Is this a UFO?

[thisintegrated]

4 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Using the pronoun "we" forces the implication in itself that at least two individuals share some "reality" in common. 

There is no "reality", with time/distance/matter/etc.  There's just data.  We're not together in some "reality" as the concept itself is just an illusion we create for ourselves.  I only say "we" as I'm talking within the frame of the illusion.

 

4 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

If we are to say my intuition is right, what difference between intuition and logic allows logic to become intersubjectively true but not intuition? 

God creates his own reality, every second, and all the people in it.  No two moments are the same.  You're not the same person you were yesterday, that's just another part of the illusion.  Wherever I go, the world adapts to me, as I am it.  I change = the world changes.  The reason you don't disappear whenever I "change" is because you change with me, because you are me.  Whatever version of "you" I'm speaking to now is the version of you that's in my reality.  As such, all events / laws of physics / logic / etc. will all be the same to both of us.  You may have always been in a reality with "no aliens", for example, but now that a version of you is in my reality, it will be subject to my whims and intents.  My intuition overrides yours, as intuition works as intent, and my intent is the only intent in my reality.

Now, if I were to ever live your life, then @thisintegrated would adapt to whatever direction I'd take your life, and your intuition would then be right.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

There is no "reality", with time/distance/matter/etc.  There's just data.

Data = measurements of time/distance/matter/etc. . . .

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Whatever version of "you" I'm speaking to now is the version of you that's in my reality.  As such, all events / laws of physics / logic / etc. will all be the same to both of us.  You may have always been in a reality with "no aliens", for example, but now that a version of you is in my reality, it will be subject to my whims and intents.  My intuition overrides yours, as intuition works as intent, and my intent is the only intent in my reality.

Now, if I were to ever live your life, then @thisintegrated would adapt to whatever direction I'd take your life, and your intuition would then be right.

It's also a possibility for people to be wrong, as in there is a lack of correlation between two parts of reality such as a person's brain and thinking not having a mirroring correspondence with external happenings. An example might be a madman that looks at a table, has the table in his perception, and then says, "I believe that is a chair." A more relevant example is two intuitions not lining up such that one of them does not match with the "intent" or the singularly natured reality. In this case, my intuition is correct because it, as a structure, has the pattern of being right--even if you believe consciousnesses can be negated (multiple consciousnesses can exist because to be conscious of something, it must be a cognizance of some formed qualities that are thoughts, perceptions, emotionality, and other spatiotemporal structures that are both divisible and multipliable infinitely and therefore with infinite potential natures of variation, fracturation, and context.

[thisintegrated]

4 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Data = measurements of time/distance/matter/etc. . . .

Data is unstructured information.  Information is might be "a black rock", and a piece of data from this could be blackness, for example.

 

4 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

It's also a possibility for people to be wrong, as in there is a lack of correlation between two parts of reality such as a person's brain and thinking not having a mirroring correspondence with external happenings. An example might be a madman that looks at a table, has the table in his perception, and then says, "I believe that is a chair." A more relevant example is two intuitions not lining up such that one of them does not match with the "intent" or the singularly natured reality. In this case, my intuition is correct because it, as a structure, has the pattern of being right--even if you believe consciousnesses can be negated (multiple consciousnesses can exist because to be conscious of something, it must be a cognizance of some formed qualities that are thoughts, perceptions, emotionality, and other spatiotemporal structures that are both divisible and multipliable infinitely and therefore with infinite potential natures of variation, fracturation, and context.

What reason have you to believe there are other consciousnesses out there?  Have you direct experience of this?

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Data is unstructured information.  Information is might be "a black rock", and a piece of data from this could be blackness, for example.

So, data is an abstraction of information that exists in a human's conception? And information is material? Or data is also material but referring to a substance that makes up a build of information? Either way, there is an element of form to it. Both human conception and materiality have forms, therefore meaning that formalized contexts are real and not negatable.

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

What reason have you to believe there are other consciousnesses out there?  Have you direct experience of this?

It would be oddly specific if you personally were the only set of objects in reality, almost as if as a consequence of an ontological myopia where one can only see oneself. What would stop the existence of other sets of objects?

And remember, we're talking about aliens.

Edited April 19, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

So, data is an abstraction of information that exists in a human's conception? And information is material? Or data is also material but referring to a substance that makes up a build of information? Either way, there is an element of form to it. Both human conception and materiality have forms, therefore meaning that formalized contexts are real and not negatable.

Well it's kind of self-explanatory.  Information is.. "data in formation".  

