can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm ?

[Nahm]

 

5 hours ago, Galyna said:

A mind is....basically a thought...vicious circle. 

That ’mind is a thought’ is a thought, but that thought is known via the mind. It doesn’t need to be contemplated or understood, but satori doesn’t need to be lasting either. Language wise, notice there’s no meaning on this screen. It’s being superimposed while “you’re reading this”. 

11 hours ago, Someone here said:

In this waking state it does. In a dream reality....

Not-two. 

@Serotoninluv

I ’d say thought appears as concept and or imagery, and the ‘relationship’ is only apparent, and is functionally speaking a-parent. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Nak Khid Oxytocin is more accurately called the bonding hormone. It invokes a social form of attachment-based relative love. It doesn't encapsulate all aspects of relative love, like hobbies and food etc.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[zeroISinfinity]

2 hours ago, Galyna said:

So you were upset that reality was NOT a thought construct... how about present moment does not exist? Lol . This forum has made my day!!!!

Yeah how funny you can be. 

[Galyna]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Language wise, notice there’s no meaning on this screen. It’s being superimposed while “you’re reading this”. 

 

[zeroISinfinity]

Maybe all this charade is fear from gap closure. Boils down to it. 

[Galyna]

11 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

Yeah how funny you can be. 

Yep 

[Jacobsrw]

11 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

Maybe all this charade is fear from gap closure. Boils down to it. 

All this charade is nothing but a story to entertain the mind. The mind uses itself to entertain itself, not realising it must ultimately dissipate into the void of nothing’s from which it arose.

Over conceptualising is the ego’s most central self defence mechanism. It uses it to substantiate all its absurdity, which of course cannot be any more validated than by the thought that first created it.

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Someone here]

9 hours ago, Member said:

Does a tree still exist when there's no eye to see it?

Depends on how do you define "exist". If you define it as "being perceived by me" then NO. If you define it as "a state of being that Is prior to and Independent from perception" then the answer is YES.  The whole trick is you can't know whether reality is subjective or objective. You can't know whether objects exist outside of your awareness or not. And like it or not..... You can't EVER know. 

And therefore the only absolute truth in the entire fucking existence is... This. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Someone here

[Gili Trawangan]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

And like it or not..... You can't EVER know. 

Stop making assumptions.

Yes, it can be known. Open your mind to that possibility. Don't argue with me, arguing is not how it's known.

[Someone here]

Just now, Gili Trawangan said:

Stop making assumptions.

Yes, it can be known. Open your mind to that possibility. Don't argue with me, arguing is not how it's known.

It's like saying you can know what you don't know without knowing it.  It doesn't make logical or grammatical sense. It's utterly impossible.. Meaningless and contradictory.

So yes I agree there is no need to argue about it. 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It's like saying you can know what you don't know without knowing it.  

You can!! Stop thinking reality is fundamentally logical.  It's not!  You will never be able to rationalize reality away.

[Gili Trawangan]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It's like saying you can know what you don't know without knowing it.  It doesn't make logical or grammatical sense. It's utterly impossible.. Meaningless and contradictory.

So yes I agree there is no need to argue about it. 

Yeah, you're not ready to open your mind. That's fine, just notice that. 

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You can!! Stop thinking reality is fundamentally logical.  It's not!  You will never be able to rationalize reality away.

I know.  That's why I say this is the only absolute. This was never discovered through logic. This is ever present and self evidently true.  Anything else "tree exists outside my perception" requires logic to talk about which a second order. I think you should be agreeing with this so I don't understand what's your point regarding this issue specifically. 

[Inliytened1]

@Someone here um..nothing. 

 

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

Yeah, you're not ready to open your mind. That's fine, just notice that. 

Stop talking to me as an authority. Stop assuming that I'm your student.  Maybe you need to open your mind that I'm not your student. If you don't buy what I'm saying then fine. But consider that I also don't buy what you are saying because you didn't actually say anything. 

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Someone here um..nothing. 

 

That's what we want ?

[Carl-Richard]

@Someone here Just on a wild tangent, your profile picture reminds me of one of the recurring phases of my childhood night terrors

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Someone here Just on a wild tangent, your profile picture reminds me of one of the recurring phases of my childhood night terrors

LOL. I could change it if you wish.. But only if you show me something fancier.

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

LOL. I could change it if you wish.. But only if you show me something fancier.

Hahaha no keep it. It's just a funny thought I had 

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hahaha no keep it. It's just a funny thought I had 

Cool then.