Is the word duck, the same as a duck?

[Endangered-EGO]

+++++

If you go ask a professor:

"Is the word duck the same thing as a duck?"

He's gonna say:

"Of course not, I'm not a fucking idiot"

But then in practice he's going to do his math formula an say that reality is mathematics.

++++++

This is so simple, so clear, but the most intelligent people get lost in the map and not the territory.

I burst out laughing, because of Leo's ranting.

Petition for Leo to always use ducks for his metaphors and analogies.

Energy-ducks one was good too.

[impulse9]

It's like when people go somewhere nice and then all they do is take photos, without really enjoying the view themselves.

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, Endangered-EGO said:

"Is the word duck the same thing as a duck?"

Hahahaha. Are the two instances of the word duck different in any way? Ceci n'est pas une pipe, non?

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Endangered-EGO said:

+++++

If you go ask a professor:

"Is the word duck the same thing as a duck?"

He's gonna say:

"Of course not, I'm not a fucking idiot"

But then in practice he's going to do his math formula an say that reality is mathematics.

++++++

This is so simple, so clear, but the most intelligent people get lost in the map and not the territory.

I burst out laughing, because of Leo's ranting.

Petition for Leo to always use ducks for his metaphors and analogies.

Energy-ducks one was good too.

Actually reverse this. Right now there is a bit of an arrogance. Yes, it is so simple.

But now, how is it possible that to the Professor, it is not so simple? Truly attempt to explore this issue. You will find that there is something there, something which you are underestimating. Something that once you see, will humble you.

See, your mind has been trained to value and look at particular aspects of being, while rejecting others. This is a mistake, it will not actually reveal to you the nature of delusion. To recognize delusion, you must fully see it, not simply make it disappear.

[Endangered-EGO]

35 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

It's like when people go somewhere nice and then all they do is take photos, without really enjoying the view themselves.

@impulse9 It gets even fucking worse.

 

A few weeks ago I went to the zoo with my mother and brother, and they spent their attention in trying to find the name of the animals and were arguing about if "that's an antelope or a saharan gazelle" and I was just looking at them.

 

Just look at the fucking animals.

[Endangered-EGO]

20 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Hahahaha. Are the two instances of the word duck different in any way? Ceci n'est pas une pipe, non?

@LastThursday lmao thanks for reminding me of my profile-picture!

 

@Scholar I probably need to observe the mind how it makes sense of reality NOW, because what the mind does is it remembers glimpses, nothingness etc. So it creates a new worldview integrating that glimpse that is not present now, but the respresentation of truth I witnessed in the path is only a Representation of it now, so it can't be TRUE in the now.

One more pointer please, I like where this is going.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Endangered-EGO said:

A few weeks ago I went to the zoo with my mother and brother, and they spent their attention in trying to find the name of the animals and were arguing about if "that's an antelope or a saharan gazelle" and I was just looking at them.

Just look at the fucking animals.

Ahh yes... observing one's family as animals 

[EddieEddie1995]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ahh yes... observing one's family as animals 

@Leo Gura Recalling the good old times?  

[Endangered-EGO]

@Leo Gura hahahahahaha got me good.

[RMQualtrough]

The thing that I got most from the talk is the explanation of why language fails, since ALL words make distinctions, and at the Absolute there is no distinction between anything at all.

I wonder if "Nothing+Everything" would work.

[Guru Fat Bastard]

6 hours ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@LastThursday lmao thanks for reminding me of my profile-picture!

 

@Scholar I probably need to observe the mind how it makes sense of reality NOW, because what the mind does is it remembers glimpses, nothingness etc. So it creates a new worldview integrating that glimpse that is not present now, but the respresentation of truth I witnessed in the path is only a Representation of it now, so it can't be TRUE in the now.

One more pointer please, I like where this is going.

Try and point to where the mind is.

 

[Guru Fat Bastard]

4 minutes ago, Guru Fat Bastard said:

I probably need to observe the mind how it makes sense of reality NOW, because what the mind does is it remembers glimpses, nothingness etc. So it creates a new worldview integrating that glimpse that is not present now, but the respresentation of truth I witnessed in the path is only a Representation of it now, so it can't be TRUE in the now.

If you can observe the mind, then it must be an object. For an object/thing to be observed, there must be an observer, which is also a thing/object.
If the object or the  "observed" is not there at that moment, is there, or, can there be, an observer?

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Guru Fat Bastard

[LastThursday]

??

[Synchronicity]

@Endangered-EGO Not saying I agree or disagree with the math professor but you’re misunderstanding what mathematicians mean when they say “reality is mathematics.” 
 

They don’t mean that the mathematical language itself is reality. Instead, they mean that what the math points to is reality.
 

After-all, if someone said, “a duck is an animal,” that doesn’t mean they’re saying that the word duck is an animal. What they mean is that the thing the word points to is an animal. 

[Endangered-EGO]

@Synchronicity Doesn't matter, they are too much into the symbols.

I've been a materialist my whole life, I can tell you that atoms bouncing around, time starting with the big bang and space etc. And consciousness being emergent from electricity in the brain feels very very true.

 

Listen to Curt's podcast with Leo.

[Leo Gura]

42 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

@Endangered-EGO Not saying I agree or disagree with the math professor but you’re misunderstanding what mathematicians mean when they say “reality is mathematics.” 
 

They don’t mean that the mathematical language itself is reality. Instead, they mean that what the math points to is reality.
 

After-all, if someone said, “a duck is an animal,” that doesn’t mean they’re saying that the word duck is an animal. What they mean is that the thing the word points to is an animal. 

By that logic then mathematics is no better than any other language. Which scientists and mathematicians would want to deny.

The problem is that they don't accept that mathematics is merely language.

There are plenty of scientists and academic types who literally believe reality can be reduced down to 1s and 0s or an equation. If it cannot be quantified it isn't even considered real. Which is as dumb as saying that if you cannot call a thing a duck, it cannot be real.

Here's an example of the kind of stupidity rife within science:

 

[Loba]

I have names for my two cats, but I don't view them with the name, I look at them with an intent to see the creature in front of me.
The moment you use a word for something you create a division between that thing.

[Synchronicity]

 

20 minutes ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@Synchronicity Doesn't matter, they are too much into the symbols.

Yes, they’re into the symbols. But what I meant was, they’re referring to what those symbols point to when they make such statements 

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By that logic then mathematics is no better than any other language. Which scientists and mathematicians would want to deny.

The problem is that they don't accept that mathematics is merely language.

No…they do accept that. I’ve spoken to many mathematics professors and so far, all of the ones spoken to accept that mathematics is a language.
 

But what they do think, is that the language points to something fundamental about reality. So in that sense they think mathematics is fundamental.

In their opinion, they think math is a language that points to something more fundamental because it’s built on equations and self-evidence rather than spoken languages like English, which are built on grammar and syntax. 

Just explaining their side of the argument. Not saying I fully agree with it. But people here seem to not be understanding their side fully 

[Leo Gura]

Of course if you corner them they will start to fess up and try to save themselves. The point is that they don't understand what they are talking about. The don't have a coherent metaphysics. But they basically picture reality as a giant computer crunching numbers behind the scenes. Which is laughable.

Ask them this: Are quarks made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of quarks? Are brains made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of brains?

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course if you corner them they will start to fess up and try to save themselves. The point is that they don't understand what they are talking about. The don't have a coherent metaphysics. But they basically picture reality as a giant computer crunching numbers behind the scenes. Which is laughable.

Ask them this: Are quarks made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of quarks? Are brains made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of brains?

Okay, I see what you’re saying now. Yeah I think you’re probably right there, if I were to ask them from that angle