Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
The illusory nature of reality
    #24009369 - 01/14/17 10:07 AM (7 years, 16 days ago)

"All mass is interaction."  --Richard P. Feynman


If the proton nucleus of a hydrogen atom were the size of a golf ball, the "orbiting" electron would be almost a mile away. Why do we not observe the world as empty space? Because of the nature of interaction. The web of relationships in which we are involved determine our perceived reality.

The Sanskrit word maya, found in Hinduism and Buddhism, seems to refer to this basic "emptiness." The word has multiple meanings in practice, but the most common definitions are as "illusion" or "magic." It is interesting that in the twentieth century, we in the West discovered through physics a basic truth that had been recognized in parts of Asia for thousands of years.

As Feynman tells us, all mass is interaction. How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24009430 - 01/14/17 10:30 AM (7 years, 16 days ago)

Maya is mental. the buddhist term voidness, and illusoryness refer to cognitive process, not to physics.

I think it is charming but inefficient to spend too much time extrapolating the wisdom of the ancients into vaguely metaphorical scientific analogs. 

On the other hand, if something inspires new insights into physics or some other branch of knowledge, that is great, but inspiration itself is not a physical force, nor is it a material thing. The inspiration of some idea is not equal to the idea.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24009469 - 01/14/17 10:42 AM (7 years, 16 days ago)

It has always seemed to me that they are isomorphic. Do you think two different processes govern two different illusions in the bedrock of reality? It seems to me they are one.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24009652 - 01/14/17 12:02 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

any perception is already an illusion in so far as it takes the sensations and ascribes relatedness to it from memory.

the act of ascription adds or changes reality by interpreting it.

when you say isomorphic, are you declaring a magical truth?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 3
    #24009692 - 01/14/17 12:23 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

1) our senses are each limited to a certain small range

2) we are missing certain senses ( sonar, magnetism, etc.)

3) then we combine and interpret the results (the raw sense data) in the brain to form an inaccurate/approximate model of the world

4) then we overlay the model with our biases and conditionings

All this without considering particle physics, astronomical time scales and distances, our ignorance as regards death, the unconscious mind, the nature of the self, mind, the dream state, & consciousness.

And finally we ignore our ignorance, and are generally rather emotionally reactive as regards relatively unimportant things much of the time, which results in much unnecessary suffering.

Hence the terms maya and samsara would seem appropriate in describing the human condition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #24009703 - 01/14/17 12:28 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
any perception is already an illusion in so far as it takes the sensations and ascribes relatedness to it from memory.

the act of ascription adds or changes reality by interpreting it.

when you say isomorphic, are you declaring a magical truth?





I don't disagree with you, and no, nothing magical. I am of the opinion that on some level, the outward, objective aspect of reality has a direct subjective correlate. And that is what I was suggesting. I don't think you're wrong at all, though. Perhaps it just serves to illustrate how deep and multifaceted the illusion really is.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog] * 1
    #24009711 - 01/14/17 12:31 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
1) our senses are each limited to a certain small range

2) we are missing certain senses ( sonar, magnetism, etc.)

3) then we combine and interpret the results (the raw sense data) in the brain to form an inaccurate/approximate model of the world

4) then we overlay the model with our biases and conditionings

All this without considering particle physics, astronomical time scales and distances, our ignorance as regards death, the unconscious mind, the nature of the self, mind, the dream state, & consciousness.

And finally we ignore our ignorance, and are generally rather emotionally reactive as regards relatively unimportant things much of the time, which results in much unnecessary suffering.

Hence the terms maya and samsara would seem appropriate in describing the human condition.





Yes, I quite agree, and well said. I think your comments serve to illustrate how, as I have written just above, fundamental and complex the illusion really is.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24009779 - 01/14/17 01:03 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

Maybe a better title would be "The illusory nature of perception".  Since we all seem to agree that fundamentally reality is unknowable.  The illusion is a self deception that perspective is reality.  Its not, even if it is the best we got.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24009810 - 01/14/17 01:24 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

It's primary use to my mind is to suggest the senses alone are insufficient to perceive the nature of something. To provide contrast it must be determined what maya is not, and that is what I refer to as tendency, or potential, the conditions and qualities of the universe which give rise to material/spiritual phenomena and not the phenomena itself.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24009890 - 01/14/17 02:05 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

we can perceive facets of a thing's nature, but we do not perceive the totality of it.
and what we perceive is always trailing a little behind.
this is the nature of perception.

maya is more about extrapolating from inadequate views into a complete mess of wrongness. Kind of like Trump.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24009912 - 01/14/17 02:23 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

and in some more detail:

1) our senses are each limited to a certain small range
both in terms of:
distance, or effective range, before fadeout
and
range of perceivable frequencies
as well as
subject to the doppler effect
and
all sorts of interferences

Many animals have certain senses that are , ‘better’ than the similar senses in humans. And even humans vary greatly, for example some have photographic memory and others perfect pitch.

