5-MeO-DMT Awakenings: From Naïve Realism to Symmetrical Enlightenment

[Razorback]

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/05/19/5-meo-dmt-awakenings-from-naive-realism-to-symmetrical-enlightenment/

 

This article from the qualia research institute goes over Leo's descriptions of the effects of 5-meo-DMT and compares them to their own models of what they call the symmetry theory of valence.

It's a long but fascinating read.

[Leo Gura]

Lol

That dude still doesn't get it.

Infinity.

Awakening is NOT interpretation and he will never be able to wrap his mind around it as he is trying to do.

He's not even close to getting it.

[Enlightenment]

@Leo Gura What do you think about Donald Hoffman's simulations that show organisms just tuned to fitness and seeing none of the reality as it truly is - always win in the evolutionary game over organisms seeing even a little bit of truth? It would suggest we don't perceive the true reality at all

 

[Leo Gura]

@Enlightenment Materialist delusions.

Truth is ever-present. Just clear your mind of egoic perception and all belief systems, including science.

True reality is all around you. There is nothing but true reality.

[Enlightenment]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Materialist delusions.

He is not a materialist

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Enlightenment said:

simulations that show organisms just tuned to fitness and seeing none of the reality as it truly is - always win in the evolutionary game over organisms seeing even a little bit of truth?

This is just another variation of materialism.

Materialism has many layers to it.

If you believe there are things such as objective organisms who perceive an external reality, that's already a serious error.

No such people should be taken seriously. They have not even a 1% clue of how reality works.

[Aquarius]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is just another variation of materialism.

Materialism has many layers to it.

If you believe there are things such as objective organisms who perceive an external reality, that's already a serious error.

Wow you really did do your homework, didn't you?

I love your latest insights. Keep them coming, I feel like you healed a lot! Much respect Leo!

[The Lucid Dreamer]

Donald Hoffman is an example of a stage orange/green materialist starting to see the writing on the wall, but who is still clinging to certain scientific dogma.  He claims he thinks that consciousness is fundamental, but then turns around and says in order to confirm that, he should be able to create a mathematical model of consciousness. This is laughably naive.  Is consciousness fundamental, or is mathematics? You can’t have it both ways. He doesn’t understand that mathematics arises out of consciousness. Consciousness does not arise out of mathematics. 

[Razorback]

Maybe mathematics is fundamental? You are putting Consciousness first and I assume you're using personal experience (consciousness work) to come to that conclusion.

Seems like circular reasoning to me.

[Cocolove]

4 hours ago, Razorback said:

Maybe mathematics is fundamental? You are putting Consciousness first and I assume you're using personal experience (consciousness work) to come to that conclusion.

Seems like circular reasoning to me.

i've had that same thought when i was contemplating circularity

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Razorback said:

Maybe mathematics is fundamental? You are putting Consciousness first and I assume you're using personal experience (consciousness work) to come to that conclusion.

Seems like circular reasoning to me.

Mathematics is a human projection.

[The Lucid Dreamer]

2 hours ago, Razorback said:

Maybe mathematics is fundamental? 

This is nonsense. Mathematics has no intrinsic meaning outside the conceptual egoic mind. Numbers and math were constructed by humans to help map out our world to aid in our survival, but all they can ever do is approximate, and this is simply because reality is Infinite.  
 

Mathematical equations are sets of symbols that we project onto reality. They are not objective things. Symbols can never fully encapsulate or directly represent Infinity.  
 

If you need me to explain why reality is infinite, I will gladly do so. 

[Verdesbird]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is just another variation of materialism.

Materialism has many layers to it.

If you believe there are things such as objective organisms who perceive an external reality, that's already a serious error.

No such people should be taken seriously. They have not even a 1% clue of how reality works.

Leo i just believe that if you really have so much info about how reality really works you will be able to at least do some alternative shit
 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Verdesbird

[Razorback]

I don't see why reality being infinite negates a universe that is fundamentally mathematical. In fact, the biggest proponent for this idea, the physicist Max Tegmark describes the several ways infinity plays into his theory that fundamentally, reality is a mathematical structure.

