A question to Leo

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Mu_ said:

@Someone here Something I made a video on that connects to this conversation is what do you call something that depends on something else to be called anything to begin with.  Check out my link and open the video about "what is fear, what is anything", should be at the top.

Basically is a human a human, or do atoms make up humans?  Is it both?  Or is a human dependent on a combination of environment, oxygen, water, earth, gravity, big bang, blood, microorganism, etc....   Are they all true, or does the most underlying "something" define everything?

Like for example if a human is made up of atoms, its not a human, its atoms labeled as a human....  

Or if its both, because you can see both a human and the atoms at the same time, what then do you call either if they are the same at the same time? (this ones a kicker, a real mind fuck that I think your looking for)

Watched the video, I dont want to type it all here, it adds a lot of food for thought to this question you originally asked.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I watched your video. 

So basically to sum up you're saying the human =the atoms.  Not that a human is made of atoms.  In the same way consciousness is all the layers.. Not that consciousness is made of different layers.  Is that what you're saying? 

[commie]

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Did I tag you or something in the post? ... Anyways, lay out what you mean by I'm simply wrong, lol, how is this any different then your accusation if your not willing to lay out any information from your side?

No, you didn't tag me or something. I also didn't say you were wrong. My only accusation was about the way you're using language (and again, it's not just you) so information doesn't come into it.

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Are you saying there is actually a way in which things are Absolutely/Objectively/Non-Objectively (again which I'm not defining), that isn't in some way connected or responsible for this obvious "something" you and I can agree is being experienced?

No. For what it's worth, "in some way connected" is broad enough to encompass my perspective.

But while we might agree about the theory if we bothered to formulate it rigorously, I don't think it is at all obvious that we actually experience the same (no)thing. In fact, I don't know that you experience anything at all and our agreement wouldn't help considering a computer can be programmed to agree for instance. I merely believe that our experiences are similar.

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

But again how can it simply be wrong that ...

The problem is with the "simply ask" part I highlighted. Namely, "could what ever the mystery of whats going on, not be going during the inquiry of doing so". As has already been pointed out, you're effectively assuming your non-dual conclusion. It's hidden within appeals to simplicity and other verbal ornaments but that was the central argument of your post, isn't it? Certainly I'd say that's been the central issue this whole discussion about layers, infinity and whatnot revolves upon.

Edited October 20, 2020 by commie
making sure I'm not mistaken for a solipsist

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I watched your video. 

So basically to sum up you're saying the human =the atoms.  Not that a human is made of atoms.  In the same way consciousness is all the layers.. Not that consciousness is made of different layers.  Is that what you're saying? 

The video is made more to stimulate frames of understanding how perspectives see and contextualize stuff and leave you with feeling the depths of such possibility and coming closer to your understanding. Perhaps my own take is also coming out as well which is in the realm of what you estimated. 

[Mu_]

25 minutes ago, commie said:

No, you didn't tag me or something. I also didn't say you were wrong. My only accusation was about the way you're using language (and again, it's not just you) so information doesn't come into it.

No. For what it's worth, "in some way connected" is broad enough to encompass my perspective.

But while we might agree about the theory if we bothered to formulate it rigorously, I don't think it is at all obvious that we actually experience the same (no)thing. In fact, I don't know that you experience anything at all and our agreement wouldn't help considering a computer can be programmed to agree for instance. I merely believe that our experiences are similar.

The problem is with the "simply ask" part I highlighted. Namely, "could what ever the mystery of whats going on, not be going during the inquiry of doing so". As has already been pointed out, you're effectively assuming your non-dual conclusion. It's hidden within appeals to simplicity and other verbal ornaments but that was the central argument of your post, isn't it? Certainly I'd say that's been the central issue this whole discussion about layers, infinity and whatnot revolves upon.

Could you go more into detail how I’m wrong, or do you just not agree, it would help me better respond. 

I’m not sure what a nondual conclusion is.  But I can see how you may be interpreting what I’m broadly inferring as nondual since as you’ve highlighted in your second paragraph that you can’t be sure, of much. 