2) we are missing many senses ( sonar, magnetism, radio waves, polarity of light, some animals sense earthquakes before they happen, etc.)

The senses are not  evolved to cognize reality accurately. They are only to enable a specific organism in a specific habitat, to survive, eat, and reproduce in that habit, as it exists at specific geologic time, on a specific planet.

When we look at the senses of various animals this is obvious. We perhaps don't usually stop to think that we are included in this fact.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24009942 - 01/14/17 02:40 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

I suppose one way to say it is that human perception, and our picture of the world, is essentially a virtual reality program we carry around with is in our heads. And as you point out, it does not, for one example, contain the alternate universe that exists around a dog's sense of smell, to which no human probably can relate. Of course, examples are legion.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24010053 - 01/14/17 03:20 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

yes
part of this talk deals with this

been awhile since I watched it

QUOTE: "Dan Simons explores why we see the world as it ISN'T.

Daniel Simons is head of the Visual Cognition Laboratory at the University of Illinois. His research explores the ways in which our beliefs and intuitions about the workings of our own minds are often mistaken and why that matters. He is best known for his experiments revealing striking failures of perception and the limits of visual awareness. His research is exhibited in science museums worldwide and his writing has been published in many newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Chicago Tribune. He recently co-authored the book, "The Invisible Gorilla, and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us" (Crown, 2010)."



also


first part of this talk deals with this
later I think he goes off the deep end...
been awhile since I watched it

QUOTE: "Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience. This is troubling, since we have a large body of correlations between brain activity and consciousness, correlations normally assumed to entail that brain activity creates conscious experience. Here I explore a solution to the mind-body problem that starts with the converse assumption: these correlations arise because consciousness creates brain activity, and indeed creates all objects and properties of the physical world. To this end, I develop two theses. The interface theory of perception states that perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific, user interface to that world. Conscious realism states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences; these can be mathematically modeled and empirically explored in the normal scientific manner." ... etc



possibly also

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Stanislas+Dehaene


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24010775 - 01/14/17 08:29 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

Interesting videos.  The first video is cool. I love those sidewalk pieces by that guy, I don't remember his name, but that's a unique talent. What I found most interesting, and many of us know it but forget, is the truth that we see only a fraction of a degree of the sphere of world around us. He pointed out that if you look at your thumb at arm's length, that's about the extent of the area of detail we see. If there's something in our peripheral vision, we turn to put our small sight-beam on it. Quite a perspective.

In the second video, and I'm not sure you were aware of it, but interestingly, in this gentleman's math of conscious agents, physical particles (represented by Schrödinger's equation) are identical in their math to asymptotic behaviors of the dynamics of conscious agents. Meaning, the math he has developed to describe the dynamics he has discovered when he models conscious agents is identical to the math for quantum particles as given by the appropriate solution to the Schrödinger equation (a.k.a. the wave function). This actually dovetails rather perfectly with my thoughts in the original post. He further suggested that consciousness is the only thing that science has ever observed, with which I agree.





Fun stuff.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24011008 - 01/14/17 10:29 PM (7 years, 16 days ago)

even our psychology is illusory.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24011131 - 01/15/17 12:17 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

If it's an illusion then it's supposed to be here.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn] * 1
    #24011214 - 01/15/17 01:27 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

if it wasn't here, we'd be insane.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn]
    #24011294 - 01/15/17 05:04 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

defining 'illusory':



Quote:

illusory (adj.) Look up illusory at Dictionary.com
    1590s, from French illusorie, from Late Latin illusorius "ironical, of a mocking character," from illus-, past participle stem of Latin illudere "mock, jeer at, make fun of," literally "play with," from assimilated form of in- "at, upon" (see in- (2)) + ludere "to play" (see ludicrous).





Hmmm so in this definition it is meaning that reality is mocking us? Not sure if OP would agree with his meaning meaning this?