Saying consciousness is what reality is, leaves us without knowing what consciousness is. We know it's this immaterial experience thing, but it seems like a rather complex system to be the ultimate fundamental building block. Math, on the other hand, is self-sustaining. It is the rules of logic themselves, from the simplest possible bit of information to infinity in complexity. You can't make a model of it using something else, but you can use It to model anything you want (computation).

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Mathematics is a human projection.

I disagree.

[Verdesbird]

i mean.. i know a group of esoteric christians that have mediuns who materialize objects out of nowhere

then Leo knows all the rules of the universe and what does he can do ... nothing ! 

cmon !

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Razorback said:

I don't see why reality being infinite negates a universe that is fundamentally mathematical. In fact, the biggest proponent for this idea, the physicist Max Tegmark describes the several ways infinity plays into his theory that fundamentally, reality is a mathematical structure.

Saying consciousness is what reality is, leaves us without knowing what consciousness is. We know it's this immaterial experience thing, but it seems like a rather complex system to be the ultimate fundamental building block. Math, on the other hand, is self-sustaining. It is the rules of logic themselves, from the simplest possible bit of information to infinity in complexity. You can't make a model of it using something else, but you can use It to model anything you want (computation).

I disagree.

Math rests on the axiom of duality. 1 + 1 = 2 requires that there are distinct sets of objects “1” and “1” which may come together and be “2.” Yet if it were true that there was no such thing as separate or distinct objects, there was only ONENESS, one unified conscious field without separation or room to create the objects “1” and “1” all math completely dissolved and loses meaning. In other words, if existence is indeed non-dual, math loses all meaning. 

The fact that math requires axiomatic assumptions at all is a big red flag as to math being fundamental. Absolute truth must be so true, it requires no axioms hence why it is absolute. 

Also just look at your direct experience. What comes first? Conscious perception, or math? Math arises out of your perception, this is a direct observation of reality. 

[Razorback]

Quote

The fact that math requires axiomatic assumptions at all is a big red flag as to math being fundamental. Absolute truth must be so true, it requires no axioms hence why it is absolute. 

I admit I thought about what you said for a good while. I noticed I was confused. So possibly I didn't understand it but in the case that I did my conclusion is that it might be logical if I accept some of the premises but I don't think I accept the premises, particularly that truth requires no axioms or that something having axioms makes it less fundamental. 

54 minutes ago, Consilience said:

Also just look at your direct experience. What comes first? Conscious perception, or math? Math arises out of your perception, this is a direct observation of reality. 

Let's imagine for a moment that consciousness is not fundamental, that it is at the other end of the spectrum from whatever is fundamental.

First comes the mysterious fundamental thing we haven't discovered yet, from that emerges physics, from that, emerges chemistry, from that emerges biology, from that emerges nervous systems and brains, from that, emerges consciousness.

Ok imagining such a scenario is true, you still find yourself in a situation where direct experience can only tell you about consciousness and it's contents. You can become as enlightened as is possible and explore absolute infinity to its limit. You will never ever step outside consciousness.

In that particular hypothetical universe the conclusions you arrive from experience, therefore, can lead you to a completely false picture of reality.

Am I wrong here? If one truly lived in a material universe, how would it be different from how you experience things now? Would anything change at all regarding your personal experience?

Edited May 20, 2020 by Razorback

[Consilience]

@Razorback

You’re technically correct. What you’re describing is scientific materialism which is a model of reality that is *can be* supported by logic and reason as well as evidence regarding things like brain states correlating with perception. This is not proof though. 

 

We have to be very careful with observation. What do we observe? Perception or material? Even if materialism is the correct answer, we observe perception. As such, perception is undeniable. It’s totally in our face. Yet this idea of material requires extra steps. The idea of material reality must always be concluded out of that which we are aware. In other words, the only way to even conceive of a material world is to first have consciousness and a perception. Now all of this doesn’t “prove” that there is no such material world; what it does prove is that we are directly experiencing perception and critically, that “material” requires us to conceptualize about our perception, as perception is all we truly have access to. We must perceive and then conceptualize about perception to conclude the existence of physical material. 