 

There is only one substance in existence.  Consciousness.  There's nothing else.  Consciousness is the stuff you use to imagine e.g. seeing a lemon in your mind's eye, or feeling its texture, or smelling it.  You can even imagine a whole planet/galaxy/universe with it.  Notice how it has no limitations?  Why would you need anything else?  Everyone has direct experience that consciousness alone can create everything in the universe, it's a fact, so why would you think there's something else?  The products of consciousness have no basis as consciousness is not governed by any higher power.  That's why we call it God.  If I had to be more specific on what the stuff consciousness produces is, it's data/information.

 

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

It would be oddly specific if you personally were the only set of objects in reality, almost as if as a consequence of an ontological myopia where one can only see oneself.

You just don't get it yet.  You're too caught up in systems thinking as you've become accustomed to in your life.  You need to stop treating consciousness as just another theory that has an answer imbedded somewhere within the physical, within the materialistic paradigm.  Consciousness precedes understanding/theorizing.  You will only realize this after direct experience.  Thinking harder won't help.

 

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

What would stop the existence of other sets of objects?

Who would be aware of the other objects?  Sure you can split yourself up and parallel-process, I know of such people, but what for?  There's no rush.  And if you don't split up, why would you think there's anything outside of you?  It's just a guess.  But why would you make such a guess with zero reason to think this?  The appearance of others making conscious decisions can only ever be just that.  Just an appearance.  And appearances alone are not evidence of consciousness.

If this is confusing, just consider the role of appearance/graphics in video games.  Blood in a game is just visual data put in place so the game makes sense, is consistent, and believable.

Edited April 19, 2022 by thisintegrated

[zurew]

 

Here you can see some CIA and FBI documents related to alien/ufo topic. You can decide how much validity these documents are holding for you.

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO Part 1 of 16/view -->link for one of the documents (its on the 22nd page)

2nd link https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00806r000100200074-7

3rd link https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0001107974

4th link https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1/view --> talking about 3 feet tall creatures

 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2021/06/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf 144 reports originated from USG sources.  Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors. 

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4792306/user-clip-secretary-richard-blumenthals-fully-prepared-questions&cliptool= this is a video about U.S. SPACE FORCE PROPOSAL here you can hear things like :"The american people have no idea, really no idea, about the immensity of threat in space" of course this doesn't automatically means it is ufo/alien related, but it is interesting how Richard Blumenthal is talking about it.

Edited April 19, 2022 by zurew

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Well it's kind of self-explanatory.  Information is.. "data in formation".  

And yet, form still exists. Meaning the supposed nonexistence of distance, time, space, etc. is a fabrication.

Quote

There is only one substance in existence.  Consciousness.  There's nothing else.  Consciousness is the stuff you use to imagine e.g. seeing a lemon in your mind's eye, or feeling its texture, or smelling it.  You can even imagine a whole planet/galaxy/universe with it.  Notice how it has no limitations?  Why would you need anything else?  Everyone has direct experience that consciousness alone can create everything in the universe, it's a fact, so why would you think there's something else?  The products of consciousness have no basis as consciousness is not governed by any higher power.  That's why we call it God.  If I had to be more specific on what the stuff consciousness produces is, it's data/information.

Consciousness is the phenomenal and formal aspect of reality; conversely, the Nothingness aspect in isolation cannot possess consciousness of anything. Consciousness is primary to the perceived universe, to the element of form, but secondary in comparison to the Nothingness that permeates it and is not limited to it. Form = data/information = subservient to Nothingness.

Quote

Who would be aware of the other objects?

Themselves.

Quote

And appearances alone are not evidence of consciousness.

Consciousness = appearances.

And . . .

All conceivable forms are identical to Nothingness, and Nothingness exists, therefore . . .

[thisintegrated]

25 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Consciousness is primary to the perceived universe, to the element of form, but secondary in comparison to the Nothingness that permeates it and is not limited to it. Form = data/information = subservient to Nothingness.

So you believe there's a difference between everything and nothing?  What does nothing look like?

 

25 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Themselves

Why would you think this?  There's no evidence, and it complicates things unnecessarily.  If this were true, suddenly time travel becomes impossible, and the mechanics behind talking to dead people suddenly become much more complicated too.

Everything becomes much more complicated, while only opening up more questions.  You can't just blindly ignore occam's razor.

Edited April 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

29 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

What does nothing look like?

No look. It cannot be sensed. If this is not something you have access to . . .

Quote

You can't just blindly ignore occam's razor.

Applying Occam's Razor to infinity?

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

No look. It cannot be sensed. If this is not something you have access to . . .

Nothing is the same as everything.  That's why anything exists at all.  You can theorize about the big bang and whatnot, but if none of that happened, and the universe never stopped being nothing, wouldn't that be the most elegant theory possible?  No assumptions about anything happening.  Just what we know (nothingness must've been the start, if there was a start), and that's it.  But since "nothing" never changed into "something", that means it's still nothing, and this is what nothing looks like.

Nothing is the only thing that can be everything, as if it was something it couldn't be everything else.