I am assuming that people looking at this are all psychedelically experienced?

MY experience with psychedelics right from my first time dramatically revealed to me that there are depths of reality that kind of are like facades until you get to a real feeling of deeper observation.

For example, someone my be pretending to be a certain role, but with psychedelic eyes you feel you are seeing though that illusion.

Same is so with eg a tree. BEFORE you may have looked at the tree as 'just a tree'. In fact by the time I did LSD when 15, trees, and nature in general was dull and boring and I was more into cities. But psychedelics saw through this. it was THAT facade which was illusory, not nature, but that!The conditioning of culture with its 'education' system and mass media.

With psychedelic inspiration tress, wildlife, grass, wood, walls, all seemed absolutely ALIVE!!! breathing, full of meaning, deeply connected with me.

Anti-psychedelic propaganda would call this experience illusory, as have some people I have bumped into who themselves claimed to have had psychedelic experience, and said such experience was 'distortion' etc. I was shocked when I encountered that, mostly when I first got online.


Edited by zzripz (01/15/17 05:06 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24011313 - 01/15/17 05:38 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

:thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #24011345 - 01/15/17 06:26 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

Maya when infused with personality is quite mocking.
Often on salvia, people have a sense of being mocked by mind: i.e. put in a tv game show.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24011380 - 01/15/17 07:07 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

To me the illusory nature of reality is minimal density.

Maximum density is that of neutronium(inside stars) with one teaspoon weighing an estimated 1-2 billion tonnes 

Quote:

A teaspoon of degenerate neutronium gas would have a mass of two billion tonnes, and if moved to standard temperature and pressure, would emit 57 billion joules of β− decay energy in the first half-life (average of 95 MW of power).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24011469 - 01/15/17 08:17 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

so you give no weight to ideas


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24011471 - 01/15/17 08:19 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

I give as much weight to ideas as I do to the amplitude of brain wave frequencies.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24011745 - 01/15/17 10:12 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Maya when infused with personality is quite mocking.
Often on salvia, people have a sense of being mocked by mind: i.e. put in a tv game show.




I have never taken Salvia, but the videos I have seen where others have I find disturbing. They seem to lose all control. One guy went through a window, ie right through the glass, and the room he was in was not ground level! Somehow he was not injured.

I believe native peoples eat the leaves because they believe the Goddess of the plant hates dryness, but loves moisture, and yet westerners DO take it that way. The 'wrong' way. Is this why many look like complete morons after smoking it?

Hmmmm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: zzripz]
    #24011936 - 01/15/17 11:21 AM (7 years, 15 days ago)

The eating of salvia leaves requires extensive chewing and bruxion against the cheeks (where absorption slowly occurs), it barely works unless you have 50 times the amount that works for smoking (this is a waste, and wasting is much more fundamentally disrespectful than smoking which is a known way of showing respect to these allies (eg smudging etc.)).

Gagging on the quids is very goofy & sloppy, I am sure that the curandero's told the W.A.S.P. researchers that they had to chew quids did it just to make fun of them, quids are actually designed to be rolled and dried into cigars - imagine how funny it was to make the scientists chew salvia cigars - it was a big hoot (the native people kept a solemn straight face while laughing madly inside) that the white world took as sacrament - total knee slapping indiginous fun!!!!

Smoking is more efficient, not the wrong way. Don't imagine that the only liars are the secret cabal of the Knights Templar etc. many people lie to foreigners for fun.

That you have to chew salvia leaves is a total 'white' lie, and since people are so superstitious in general, they accommodate the lie into their cosmologies.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24013008 - 01/15/17 08:00 PM (7 years, 15 days ago)

This is a fine example of how much energy is carried by a single gummy bear, it truly puts into perspective the amount of energy that can be compacted into a single area.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24013287 - 01/15/17 09:49 PM (7 years, 15 days ago)

The disconnect between what science tells us reality is and what our experience of reality is, is an interesting topic that I've been mulling over lately. Rahz claimed in another thread that "the goal is to become inhuman" or words to that effect. Perhaps to fully appreciate modern particle physics we must shed some of our humanity. Its really a kind of autistic way of looking at the world. All things being simply the product of relations totally desperate from our "normal" lived experience. Imagine how someone would behave if they acted as if the objects around them were mostly empty space stuck together by the interaction of chemical bonds, physical forces etc. It would look something like the autistic kid trying to figure out why water is streaming from sisters eye's some moments after the cat was put in the oven for not eating all its supper. I think morality might break down if we really imbibed such a view of the world. Which is why I always find it strange when people claim that buddhist realisations are congruent with modern particle physics. Buddhism is many things, but it is most definitely a system of ethics, and how do you get ethics from empty billiard balls bouncing off each other?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling] * 2
    #24013315 - 01/15/17 10:06 PM (7 years, 15 days ago)

