Confusion about "appearance is reality".

[Nahm]

@Someone here

No worries.  If you’re interested in inspecting direct experience, sit and observe thought, and seeing. Then see if you can think seeing, or see thinking (visually). It might take a few minutes for thought activity to settle, to consider. This would be where the ‘proof’ you mentioned is & where it is realized human and apple are the same ‘substance’. 

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Galyna said:

@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. 

I'm not trying to get a "click ". I know this forum is filled with highly intelligent and open minded people and that's why I'm asking my questions here. 

Logic and intellectual activity does have a limit but I don't think we've hit any dead end yet. You are not forced to answer my questions or to agree with me. We are just sharing some thoughts together 

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Someone here

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.

Doesn't that means it's meaningless to talk about lesser lengths within the physical domain? . It's the same as the physical limitations and constants in the singularity of the big bang.. Science just can't to beyond or before that. The fact is we don't know what lies beyond theses various constants and limitations.  We shouldn't then just jump into uncertain conclusions like "reality is infinite regress" keeping in mind that it is logically impossible as well. 

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Someone here

No worries.  If you’re interested in inspecting direct experience, sit and observe thought, and seeing. Then see if you can think seeing, or see thinking (visually). It might take a few minutes for thought activity to settle, to consider. This would be where the ‘proof’ you mentioned is & where it is realized human and apple are the same ‘substance’. 

They are connected.  To communicate the results of my experiment to you I have to use thoughts. As long as I'm not thinking I can't say "I'm seeing".. It just is what it is. But thought comes on and label it "seeing" to distinguish it from other sense perceptions.  And to be honest I can't see the link between that and the human and apple having the same substance anyways!  If you could guide me through it would be appreciated. 

[Someone here]

9 hours ago, Galyna said:

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

I just raised my hand now. If for this action to happen it requires an infinite regress of causes behind it it won't ever happen because these causes will just keep going forever (backwards) and I won't ever raise my hand. Yet here I am raising it! 

[Nahm]

@Someone here

Nice! ‘Human’ and ‘apple’ are thoughts, words learned. There aren’t actually ‘separate objects’. Only thought attachment to thoughts like ‘objects’. Also, ‘seeing’ is a thought, and there really isn’t even the knowing of ‘seeing’. 

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Someone here

Nice! ‘Human’ and ‘apple’ are thoughts, words learned. There aren’t actually ‘separate objects’. Only thought attachment to thoughts like ‘objects’. Also, ‘seeing’ is a thought, and there really isn’t even the knowing of ‘seeing’. 

Well.. This word "apple" and this word "human" are thoughts and concepts but the real things which these thoughts represent are not themselves thoughts. 

Same with "seeing". This is a concept but this co concept has a representation in the real world which is itself not a concept.! 

What do you mean there is no knowledge of seeing? I'm seeing now and I know that I'm seeing! 

[Nahm]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Well.. This word "apple" and this word "human" are thoughts and concepts but the real things which these thoughts represent are not themselves thoughts. 

Same with "seeing". This is a concept but this co concept has a representation in the real world which is itself not a concept.! 

What do you mean there is no knowledge of seeing? I'm seeing now and I know that I'm seeing! 

‘Real things’, ‘themselves’, ‘representation’, ‘real world’, ‘concept’... all thoughts, not even ‘seeing’, which is ‘itself’ also a thought. All ‘known’,  is none other than the very knowing. Only a thought, believed, implies otherwise. But thought is knowing. There’s nothing to be seen here, there is only not believing the next arising thought. ‘Knowledge of seeing’ is a thought, an overlay. It perpetuates the “I” belief. This is all articulated eloquently imo in the lyrics of moonlight sonata. 

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

‘Real things’, ‘themselves’, ‘representation’, ‘real world’, ‘concept’... all thoughts, not even ‘seeing’, which is ‘itself’ also a thought. All ‘known’,  is none other than the very knowing. Only a thought, believed, implies otherwise. But thought is knowing. There’s nothing to be seen here, there is only not believing the next arising thought. ‘Knowledge of seeing’ is a thought, an overlay. It perpetuates the “I” belief. This is all articulated eloquently imo in the lyrics of moonlight sonata. 

