now, let me tell you about myself.When I argue with someone, I at least, educate myself about the facts I am going to present. If I do not know something, I will not be saying it just for the sake of saying something. ("The observer is clearly distinct from the observed.") even a quantum mechanics scientist does not know this unless he is enlightened, LOL. You have not watched my video, have you? Do you want to grow here or just talk? I am sorry but I am not interested to talk about something just for the sake of talking. I want to interact with others and learn something.

Was nice talking to you. I am sorry if I am being rude. I hope you will find your answers.

Hugs.

Hugs!

2 hours ago, Consept said:

@Someone here 

 

[Someone here]

59 minutes ago, Galyna said:

You lack some knowledge here, my friend. 

There is a good book by Rachel Carson "The Edge of the Sea", she explains it, being a scientists, how there are no actually any boundary between humans and Earth creatures, including water and marine life. If you prefer a male writer, Loren Eiseley is another great example when scientists and a good writer together, using various techniques to educate the reader about the origin of Earth and life on it.

Just complete reading my post and you will see I mentioned just that and answered it. 

[Someone here]

25 minutes ago, Nahm said:

I’ll admit, it doesn’t fit well with there being a subject. Visually speaking, can you think seeing, or see thinking?

There is a subject of experience. It can't be pointed at because it is itself doing the pointing. 

As for your question I don't think I understand it well. Sorry! 

[Someone here]

54 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You propose that the world is made out of atoms, because for something to be "real", it must be possible to reduce it down to smaller components that can explain how it arises, right?

Then naturally the next question is: what are atoms made out of? Quarks? Ok. What a quarks made out of? Strings? Quantum fluctuations? Ok. What are quantum fluctuations made out of? What causes these things to arise?

Now, you may have noticed how this leads to the problem of infinite regression. What does that show? Well, either reality is infinite in substance, or you must concede that something being "infinite in substance" defeats the purpose of calling it a substance in the first place.

Behind the horizon of the next step in the series of steps progressing towards infinite regression, there is an empty void of nothingness waiting to be filled. This way, literally nothing is causing anything to arise.

This is just one of many ways to conceptualize the idea that there is nothing "behind the scenes", or "it's appearance without substance", but I think it can be helpful for those haven't yet had a profound awakening experience.

As far as I know from my basic understanding of physics there is a limit to how small thing are. It's called Planck's constant and it equals 1.616252×10⁻³⁵ meter. There is no thing in the observable universe smaller than this.  That's what physics say.  Also infinite regression is logically impossible. If reality is an infinite regress in any dimension we wouldn't be here. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Someone here

[Galyna]

@Someone here I am trying to read your posts as I go ??, maybe I missed something, my bad...

I have a feeling that by asking somebody  a question you are waiting for a click, I do the same, maybe?!
But we can go only this far with questions. I am breaking my mind as well. It is time for practices. 
Scientific academia does not have a special ground to explain matter and consciousness , they will have to separate one from the other , but it is impossible. I am trying to say that we simply can not lean on this knowledge. ?

IF this all is an infinite imagination then everything is possible, even infinite regress. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Galyna

[Carl-Richard]

@Someone here

Quote

It is the smallest distance about which current, experimentally corroborated, models of physics can make meaningful statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

The Planck length is a statement about the limitation of the current models, not of reality. Models are like maps: they make descriptions about reality, but they are not equal to reality. A good map can take you from A to B, but if the map is completely identical to the terrain, it would be useless. That is why all models are inherently limited and all models collapse when facing the infinity of reality.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Carl-Richard