As I stated in another post, I feel that at a subatomic level, objective processes have subjective correlates, and I feel these correlates are fundamental. The quantum realm is a pretty long way form "billiard balls bouncing off each other." As a matter of fact, quantum theory overthrew classical theory. I find the ideas in the original post to have a lot to do with consciousness, metaphorically and otherwise, but to really get into all that here I feel would be tangential. Suffice it to say that the discoveries of physicists in the 1920s and 30s went way beyond billiard balls, and were indeed intimately related with esoteric thought from the East. David Bohm's notion of the Implicate order is an excellent idea encompassing all of that, East and West.


"This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.'"  --Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24013469 - 01/15/17 11:53 PM (7 years, 14 days ago)

I'm totally willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to modern particle physics, but I still don't see how you can get subjectivity from quantum material or any material for that matter. You are implying that you have the answer to this problem that has plagued philosophy for the last couple hundred years. Or is there a difference between subjectivity and subjective correlates?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling] * 2
    #24013507 - 01/16/17 12:11 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

if you want a sequence of logic to explain the aspect of the illusory reality, and how our perceptions concoct it, it'll be found in sentence structure...not an equation.

but people aren't satisfied until it's an easily boiled-down equation.

which'll never come.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24013658 - 01/16/17 02:13 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Sounds lacanian, am I close?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling]
    #24013665 - 01/16/17 02:19 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

not really, seeing as i've never read him. maybe it is. i dunno.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePeyote Road
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/02/15
Posts: 3,527
Loc: Great Lakes State
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24013670 - 01/16/17 02:23 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
The eating of salvia leaves requires extensive chewing and bruxion against the cheeks (where absorption slowly occurs), it barely works unless you have 50 times the amount that works for smoking (this is a waste, and wasting is much more fundamentally disrespectful than smoking which is a known way of showing respect to these allies (eg smudging etc.)).

Gagging on the quids is very goofy & sloppy, I am sure that the curandero's told the W.A.S.P. researchers that they had to chew quids did it just to make fun of them, quids are actually designed to be rolled and dried into cigars - imagine how funny it was to make the scientists chew salvia cigars - it was a big hoot (the native people kept a solemn straight face while laughing madly inside) that the white world took as sacrament - total knee slapping indiginous fun!!!!

Smoking is more efficient, not the wrong way. Don't imagine that the only liars are the secret cabal of the Knights Templar etc. many people lie to foreigners for fun.

That you have to chew salvia leaves is a total 'white' lie, and since people are so superstitious in general, they accommodate the lie into their cosmologies.




The difference between smoking and holding the leaves in your mouth is that smoking is short and intense while quidding is longer but more gentle. If the plant is not meant to be smoked, it is simply because of the shock of getting rocketed out of one's familiar reality so fast. Aside from that, smoking is very effective.

And the reason people look stupid on youtube is because they are dumb kids who don't know the spiritual aspects of the plant or dont care and are looking to get high or trip out. They smoke bong hits of highly concentrated extracts which would be equivalent to taking 12 grams of mushrooms your first time. Give people 12 grams of mushrooms and I bet they look stupid on camera too.

Also the way salvia works is that it takes you within, you dont remain connected with the outside world in the way that yo udo with mushrooms or LSD on salvia. It is like ketamine in that respect, all encompassing in high doses. Certain cognitive processes remain clear in salvia space and amazing insights into the nature of reality can be had.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24013673 - 01/16/17 02:25 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Lacan postulated that language once entered into invades all aspects of being, and so consciousness can be read as a language, sound familiar?


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling]
    #24013714 - 01/16/17 03:02 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

well, all organisms can communicate somehow...that's language...so i guess he could be correct.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling] * 1
    #24013719 - 01/16/17 03:05 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

The illusory nature of self, brought about by fault ridden thoughts leaves little room to objectively assess anything, let alone well enough to label it reality.

