Reality is 100% direct

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura

Leo ,in your opinion, why does neuroscience  still stuck on the assumption that consciousness Is generated by the brain and that its an emerging phenomenon from physical processes?

on the other hand I'm curious to understand why chemical and physical manipulations can alter conciousness. Things such as trauma, or brain injuries can both lower ones degree of consciousness, indicating that physical process underly consciousness. However, some people who arent taken very seriously like to argue that the brain is a receiver of conciousness, so a soul or extraphysical consciousness may exist, but the brain just “houses” or “recieves” consciousness. These theories are considered jokes by the scientific community, and most who seriously study in nuerosicence or philosophy would not subscribe to such a theory. Are we really not as advanced as we think we are ?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Leo ,in your opinion, why does neuroscience  still stuck on the assumption that consciousness Is generated by the brain and that its an emerging phenomenon from physical processes?

Well, you see, no one is actually thinking. They are just parroting ideas they heard.

Once you realize that 99% of people do not think any original thoughts, everything in the world makes a whole lot more sense.

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, you see, no one is actually thinking. They are just parroting ideas they heard.

Once you realize that 99% of people do not think any original thoughts, everything in the world makes a whole lot more sense.

@Someone here neuroscience is only one aspect of science.   They need to incorporate holism, along with open mindedness and original thinking.  If you notice- it was the founding fathers of quantum physics that went on to become mystics - and they were original thinkers and could think beyond just one particular part of science.   They were able to think holistically. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Inliytened1

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura @Inliytened1 agreed . Neuroscience has been trying for decades now and they still got no clue what consciousness is. Whereas mystics who lived thousands of years ago understood it perfectly.  But to materialist science, mysticism is nonsense.

If you accept that there is a hard problem of consciousness...then you have to accept that there are limits to science, and that consciousness is beyond these limits. Not all neuroscientists believe this, but many do. In my experience many scientists consider consciousness to be too vague a concept to be amenable to scientific analysis.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

In my experience many scientists consider consciousness to be too vague a concept to be amenable to scientific analysis.

Of course, cause Infinity cannot be quantified or formalized in a finite symbolic system.

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course, cause Infinity cannot be quantified or formalized in a finite symbolic system.

So we will never have a theory of everything?  Is it completely impossible given that reality is infinite and cannot be encapsulated in physics equations? 

I mean science is trying but I doubt they will ever succeed. This was Einstein's life goal and he failed to find anything new. If Einstein failed then what chance for others?lol

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

So we will never have a theory of everything?

You ARE everything.

Drop the theories and become Infinity.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You ARE everything.

Drop the theories and become Infinity.

I know that I'm  everything but the implications and consequences of this is so radical that I wish I was just this little human who was born for no reason other than biological coincidence and will disappear completely after death .

But I'm working on embodiment of these insights. 

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I know

You know ? 

Becoming is not knowing.  It is Being

 

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You know ? 

Becoming is not knowing.  It is Being

 

I feel that knowing means knowing the full impact of what is going on and being able to forsee what will be the possible consequences of an action or event. Because Basically the  world works under causality at least on the thinking level. What I mean is that when we think we always think about what will be the result based on our knowledge, historical data or past experience. 

Being means acting  based on "knowing" or not ..it does matter. Action once performed will have consequences but if the action is performed without "knowing" it will keep the actor not that prepared for the results or the things coming based on the consequences.

So you are right .. I know that I'm the whole of reality ..but I'm not able to live based on that knowledge. Therefore I require more embodiment work. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

but the implications and consequences of this is so radical that I wish I was just this little human who was born for no reason

Hogwash!

Infinity is tops.

[axiom]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I feel that knowing means knowing the full impact of what is going on and being able to forsee what will be the possible consequences of an action or event. Because Basically the  world works under causality at least on the thinking level. What I mean is that when we think we always think about what will be the result based on our knowledge, historical data or past experience. 

Being means acting  based on "knowing" or not ..it does matter. Action once performed will have consequences but if the action is performed without "knowing" it will keep the actor not that prepared for the results or the things coming based on the consequences.

So you are right .. I know that I'm the whole of reality ..but I'm not able to live based on that knowledge. Therefore I require more embodiment work. 

Causality and free will are illusions of the ego, with its sense of location, sense of time and so on. 

There is only infinity, which is veiled by attachments and seeking.

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, axiom said:

Causality and free will are illusions of the ego, with its sense of location, sense of time and so on. 

There is only infinity, which is veiled by attachments and seeking.

I agree that free will is an illusion. But how is cause and effect be an illusion? 

I think that Cause and effect is an illusion if the cause is outside of your context. Otherwise it is recognizable.