9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

 

I think it's unhealthy to get stuck in thoughts like that.  Everything in the mind and language are thoughts.. Even the idea of there being stuff which are not thoughts is itself a thought! So what?  Just because it is a "thought" doesn't really mean anything about its validity(another thought no problem lol) .  We can get lost in thoughts like that forever and we won't build any actual results on the world. At the end of the day and however you slice it:

This?‍♂️ is not this ?. Lol 

[Nahm]

@Someone here

Well hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I love someone here just as much as the next guy. ?♥️

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Someone here

Well hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I love someone here just as much as the next guy. ?♥️

LOL ❤️

[Carl-Richard]

@Someone here It's meaningless to try to fit reality into a physical model, because reality is not physical . It's true that infinity is logically impossible "within" a physical model, but that doesn't mean infinity is impossible within reality. Science makes models, but models are not reality.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Someone here It's meaningless to try to fit reality into a physical model, because reality is not physical . It's true that infinity is logically impossible "within" a physical model, but that doesn't mean infinity is impossible within reality. Science makes models, but models are not reality.

Why is reality not physical?  It's made out of physical stuff and follows physical laws! 

The impossibility of infinite regress have nothing to do with whether reality is physical or not. It's a logical impossibility not a physical one.  Let reality be made out of spiritual substance.. Still you can't have infinite regress of spiritual events or otherwise we wouldn't be here because it's gonna  take an infinity(unending) amount of time to get here!

I think there is a first cause for reality. I won't call it God tho. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Someone here

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Why is reality not physical?  It's made out of physical stuff and follows physical laws! 

You’ve already got the physical part down. You’ve spent four days in this thread showing how well you can see the physical aspects of reality. You don’t need any help in this area. What you cannot see is that you are locked in a dualistic paradigm of a physical vs. non-physical reality. Since you are attached / identified with the physical aspect, you will not be able to see the non-physical aspect. Similarly, if someone was attached/identified to the non-physical aspect, they would not be able to see the physical aspect that you can easily see. . . Notice how easily you can see the physical aspect. It is obvious to you. Yet due to the construction of opposition, the nonphysical aspect will be equally difficult for you to see. It is unobvious to you. The title of your thread seeks clarity for confusion. . . For clarification, it is wise to observe the source of the confusion, rather than immerse the mind within the confusion. 

Arguing for a physical position will not expand / deepen your understanding. You already have the physical part down, it’s the nonphysical you cannot see. For example, demanding physical proof of nonphysical is a contraction. Demanding logical explanations for post-logical is a contraction. You can stay within the contraction and self-described confusion you are having. Notice how you are in the same contraction in spite of four straight days of argumentation. With your orientation, this will continue for four weeks, four years, four decades. If you want to expand / deepen, observe your orientation. You will need to shift toward an orientation of curiosity, exploration and self experimentation. This is an energetic shift, not an intellectual shift. Yet a mind contracted within intellect will resist because it wants to control the narrative. This is expressed externally through argumentation with others, yet at a deeper level it is about control of the internal narrative in one’s own mind. Realizing this takes a lot of introspection work and the intellectual tail-chasing is a distraction. 

[Consept]

@Someone here 

I think what youre missing is that life is experiential, science is a map, if you like, of experience, in that it attempts to break down experience into a physical map that our minds are able to understand. For example 'time' is conceptual it doesnt really exist physically but its a measure of movement, the earth spinning around once is called a day or measured as 24 hours. If you get caught up on what time is you lose perspective of what the point of it is, its also not fixed to how we experience it, other beings my experience it differently or you can be in a different state and experience it differently, there are many factors. 

Every attempt to describe something experiential will always be less than the experience itself, theres not really any exceptions on that. If i experience true silence and peace that is what it is, theres no explanation that could clarify that more than the experience of this peace. You can say yes the brain is it rest and there is no movement and weve done scans and we can see the activity in the brain is minimal. You can even write books on this but the actual experience of peace is not experienced in any way, therefore it doesnt compare to and isnt actual peace no matter the depth of mental understanding.

When you say seeing, 'knowledge of seeing' is not comparable to seeing. Seeing is seeing, any description is less than seeing. So lets say youre blind but youre an expert on sight, youve read in braille every book that exists on the subject,you understand all the mechanics of it etc, you still will not understand it even close to the way in which someone who can see understands it. This is similar to awakening experiences, you can do all the research you like about brain activity but until you have direct experience youre basically blind. For a blind person to argue they understand sight more than someone with 20/20 vision doesnt really make sense. 

[Galyna]

59 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I think there is a first cause for reality. I won't call it God tho. 

I have enjoyed reading your thread, the reason I told you that I am quitting talking about this particular subject was because we are running the circle. I know that I am not forced to say anything and we're just sharing thoughts, but sometimes these thoughts do not progress. For instance, people in this thread trying to make some deductions for you. Consequently, you open your mind, which is great, you agree, but then, all of the sudden you go back to the same statement you've started with. Who knows, maybe I am wrong. 