If reality is real then so Is this, but if it's an illusion then so is this.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: pineninja]
    #24013734 - 01/16/17 03:34 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

We can't really talk about reality, since we are Reality.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn]
    #24013746 - 01/16/17 03:48 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

why can't reality talk about reality? we're doing it


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: zzripz]
    #24013768 - 01/16/17 04:29 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

OK, what is the Uncertainty Principle?

Quote:

What is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

The uncertainty principle is one of the most famous (and probably misunderstood) ideas in physics. It tells us that there is a fuzziness in nature, a fundamental limit to what we can know about the behaviour of quantum particles and, therefore, the smallest scales of nature. Of these scales, the most we can hope for is to calculate probabilities for where things are and how they will behave. Unlike Isaac Newton's clockwork universe, where everything follows clear-cut laws on how to move and prediction is easy if you know the starting conditions, the uncertainty principle enshrines a level of fuzziness into quantum theory.

Werner Heisenberg's simple idea tells us why atoms don't implode, how the sun manages to shine and, strangely, that the vacuum of space is not actually empty.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24013799 - 01/16/17 05:38 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Peyote Road said:
Quote:

redgreenvines said:
The eating of salvia leaves requires extensive chewing and bruxion against the cheeks (where absorption slowly occurs), it barely works unless you have 50 times the amount that works for smoking (this is a waste, and wasting is much more fundamentally disrespectful than smoking which is a known way of showing respect to these allies (eg smudging etc.)).

Gagging on the quids is very goofy & sloppy, I am sure that the curandero's told the W.A.S.P. researchers that they had to chew quids did it just to make fun of them, quids are actually designed to be rolled and dried into cigars - imagine how funny it was to make the scientists chew salvia cigars - it was a big hoot (the native people kept a solemn straight face while laughing madly inside) that the white world took as sacrament - total knee slapping indiginous fun!!!!

Smoking is more efficient, not the wrong way. Don't imagine that the only liars are the secret cabal of the Knights Templar etc. many people lie to foreigners for fun.

That you have to chew salvia leaves is a total 'white' lie, and since people are so superstitious in general, they accommodate the lie into their cosmologies.




The difference between smoking and holding the leaves in your mouth is that smoking is short and intense while quidding is longer but more gentle. If the plant is not meant to be smoked, it is simply because of the shock of getting rocketed out of one's familiar reality so fast. Aside from that, smoking is very effective.
...




Holding salvia leaves in the mouth will do nothing.

The active ingredient, salvinorin-A, is a waxy crystalline solid that does not dissolve easily (except in acetone or ether)- consider holding a paraffin candle in your mouth. same with salvia leaves. not much will happen. you have to chew intensely to force the waxy material off the leaves' trichomes and press the salvinorin against the cell membranes of your cheeks; also you actually do have to swallow the fluid as well to get the effects from oral salvia.

Quid uses 30 to 50 times the amount of leaves as smoking does, so naturally if done right, the effect of slow absorption will be an elongated trip: instead of 5-10 minutes, you get 20-40 minutes - but the mess and effort is awful. Also if done right, the experience will not be gentle at all.

Under the tongue effects will definitely not happen EVEN IF YOU PUT PURE SALVINORIN IN YOUR MOUTH UNDER YOUR TONGUE.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: zzripz]
    #24014108 - 01/16/17 09:22 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

what this says to me is that even with the ultra discipline of physics and measurement there can be no absolute certainty:

Quote:

certain (adj.) Look up certain at Dictionary.com
    c. 1300, "determined, fixed," from Old French certain "reliable, sure, assured" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *certanus, from Latin certus "sure, fixed, settled, determined" (also source of Italian certo, Spanish cierto), originally a variant past participle of cernere "to distinguish, decide," literally "to sift, separate." This Latin verb comes from the PIE root *krei- "to sieve, discriminate, distinguish," which is also the source of Greek krisis "turning point, judgment, result of a trial" (see crisis).




This would have to include the certainty that the nature of reality is illusory!


Edited by zzripz (01/16/17 09:24 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling] * 1
    #24014168 - 01/16/17 09:44 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
I'm totally willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to modern particle physics, but I still don't see how you can get subjectivity from quantum material or any material for that matter. You are implying that you have the answer to this problem that has plagued philosophy for the last couple hundred years. Or is there a difference between subjectivity and subjective correlates?