Keep in mind that I am only talking about cause, and the cause of a cause as an illusion. I am not talking about effect, and the effect of an effect. Talking about effects leads to a discussion about deterministic and non-deterministic. Either there is exactly one set of effects (deterministic), or a choice of which effect to choose(non-deterministic). If there is a choice, then cause has less value than effect

[Jannes]

47 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I agree that free will is an illusion. But how is cause and effect be an illusion? 

Cause and effect is conceptual. So it’s second order truth.
For example there is nothing in your direct experience that suggests that when you punch a wall and hurt your hand that it is the contact with the wall that caused the damage to your hand. That might sound insane but really think about it. The hand could have just hurt itself when right before it came into contact with the wall and your feeling that the wall hurt you could have just been an imagination because you think that when you hit the wall it would hurt and therefore it does hurt but not because the wall did it but because in a certain sense you did it to yourself with your imagination. Hmm maybe that’s a bad example, can’t think of anything better right now.

 

[Someone here]

19 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Cause and effect is conceptual. So it’s second order truth.
For example there is nothing in your direct experience that suggests that when you punch a wall and hurt your hand that it is the contact with the wall that caused the damage to your hand. That might sound insane but really think about it. The hand could have just hurt itself when right before it came into contact with the wall and your feeling that the wall hurt you could have just been an imagination because you think that when you hit the wall it would hurt and therefore it does hurt but not because the wall did it but because in a certain sense you did it to yourself with your imagination. Hmm maybe that’s a bad example, can’t think of anything better right now.

 

Yeah bad example actually ? i don't buy it .

If causation were to halt for a while, whatever you do would not have any effect at all. That means if you were cutting vegetable, the knife would not be cutting anything because the effect must be compromised. If you went outside, you would not get outside because your walk would not have any effect at all. When whatever you do were no longer a cause, then effect from all your actions must not occur. That simply means the world in static moment. Nothing could be happening.

Causality is the law of nature that keeps everything in motion.

even if causation is an illusion, there will still be causations so hard to neglect. We all wish things like causality, impermanence and even death, to be mere illusions, but reality persists and we are sure.

[axiom]

@Someone here

Time and space only seem to exist relative to the perceptions of a fixed point, i.e. "That seems to be over there, so I must be right here".

The fixed point is illusory.

All apparent causes are simply memories / appearances "happening" now. The past manifestly is nowhere to be found. Ever. It could be said that nothing is actually happening since it all becomes nothing instantaneously... actually in less than an instant.

[Jannes]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yeah bad example actually ? i don't buy it .

If causation were to halt for a while, whatever you do would not have any effect at all. That means if you were cutting vegetable, the knife would not be cutting anything because the effect must be compromised. If you went outside, you would not get outside because your walk would not have any effect at all. When whatever you do were no longer a cause, then effect from all your actions must not occur. That simply means the world in static moment. Nothing could be happening.

Hmm yeah I think what I tried to illustrate is that we dont know we never know the specific happening. That doesnt disprove that cause and effect exists though.

I have another thought. I feel like cause and effect causations go in circles. For example the water circle. Rain causes feets which causes seas, which causes the potential for evaporation, which causes clouds, which cause rain. So what is the cause for rain? Its rain itself at some point. Of course this is a crude abstraction and I would need to implement a million other things but it should just illustrate that point. So you could say that the universe is one happening and you can take every point in the universe which will cause every other thing and in the end itself which means that no specific point is special. 
But that still doenst really disprove cause and causation. ?

@axiom made a good point though. 

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 

 

[Girzo]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Once you realize that 99% of people do not think any original thoughts, everything in the world makes a whole lot more sense.

Some proof of that statement:

https://metamoderna.org/what-is-the-mhc/

Edited September 13, 2022 by Girzo

[Vibroverse]

Philosophers, you've always tried to understand reality, but the point is to change it, says Marx' spirit, haunting all of us ?

[Sincerity]

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

I feel that knowing means knowing the full impact of what is going on and being able to forsee what will be the possible consequences of an action or event.

You don't know the full impact and you don't know the "consequences".

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

Being means acting  based on "knowing" or not

Being is being, not whatever you're saying.

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

I know that I'm the whole of reality ..but I'm not able to live based on that knowledge. Therefore I require more embodiment work. 

No you don't and you can't live based on the knowledge, because you don't have the knowledge.

You don't require embodiment, you require awakening. Not the intellectual bullshit.

---------------------

Sigh dude. The certainty with which you talk about things you have no idea about is appalling. When are you finally gonna wisen up?

You know, one of the guidelines is this:

Quote

• Show us that you are doing inner work, rather than merely engaging in mental-masturbation.