59 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Why is reality not physical?  It's made out of physical stuff and follows physical laws! 

Ramana Maharshi had a great quote:

“There is neither creation nor destruction,
neither destiny nor free will, neither
path nor achievement.
This is the final truth.”
― Ramana Maharshi

  

Edited May 11, 2020 by Galyna

[The observer]

@Someone here

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

This?‍♂️ is not this ?.

But science says everything is strings. So, scientifically and logically speaking; this?‍♂️ is this ?.

At the most fundamental level, there's no difference between a toilet and a cake and a human. Yet, it appears that things are different and it appears that there are "things".

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. There's duality (appearance vs. actuality) inside non-duality. ☯️

It's strange, illogical, unexplainable, beautiful, wonderful, awesome. Yet, it is what it is.

And how do I know? I observe.

Edited May 11, 2020 by The observer

[Carl-Richard]

@Someone here Yes. Reality unfolds in a certain way, but that doesn't mean it's made out of matter. A dream can seem to follow rules in the way how it unfolds, but to say that this means that the dream is made out of matter is a red herring. The conception of time being linear and absolute is directly tied to the idea that reality is a physical universe consisting of matter suspended in space, and that's why you say it's illogical. I would also argue that the idea of a first cause is a weasely concept unless you're willing to concede that this "first cause" is infact infinite, because you cannot escape the problem of infinite regression. Though like I said, something having an infinite causal chain is the same as something being caused by nothing, because you cannot actually find an ultimate first cause.

[Someone here]

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Someone here Yes. Reality unfolds in a certain way, but that doesn't mean it's made out of matter. A dream can seem to follow rules in the way how it unfolds, but to say that this means that the dream is made out of matter is a red herring. The conception of time being linear and absolute is directly tied to the idea that reality is a physical universe consisting of matter suspended in space, and that's why you say it's illogical. I would also argue that the idea of a first cause is a weasely concept unless you're willing to concede that this "first cause" is infact infinite, because you cannot escape the problem of infinite regression. Though like I said, something having an infinite causal chain is the same as something being caused by nothing, because you cannot actually find an ultimate first cause.

Do you know what matter is bro? It is the phone that you're holding to type this reply and the electrons in your electronics that's running these technologies etc.  Why do you always bring  the dream analogy? It might be true Inside of a dream. What evidence do you have that life is a dream?  Do you even mean it literally (like there is literally someone somewhere dreaming this reality up) or as a metaphor?. 

From the first look time does flow lineary. The cause comes always before the effect this Is a logical rule not a physical rule. It's true by defention.  The first cause is not necessarily bounded by time. Could be outside time and space completely. Now this is just speculation i admit that.  Because we've reached a place outside of our knowledge. All that's left is to speculate. But at least we should hold on to what we already know as facts about our reality. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Someone here

[Someone here]

15 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

You’ve already got the physical part down. You’ve spent four days in this thread showing how well you can see the physical aspects of reality. You don’t need any help in this area. What you cannot see is that you are locked in a dualistic paradigm of a physical vs. non-physical reality. Since you are attached / identified with the physical aspect, you will not be able to see the non-physical aspect. Similarly, if someone was attached/identified to the non-physical aspect, they would not be able to see the physical aspect that you can easily see. . . Notice how easily you can see the physical aspect. It is obvious to you. Yet due to the construction of opposition, the nonphysical aspect will be equally difficult for you to see. It is unobvious to you. The title of your thread seeks clarity for confusion. . . For clarification, it is wise to observe the source of the confusion, rather than immerse the mind within the confusion. 

Arguing for a physical position will not expand / deepen your understanding. You already have the physical part down, it’s the nonphysical you cannot see. For example, demanding physical proof of nonphysical is a contraction. Demanding logical explanations for post-logical is a contraction. You can stay within the contraction and self-described confusion you are having. Notice how you are in the same contraction in spite of four straight days of argumentation. With your orientation, this will continue for four weeks, four years, four decades. If you want to expand / deepen, observe your orientation. You will need to shift toward an orientation of curiosity, exploration and self experimentation. This is an energetic shift, not an intellectual shift. Yet a mind contracted within intellect will resist because it wants to control the narrative. This is expressed externally through argumentation with others, yet at a deeper level it is about control of the internal narrative in one’s own mind. Realizing this takes a lot of introspection work and the intellectual tail-chasing is a distraction. 

Thank you. I appreciate your guidance and will work on it.  Much love and respect ?