Undermining Physicalism

[TDW1995]

Lately I've been using mindfulness meditation to deconstruct my assumption of a physical reality. I've also been questioning the idea of objects existing without direct observation. This has really opened my mind to the possibility that reality is not static. Recently, I have realized that I consider sight as the most primary of all the five senses. Without sight, I feel like I wouldn't be able to name "things" within reality. For example, when I close my eyes I can feel my "body", but does what I call the "body" exist while my eyes are closed? If not, then I rely on sight to attach names to "objects" within reality. And, when I think of the "body", an image comes to mind, not a feeling, hearing, smelling, or tasting sensation. This realization has made me wonder if any sensation is "above" another, like on a hierarchy. If I indeed realize that there is no hierarchy, and all senses are on the same level, I think that would be a very profound realization. I feel like I'm starting to make traction on breaking down the paradigm of objective reality, but not sure if I'm on the right track.

Although I feel like I'm making progress, I still have a hard time shaking the idea that objects don't exist independent of perception. One major roadblock is the fact that reality seems so consistent. My bedroom looks the same from one night to the next. All "objects" stay in the same place. Sometimes I wonder, if reality doesn't consist of static objects, then why isn't everything randomized on a moment to moment basis?

[Nak Khid]

2 hours ago, TDW1995 said:

 

Although I feel like I'm making progress, I still have a hard time shaking the idea that objects don't exist independent of perception. 

If you show a young baby an object and then put the object behind some larger object so the baby
can't see it the baby thinks the object has disappeared 

Assuming the baby is correct that the object has in fact disappeared we must do the same , live life with no assumptions. 
You can't rely on your senses to predict anything 
only to sense things at a given moment 

[Leo Gura]

@TDW1995 It's more radical than you think.

"Sensation" itself is a false notion. Colors, sounds, feeling, etc. are not really sensation.

"Sensation" is a notion created by the ego-mind in order for it to believe the human self is real.

The notion of "sensation" comes pre-baked with the notion that there is a self who is having sensations.

See video: What Is Perception?

Not only are all senses equal, everything in the universe is equal to everything else!

A taco is the same as a basketball. Any difference you think exists between them is purely your bias and imagination. 

Realize this: There is no difference between anything.

[Nak Khid]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

A taco is the same as a basketball. Any difference you think exists between them is purely your bias and imagination. 

 

then how come tacos don't bounce? 

[TDW1995]

@Nak Khid Makes sense. I've never experienced anything without directly perceiving it. Yet, I assume things are there independent of direct observation. 

@Leo Gura Never thought of it that way! What I'm hearing you say is that only a "separate self" can believe it is sensing something. But, there may be no sensations at all since it implies a perceiver. Seems like a language game that must be transcended. I'll need to rewatch that episode for a refresher. 

[commie]

2 hours ago, TDW1995 said:

Lately I've been using mindfulness meditation to deconstruct my assumption of a physical reality. ... Sometimes I wonder, if reality doesn't consist of static objects, then why isn't everything randomized on a moment to moment basis?

It sounds like you never assumed a physical reality considering objects are not physical. Sensations as well as objects are mental.

There are two ways to explain why everything isn't randomized in the physicalist framework: 

-top-down: because minds such as the one you experience require order and regularity

-bottom-up: physical theories

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

then how come tacos don't bounce? 

Where in the universe does it say that a taco must bounce in order to be the same as a basketball?

Can you see that YOU are the only one imposing that criterion?

All criteria for difference or similarity are relative and arbitrary!

There is no difference between bouncing and not-bouncing.

Get it?

20 minutes ago, TDW1995 said:

Seems like a language game that must be transcended.

It's not a language game, it's the foundation of your mind's BIOS.

If you realize what I am telling you, your mind will collapse into emptiness. You won't be able to tell the difference between up and down, good and bad, past and future, life and death, love and hate, etc.

[Nak Khid]

well I guess this means there is no reality

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Where in the universe does it say that a taco must bounce in order to be the same as a basketball?

Can you see that YOU are the only one imposing that criterion?

All criteria for difference or similariry are relative and arbitrary!

Get it?

 

Very nice as an abstract idea but if this was true you would not make videos because anything spoken uses a collection of different words
and  words impose criterion

 

[Nak Khid]

16 minutes ago, commie said:

 objects are not physical. Sensations as well as objects are mental.

 

If something were physical would a person be able to know something was physical ? 

[cnfvm]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Where in the universe does it say that a taco must bounce in order to be the same as a basketball?

Can you see that YOU are the only one imposing that criterion?

All criteria for difference or similariry are relative and arbitrary!

Get it?

It's not a language game, it's the foundation of your mind's BIOS.

If you realize what I am telling you, your mind will collapse into emptiness. You won't be able to tell the difference between up and down, good and bad, past and future, etc.

if  you actually believe what you are saying , use your mind's bias and teleport me right next to you and i am gonna show you that you can't eat a basketball, even if you think it is a taco. LMAO 

Just kidding Leo. i know you are trying understand. it is ok.  

 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, cnfvm said:

if  you actually believe what you are saying , use your mind's bias and teleport me right next to you

I did one better. I became you

Teleportation assumes you and I are apart.

[cnfvm]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I did one better. I became you

oh , yes you did. i know that for sure. HAHA

[commie]

7 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

If something were physical would a person be able to know something was physical ? 

You'd need a theory of physical things in order to answer that question. In the physicalist framework, persons develop models about the physical world and do not magically know things.

[cnfvm]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Teleportation assumes you and I are apart.

stop editing man, it breaks the magic.

you love me soooo much don't you you silly shiny head

[Brenzo2]

24 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Very nice as an abstract idea but if this was true you would not make videos because anything spoken uses a collection of different words

and  words impose criterion

 

Making videos require that words be spoken in a way that conveys specific words for a very specific finite communication. This doesn't say much about the Truth / what Leo is referring to (I'm pretty sure). All videos made are relative and nothing that is done for the purpose of creating a video would conflict with the assertion. ? 

Why does it seem like an abstract idea to you? For me I can locate this truth in my direct experience. 

[Brenzo2]

20 minutes ago, cnfvm said:

i am gonna show you that you can't eat a basketball, even if you think it is a taco. 

You could eat a basketball but you wouldn't due to survival reasons. And it would be a little rubbery and might not go down too well. Lol. 

[Nak Khid]

15 minutes ago, Brenzo2 said:

Making videos require that words be spoken in a way that conveys specific words for a very specific finite communication. This doesn't say much about the Truth / what Leo is referring to (I'm pretty sure). All videos made are relative and nothing that is done for the purpose of creating a video would conflict with the assertion. ? 

Why does it seem like an abstract idea to you? For me I can locate this truth in my direct experience. 

If you actually act on the belief that distinctions don't exist you would stop speaking  or writing , to do so would be meaningless 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Nak Khid]

55 minutes ago, commie said:

 objects are mental.

If objects are mental what is the mind? 

 

.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Nak Khid

[commie]

If objects are mental it follows that the mind is the creator of objects, doesn't it? It follows furthermore that the mind creates itself as an object. It does not follow however than the mind is only a object. If you can understand the Trinity, you can understand this.

[Nak Khid]

4 minutes ago, commie said:

If objects are mental it follows that the mind is the creator of objects, doesn't it? It follows furthermore that the mind creates itself as an object. It does not follow however than the mind is only a object. If you can understand the Trinity, you can understand this.

Is there a difference between an object and a thought ? 

 what is the mind?