 

17 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Applying Occam's Razor to infinity?

To your logic.  Solipsism is far more elegant of a solution than your idea of:

"it should be assumed that each person is conscious, even if there's no possible way to ever verify this".  

Edited April 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

 

Quote

Nothing is the same as everything.  That's why anything exists at all. 

Nothing permeates everything, however, it is not limited to everything. There is a Nothingness that knows no form. If you cannot have access to this, that is a cosmic level of ignorance.

Quote

To your logic.  Solipsism is far more elegant of a solution than your idea of:

"it should be assumed that each person is conscious, even if there's no possible way to ever verify this".  

Verification is a remnant of the materialistic paradigm that exists in your mind. Not all things necessitate empirical (formally and demonstrably and observably repeatable through measurement) evidence for their knowledge. Knowledge is merely a correlation that allows high-purity deductions to hold true. One has the ability to understand parts of reality ones has not glimpsed.

[thisintegrated]

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Nothing permeates everything, however, it is not limited to everything. There is a Nothingness that knows no form. If you cannot have access to this, that is a cosmic level of ignorance.

I think you're referring to the void state, or point consciousness.  But that's still a part of everything.

 

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Verification is a remnant of the materialistic paradigm that exists in your mind. Not all things necessitate empirical (formally and demonstrably and observably repeatable through measurement) evidence for their knowledge. Knowledge is merely a correlation that allows high-purity deductions to hold true. One has the ability to understand parts of reality ones has not glimpsed.

This still doesn't explain your reason for believing other people have awareness.  You're over-reliant on your intuition.You could dream your life, and it would be indistinguishable from your real life.  Since we know that a dream is just as convincing as anything else, why would you think this is anything but a dream?  You believe there are both dreams, and real life?  Why would there be two fundamentally different modes of existence, if they're both 100% identical and serve the exact same purpose?

[AtheisticNonduality]

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I think you're referring to the void state, or point consciousness.  But that's still a part of everything.

It is not a part of everything. Everything is limited to objective form. It is not.

Quote

This still doesn't explain your reason for believing other people have awareness.  You're over-reliant on your intuition.You could dream your life, and it would be indistinguishable from your real life.  Since we know that a dream is just as convincing as anything else, why would you think this is anything but a dream?  You believe there are both dreams, and real life?  Why would there be two fundamentally different modes of existence, if they're both 100% identical and serve the exact same purpose?

Because they're not fundamentally identical and don't serve the exact same purpose, unless they both serve the purpose of Existence itself. In which case, the question is like asking why a rock and an apple are different if they are both in the same Existence. The spatial difference between two objects, the temporal difference between two eras, and the perceptive difference between two disparate fields of perception are all achieved by the same generator: Nothingness. 

[thisintegrated]

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

It is not a part of everything. Everything is limited to objective form. It is not.

Depends on how you decide to view it.  But still there's no duality.  Everything and nothing aren't different things.  At what point did they separate?

 

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Because they're not fundamentally identical and don't serve the exact same purpose, unless they both serve the purpose of Existence itself

How are they not identical?  What difference between them would you perceive?  You've spent your whole life experiencing your brain, and nothing else.  This idea of a "real" world has always been just an idea.

 

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

The spatial difference between two objects, the temporal difference between two eras, and the perceptive difference between two disparate fields of perception are all achieved by the same generator: Nothingness. 

Yes.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@thisintegrated Difference exist, but they are permeations of the same thing.

[thisintegrated]

12 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated Difference exist, but they are permeations of the same thing.

Without good reason to, something seemingly superfluous can't be considered fundamental.  We already know of a fully functional mechanism for existence, as we know what imagination alone is capable of.  You claim there is another "more real" alternative, without any reasons why.  You admit it's impossible to verify, but it's also impossible to even theoretically justify, or even come to such a realization through direct experience!

Edited April 21, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Without good reason to, something seemingly superfluous can't be considered fundamental.  We already know of a fully functional mechanism for existence, as we know what imagination alone is capable of.  You claim there is another "more real" alternative, without any reasons why.  You admit it's impossible to verify, but it's also impossible to even theoretically justify, or even come to such a realization through direct experience!

Reality is not limited to experience.

Here's a cool song about not believing in God and earth-visiting aliens.

 

[thisintegrated]

57 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Reality is not limited to experience.

Here's a cool song about not believing in God and earth-visiting aliens.

 

Chinese Satellite?

 

Quick! a-alert the sPaCe FoRcE!!

[AtheisticNonduality]

@thisintegrated We need to build a megastructure.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated We need to build a megastructure.

Ehh, not a fan of dyson spheres.  It's more practical to create a small star yourself, fit for your needs, rather than sacrificing a perfectly good star whole worlds already use for light.