However what is this being sure I’m not a computer, you serious, are also saying your not sure your a computer?  Anyways it doesn’t matter either way, a computer being and answering would in the same validate “somethings” .....happening?.... or do computers float around independently of environments or foundational systems or properties, like a One-nondual computer machine, which I’m not saying but if it was, that would fall into what an ontology/cosmology is and would be the answer of what’s behind the “something” happening.  

Or wouldn’t this supposed computer answering indicate that it’s connected in the broadest sense to a larger layer of stuff making “computer” possible.  Again  pointing to what I’m saying, “something” is happening and is broadly connected to anything.  

 

Also if we are both computers, then did a computer think up this thought experiment you used to prove me wrong, lol. 

[commie]

All I'm saying is that you could be wrong, in at least two ways:

Most obviously, there could be some kind of separation within a united "something" preventing us from being aware of this "something". That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

But while physicalism guarantees a kind of unity (quite possibly encompassing all there is) foundational to our experiences , if we're not going as you've argued to make any assumptions about "something" then there is no reason to assume such a unity. Perhaps the "mystery" stops before the "inquiry" or perhaps they're separated in other ways. If anything is possible, what do we know?

4 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

do computers float around independently of environments or foundational systems or properties

The programs do, in principle at least. The whole point of a general-purpose computer is that you can run different programs on it, which also means you could run its program on a completely different (and possibly completely separate) general-purpose computer. Though it would be a poor design, a computer could for instance run the "mystery" program for a millisecond then switch to the "inquiry" program and then back to the "mystery" again...

Whether an experience such has ours can be the product of a computer program or not, I was only talking about behavior (programs can for instance produce words which can fool us into believing we're talking to someone like us as opposed to a crude artifice).

[Mu_]

17 minutes ago, commie said:

All I'm saying is that you could be wrong, in at least two ways:

Most obviously, there could be some kind of separation within a united "something" preventing us from being aware of this "something". That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

But while physicalism guarantees a kind of unity (quite possibly encompassing all there is) foundational to our experiences , if we're not going as you've argued to make any assumptions about "something" then there is no reason to assume such a unity. Perhaps the "mystery" stops before the "inquiry" or perhaps they're separated in other ways. If anything is possible, what do we know?

The programs do, in principle at least. The whole point of a general-purpose computer is that you can run different programs on it, which also means you could run its program on a completely different (and possibly completely separate) general-purpose computer. Though it would be a poor design, a computer could for instance run the "mystery" program for a millisecond then switch to the "inquiry" program and then back to the "mystery" again...

Whether an experience such has ours can be the product of a computer program or not, I was only talking about behavior (programs can for instance produce words which can fool us into believing we're talking to someone like us as opposed to a crude artifice).

Ok interesting, new stuff to answer.

Ok I'll start with the last one first.

Where would supposed computers that are seperate from each other, running individual programs that creates our experience of "inquiry" and "mystery" be housed?  Somewhere I'd imagine in which "something" is happening.  

Ok, to your first paragraph, which the above answer kinda answers.  Even if there is infinities outside of perceptions, what does that have to do with the acknowledgement now that "something" is happening.

And to your doubtful physicalism paragraph, hmmm, so your saying its possible for there to be like a cosmology/ontology that goes to a point, then stops, and then something later appears called you and me talking with no connection to the original ontology/cosmology and no connection to a new foundation or anything?  Sounds like your making up 4+3 could equal 15 just because you thought about it in your mind and it made sense (no offense). 

[Shin]

11 minutes ago, commie said:

 That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

 

So you don't know, you're just assuming because of what you heard ?

[seeking_brilliance]

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

@seeking_brilliance

So weird! I swear I was having the same dream! Crazy. 

 

We can dream together if you'd like... I'll let you set the rules. 