 

When it can finally click that materialism is a concept about perception, you must then begin to investigate the metaphysical nature of concept. What is a concept? Strictly speaking, a concept is made of mind. Literally, without a mind, there could be no such thing as concept. Mind and concept are one in the same. Yet even concepts are perceived and as such perception. So literally materialism is a perception explaining perception. 

 

We might then ask, well what gives rise to these perceptions?? Doesn’t material reality give rise to them? I.e. brains. Well... funny thing about concepts: all concepts require axioms. Just like our math example. All concepts require a priori beliefs or assumptions in order to be true. At some level if you examine ANY, and I mean ANY line of reason, you’ll find an axiom/assumption required in order for the premise to hold true. These axioms must either have more lines of reason to prove they’re valid or must be acknowledged as BELIEFS. This either turns into an infinite chain of regressing rationality, having to prove out every single possible axiom infinitum, or we admit we are taking something on as faith.

 

Truth, enlightenment, absolute reality, has nothing to do with beliefs or faith. It is absolute and therefore absolutely true under any and all circumstance. Perception as itself, Being itself, is true. The existence of perception being is unfalsifiable and thus more fundamental than any idea like materialism or a simulation theory of reality. Not perception as a product of the brain, the actual being of the perception, the actuality of it. Concepts are relative, direct experience is absolute. 

 

Now I know this is all very complex stuff. If you are still concerned with the question, “well what if there is a material reality outside producing perception??” You still haven’t become conscious of what beliefs are driving this idea nor what the metaphysical nature of a belief really is. I hope this helps in your contemplation.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Razorback said:

I don't see why reality being infinite negates a universe that is fundamentally mathematical. In fact, the biggest proponent for this idea, the physicist Max Tegmark describes the several ways infinity plays into his theory that fundamentally, reality is a mathematical structure.

Saying consciousness is what reality is, leaves us without knowing what consciousness is. We know it's this immaterial experience thing, but it seems like a rather complex system to be the ultimate fundamental building block. Math, on the other hand, is self-sustaining. It is the rules of logic themselves, from the simplest possible bit of information to infinity in complexity. You can't make a model of it using something else, but you can use It to model anything you want (computation).

I disagree.

Don't disagree. Actually investigate what mathematics is. This is not a matter of speculation. If you don't project mathematics, it does not exist. You can clearly see this if you care to look.

Max Tegmark is deluded.

You will never model Infinity and Infinity is not a mathematical notion.

[The Lucid Dreamer]

52 minutes ago, Razorback said:

I don't see why reality being infinite negates a universe that is fundamentally mathematical. In fact, the biggest proponent for this idea, the physicist Max Tegmark describes the several ways infinity plays into his theory that fundamentally, reality is a mathematical structure.

Saying consciousness is what reality is, leaves us without knowing what consciousness is. We know it's this immaterial experience thing, but it seems like a rather complex system to be the ultimate fundamental building block. Math, on the other hand, is self-sustaining. It is the rules of logic themselves, from the simplest possible bit of information to infinity in complexity. You can't make a model of it using something else, but you can use It to model anything you want (computation).

Then you don’t understand what Infinity means, and neither does Max Tegmark.   There are no numbers crunching behind the scenes of reality. The mathematics that he believes is inherent to reality is projected post-hoc, and the reason he projects them is simply because he’s a mathematician.  All problems look like a nail to a hammer, and all reality looks like a mathematical equation to a mathematician.  It’s the way he sees the world.  

Really think about what a number is.  Look around the room, and count how many separate objects you see.  Is there anything in the universe, outside of your mind that decided that the actual number of separate objects in your room is X?  Or did you draw the lines between these separate objects? How did you decide they were separate?  

Numbers are concepts. Period. Reality does not make any judgments about how many there is of anything within itself.  It just is, and no symbols can ever encapsulate what “It” is. Infinity cannot be pinned down, because it’s Infinite!  How can a finite equation ever encompass Infinity?