I don't have any answers. I just have what are really gut feelings, and it's taken a long time to reach conclusions that in reality I can't remotely prove. But I do think some of the connections I've made are valid, and quite possibly I can point to certain truths at least in outline. The various conclusions I've come to and the paths I've taken are far too involved to go into meaningfully, but in the end I'm just trying to explore. I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24014180 - 01/16/17 09:51 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.





I hear what you're saying but I don't see why the notion that there may be an interface between the mind of a human being and our animal bodies is necessarily abstract.

We are all connected to nature in a biological way.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24014194 - 01/16/17 09:59 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

I hear what you're saying but I don't see why the notion that there may be an interface between the mind of a human being and our animal bodies is necessarily abstract.




I'm glad you see it that way. :smile:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24014214 - 01/16/17 10:09 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

The basic view I take is that somehow humans have learnt to control our fight or flight response to a degree higher than that of our wild ancestral counterparts.

From my collective experiences on the topic I suppose ethics might have something to do with our ability to control our instinctive responses in order to behave less impulsive and more critical in the moment.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24014393 - 01/16/17 11:21 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

...it relies more on experience than reasoning.




Short while ago I happened on a radio talk show where a group of scientists were talking about things. They also had a comedia in rsidence too which gave it more of an edge, but the question came to me 'why is science so boring/dull...for some people?'

Then I thought about love and sex. Imagine trying to explain love and/or sex using scientific terms, be it chemicals, biology, particles, etc. HOW boring IF that is it. the really interesting bit is the experience, and the more open to love and sex the deeper the experience

So surely the reason science can be so boringly dead to many people IS because they have excluded actual experience by claiming there is no sentience in matter, in nature. This is how R.D.Laing explained the situation to Fritjof Capra:
Quote:


"The main point of Laing's attack was that science, as it is practiced today, has no way of dealing with consciousness, or with experience, values, ethics, or anything referring to quality.

"This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument.

"These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it. Galileo made the statement that only quantifiable phenomena were admitted to the domain of science. Galileo said: "Whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific"; and in post-Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be measured and  quantified is not real."  This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as physis, which is alive, always in transformation, and not divorced from us. Galileo's programme offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice."
(Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra, page 139)





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 2
    #24014439 - 01/16/17 11:41 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

As Feynman tells us, all mass is interaction. How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?


One could get really esoteric with it. Science of mathematics and geometry. We are going through iterations of equations until we arrive at a suitable solution. Maybe those who've found an elegant process are the ones living in harmony or some higher state. Right now, I'm just using my mass to interact with as much as possible and the processes which bring me the most pleasure and least discord are the processes I continue to iterate. Maybe I'll find a sacred shape one day and its path I will continue to follow.


--------------------
full blown human


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #24014455 - 01/16/17 11:51 AM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Maya to me means the journey taken by mankind to ascend from tribal life to our modern civilisation over a 10,000 year period.

Quote:

An astro-blink is a long time: all those seconds work out to just over 54,000 thousand years for each flutter! That means that any event that happened over a 54,000-year period would occur in the “blink” of an eye, astronomically.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #24014484 - 01/16/17 12:03 PM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Penelope_Tree said:
As Feynman tells us, all mass is interaction. How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?


One could get really esoteric with it. Science of mathematics and geometry. We are going through iterations of equations until we arrive at a suitable solution. Maybe those who've found an elegant process are the ones living in harmony or some higher state. Right now, I'm just using my mass to interact with as much as possible and the processes which bring me the most pleasure and least discord are the processes I continue to iterate. Maybe I'll find a sacred shape one day and its path I will continue to follow.





:thumbup::thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24014570 - 01/16/17 12:31 PM (7 years, 14 days ago)

shapes are not meant to fit so cleanly- as that would be akin to allowing that the highest pleasure be stationed at sex (or something else), and not the truth.

our illusory reality can be summed up as: two of the loneliest whales in the world.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: akira_akuma] * 2
    #24014902 - 01/16/17 02:28 PM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Holding my tongue


--------------------
full blown human


Edited by Penelope_Tree (01/16/17 02:28 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Penelope_Tree] * 2
    #24015806 - 01/16/17 08:28 PM (7 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Penelope_Tree said:

How do you approach such a viewpoint? What does maya mean to you?




Through discord. The way out of maya is the opposite of peace.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Middleman]
    #24017544 - 01/17/17 02:18 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Edit: Fixed the clerical issues.

Do appearances exclusively have to do with perception? Is that the question here? To what extent may we realistically assume this?