[commie]

13 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

And to your doubtful physicalism paragraph, hmmm, so your saying its possible for there to be like a cosmology/ontology that goes to a point, then stops, and then something later appears called you and me talking with no connection to the original ontology/cosmology and no connection to a new foundation or anything?  Sounds like your making up 4+3 could equal 15 just because you thought about it in your mind and it made sense (no offense). 

The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly.

Of course there must be some kind of connection, or we'd simply have two "somethings" instead of a fractured "something". But this connection could in principle take any form (continuing with the computing analogy, it could for instance involve only partial output and not the program itself) and could already be over (assuming "something" happens in time).

We are both making things up (specifically, sentences) and all we can achieve is making sense. Languages have complicated rules, and as a result we can for instance say that 4+3==7 is true. What I've been claiming here is that you're not following rules which would allow you to say anything conclusive about "something".

[Mu_]

37 minutes ago, commie said:

The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly.

Of course there must be some kind of connection, or we'd simply have two "somethings" instead of a fractured "something". But this connection could in principle take any form (continuing with the computing analogy, it could for instance involve only partial output and not the program itself) and could already be over (assuming "something" happens in time).

We are both making things up (specifically, sentences) and all we can achieve is making sense. Languages have complicated rules, and as a result we can for instance say that 4+3==7 is true. What I've been claiming here is that you're not following rules which would allow you to say anything conclusive about "something".

Ya in a sense I get your apprehension, I'm one of the most skepitcal people around as well at one point, and to some degree still.  I mean you seem to be accepting certain certainties/rules like why making sense happens or how language is or works or is part of communication, perhaps you assume autonomy (im not sure), and yes I'm using a form of connection/example/language to form a point.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you, which is fine, but I think by your own rules you'd have to prove your rules as well to prove I'm breaking them.

But again, tree's plant seeds, which grow trees, tree's seem to come from earth, earth seems to have come from a galaxy that supposedly was birth from a big bang event, that presumably came from or resulted from "something".  Maybe the chain of connection is broken, but then where would these two instances be in?  "something/somewhere/nowhere" i'd imagine and even if it can't be nailed down I don't know how you could make a sensical argument that the grand "totality, or what ever actual is happening" is not in some way influencing, resulting, connected, responsible (although this is a loaded word), involved with in infinite degree's of seperation, with this moment of possibilty congitizing something on this screen as you read.

Also you said that this possible something could seperate itself because anything is possible, but what would it seperate itself from or with?  ITself I'd imagine since thats all there is and guess what thats not seperation, lol, thats just more continuations of itself and thus still happening now.  If thats not what "something" is then refer to previous paragraph.

Oh to reply to your "The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly."

You don't need to experience the from "something" directly, the fact that there is "something" is proof of "something" (not saying nondual god, infinity or any particular cosmology/ontology).

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, seeking_brilliance said:

We can dream together if you'd like... I'll let you set the rules. 

Oh heck no. I tried that already & failed. Rules are all yours. 

[seeking_brilliance]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@seeking_brilliance

So weird! I swear I was having the same dream! Crazy. 

 

Rule 1:  have fun

Rule 2: love hard

Rule 3: play hard

Rule 4:look alive 

Rule 5: close your eyes and we'll be together. 

?‍♂️ OK I got it out of my system 

Edited October 20, 2020 by seeking_brilliance

[Member]

9 hours ago, integral said:

What if everything your saying is just an insightful way of making sense of existence? How do we differentiate between paradigms?

Is it possible to be paradigm agnostic? 

Everything that exists is your insightful way of making sense of existence. Infinity doesn't follow a certain pattern, only your life story does. There is not some separate truth that you need to find out because everything that happens is dependent on your POV. So you either acknowledge that YOU are the shaper of your own reality, or let reality shape you ad infinitum. Also, shape or form (or whatever expression existence takes) isn't permanent, so your human form isn't reality. Form isn't absolute truth and it doesn't fit any paradigm because it is always changing... yet IT IS NOT separate from the Truth. Obviously, a mortal will not appreciate the depth of this infinity.

8 hours ago, Dodo said:

Logic has nothing to do with it. Your logic will never understand absolute infinity. You don't see how you are limiting the absolute to fit your logical paradigm. Keep weaving stories. Thats not truth, thats arrogance and clinging. 

Accept you do not know and will never know. That's true knowledge. It doesn't mean you can't know. It means you will never know all. It means to be humble and to be able to surrender to God. 

God will separate the poison from the milk. I do not pretend to know and I am not claiming godhood.

Let he who claims godhood explain why I am saying what im saying and not what they want.

Logic alone will not help you understand absolute infinity. I see you're using a word that implies knowledge, so who's arrogant and clinging to the limited human perspective? You expect me to say that we're human and perceive all there is. Great, what's next?

What is there to know, tell me.

[commie]

7 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

you seem to be accepting certain certainties/rules like why making sense happens or how language is or works or is part of communication, perhaps you assume autonomy (im not sure), and yes I'm using a form of connection/example/language to form a point.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you, which is fine, but I think by your own rules you'd have to prove your rules as well to prove I'm breaking them.

4+3!=15 being true isn't a result of my rules but of our rules. Languages are social, even if they have strange connections to non-social things.

I'm not trying to prove anything nor am I claiming that you broke rules exactly... you didn't seem to be using any! Of course I don't know all the rules but my assumption is that on a forum such as this one, you'd use rules everyone would recognize (as you did when you brought up an addition) or start by talking about the rules you intended to use...

7 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

But again, tree's plant seeds, which grow trees, tree's seem to come from earth, earth seems to have come from a galaxy that supposedly was birth from a big bang event, that presumably came from or resulted from "something".

The separation which seems most obvious to me (because it's what I happen to believe) would be that seeds, trees and so forth might be mental objects whereas "something" might not be. Where are mental objects and does that mean there is a connection or not? That would depend on how the mind works, and of course on what you mean exactly by "connection".

And in mainstream cosmology (since you bring up the big bang), there are of course different ways in which places in the universe aren't in causal contact with each other anymore. So you could say the connection is broken. Certainly the way you've sometimes described connections ("is happening", "influencing", "during" and so forth) wouldn't apply to non-causal connections.

7 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Also you said that this possible something could seperate itself because anything is possible, but what would it seperate itself from or with?  ITself I'd imagine since thats all there is and guess what thats not seperation, lol, thats just more continuations of itself and thus still happening now.  If thats not what "something" is then refer to previous paragraph.

We've already talked physics and computers but this kind of separation is also part of life, isn't it? Even without sexual reproduction, the offspring is more than just a continuation, especially after many generations. Again, there is a sort of connection in the past but remote ancestors aren't "still happening now".

Yes, the life forms we know are part of a larger "something" but if we don't know anything about "something", there might not be any "super-something" nor do we know if it has parents or children or if the family stays in touch.

7 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

You don't need to experience the from "something" directly, the fact that there is "something" is proof of "something" (not saying nondual god, infinity or any particular cosmology/ontology).

Sure. I only brought that up because of the context in which you originally introduced "something" (people were talking about "layers" for instance).

[r0ckyreed]

On 10/19/2020 at 4:48 PM, Someone here said:

Amazing video bruh  . Thanks for this. ❤️

I have a question.. You said that reality is NOT made of two layers.. The layer of appearance and the layer of "stuff behind the scenes". But rather it's just the layer of appearances.   You gave example.. You said My refrigerator is being held within my consciousness.. You said the refrigerator is the appearance of the refrigerator in the present moment and that's all that there is to it. There is no refrigerator behind the refrigerator.  And ofcourse that means there is no Leo behind Leo as well.   Now that's solipsism.  Please don't get critical about the label but that is what this philosophy is all about. 

Now you said that the universe is infinite mind and is literally capable of everything.. Universe =infinite mind.  Also you said why would the universe manifest itself through two layers (layers of appearance +layer of objectivity).. It's easier just to manifest itself directly as an appearance.   

My question to you... Why not? 

If the universe is infinite mind.. Why it can't msnifest through two layers? Or four layers?   Why can't my refrigerator exist when it's not in the first layer (being perceived)?  Isn't that you imposing a limit from your mind on infinte mind?. 

I hope the question is clear.  Thanks. 

 

The beginning of this video was what I was trying to explain to you. All others and yourself are imagination. All that there is, consciousness. All other layers that you are imagining are imaginary. Imagination is the layer of reality. Nothing is outside of consciousness. All that exists is consciousness. 

[r0ckyreed]

22 hours ago, Someone here said:

The second layer is NOT outside of consciousness ofcourse. But it's outside of my consciousness.  

There is no “my” consciousness because that implies a “your” consciousness. There is only Consciousness. “My” consciousness is Consciousness and there is nothing outside of it. With that refrigerator example, apply that to what you call “other” people and “other” minds. Then you’ll realize that this is a Dream, and everything in your Dream is dream-stuff.

[Nahm]

@seeking_brilliance

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, commie said:

4+3!=15 being true isn't a result of my rules but of our rules. Languages are social, even if they have strange connections to non-social things.

I'm not trying to prove anything nor am I claiming that you broke rules exactly... you didn't seem to be using any! Of course I don't know all the rules but my assumption is that on a forum such as this one, you'd use rules everyone would recognize (as you did when you brought up an addition) or start by talking about the rules you intended to use...

The separation which seems most obvious to me (because it's what I happen to believe) would be that seeds, trees and so forth might be mental objects whereas "something" might not be. Where are mental objects and does that mean there is a connection or not? That would depend on how the mind works, and of course on what you mean exactly by "connection".

And in mainstream cosmology (since you bring up the big bang), there are of course different ways in which places in the universe aren't in causal contact with each other anymore. So you could say the connection is broken. Certainly the way you've sometimes described connections ("is happening", "influencing", "during" and so forth) wouldn't apply to non-causal connections.

We've already talked physics and computers but this kind of separation is also part of life, isn't it? Even without sexual reproduction, the offspring is more than just a continuation, especially after many generations. Again, there is a sort of connection in the past but remote ancestors aren't "still happening now".

Yes, the life forms we know are part of a larger "something" but if we don't know anything about "something", there might not be any "super-something" nor do we know if it has parents or children or if the family stays in touch.

Sure. I only brought that up because of the context in which you originally introduced "something" (people were talking about "layers" for instance).

ya I hear ya again, its actually nice talking in a different way to someone on this forum, and yes I'm using super broad words since I don't want to type a lot atm and I don't normally communicate in this fashion (you may of garnered such if you watched any of my videos), lol, but in your example of remote ancestors and if its "still happening now", well atoms were and are still happening and its intrinsic to the form or label "ancestor", dna, proteins, empty space which seems to be the most predominate commonality shared.  All happened, still happening now or just have always eternally been present, amazing, fascinating, interesting, no.  Thats in the ballpark of my point.  so to "maybe" hail marry tie in the OPs question, "something" is happening as layers or non-layers or 1 layer.  Even if we can't exactly nail down exactly what "something" is. Lol, anyways.

[Inliytened1]

14 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

So what difference does it make to call it physicality or work of mind? 

There is a huge difference because the nature of reality - which is your true nature - is an Absolute - because you are the Absolute..  We are trying to guide you towards awakening to the Absolute but the work has to be done by you.  That said i know you already are know this are already planning a retreat so i know you are on the path so just keep the mind open

 

 

[commie]

16 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

well atoms were and are still happening and its intrinsic to the form or label "ancestor", dna, proteins, empty space which seems to be the most predominate commonality shared.

Space isn't that empty (or unchanging). In the pop physics department, I'd go with the catchy it's-the-same-electron thing for commonality instead.

16 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

"something" is happening

Wasn't that the name of that all-week, all-night KPFK show? Maybe I finally get what its name was supposed to mean.