My thought is that there is a middle ground between the poles of naive realism, (especially in some of the naturalistic fallacies of conscious realism) and unbounded idealism (and the quicksilver poetry of the phenomenologist).

Obviously it is a pretty good practical assumption to say that any "appearances" we speak of likely originates in consciousness, and that probably means in a locality of perception. But how strongly can this be asserted? When it is said we understand or inquire into the nature of any entity, the nature of reality, it is just as true that this is a "horizon" (link for clarity) as the phenomenologist Husserl put it.

I do not suppose I can gesture to a fruitful and systematic phenomenology, exactly. Things are too divided. I think it is a priority though. Just as we deal with certain open questions, regarding nature, the novelty which we constantly look to is effectively phenomenological; where certain dealings with phenomenal appearances are more inherent to the world, and direct. The sun itself "appears" on the horizon. And we know this poetic terminology actually fits; as "phenomenon" is a word that relates to things in themselves, in their appearance.

As Heidegger points out, phenomenology is even further complicated as sometimes we do not even know the horizon of what we look to. Or consider how the symptom "appears", in something, for what does not show itself, in a thing itself. There are many possible relations in appearance. Also finally there is "mere" phenomenal appearance, the accident of perception in perspective, which is structurally tied to things in themselves, as well. Are all appearances, likely as that, mere appearance? Are they consciousness relating and conferring with things in themselves?

Take another slant of philosophical preference, and we can see why we simplify things. It seems like a natural assumption on the face of it today, to say the origin of appearance is always something arising out of locality of conscious perceptions, but in what sense do we effectively assume that? Perception may be conceived as a possible correspondence between internal mental representation and what is in front of it, in general. This is because perception can be considered a possible linguistic proposition or argument of what is the case, that is evaluated as true or false (I am calling this "conscious realism", our empiricism of today). Then we look to analysis of language and concept as the ground of truth, from perception.

This has a way of simplifying phenomenology, which was justified on some bases. One basis is that Cartesianism inflated phenomenology to a proportion that couldn't be dealt with, simply put. We are not exactly able to ground the phenomenologist's horizon in any way, and it tends to end in a kind of transcendental idealism, when it is argued. Another reason we turn towards language is it is positively appropriate from the same basis of perception.

The fact is, we have departed from discussing classical physical objects, indeed "things" at all in themselves in science. We have to talk about perceptions as propositions possibly conferring with complex states of affairs, because the "entities themselves" (or rather, "relations") we are dealing with are actually complexes of affairs, and not classical spatiotemporal objects of perception. We ground "theories" in science, as propositional reflections of the world hanging in the air of conjecture as the most basic ground of science. We ground the scientific "theory", although we say theory is not above or more than the empirical object, or for that matter, the material substratum of objects, and the assumption is mainly we have all this is in tow, somewhat integrally.

The problem is, as early language analysis philosophers like Wittgenstein demonstrated, there is deep philosophical conservativism to analytic and cognitivist philosophy. If it is a construct of strict correspondence of perception to reality that we deal with, something in that was no doubt in initial conception, likened to an empiricism. In today's empiricism this opens us to burgeoning phenomena - but only in a technical conceptual language, which more or less only speaks to the world, as authority of science in general in these conjectures, or in the way the majority of people are just aping science (this propositional reflection) as an authority.

People will argue about particular philosophical stances like they argue about "political correctness" in politics today, rather than in realizing we have come to a philosophical situation. Where is it important to stand for the empirical, the theoretical, or the ground of common sense?

But my comments are mostly gathered with a historical method, and I think this is why I think we just end up watching history. There must be a shift in consciousness beyond the entrenchments of 20th century philosophy for western philosophy. I think most of the ways of embracing post Newtownian consciousness, will be in looking to something in front of us, in a philosophical way, and we can only start at that. We haven't integrally understood this circumstance. In other words the discussions get nowhere without getting past the naive and outmoded epistemeological stances that have been taken to guide us. Postmodernity, doesn't mean anything, other than that we have to be real philosophers of the future, as Nietzsche wrote.

On phenomenal appearances, I think that philosophical preferences, and practical lines of effective inquiry, will speak loudly, but will tend to dance around a property dualism. Philosophy is split in two today, but we will prefer to defer that difference. Also, my other thought is that historical sensibility, and more integral thinking would help philosophers and scientists. In my opinion there is a huge issue to modern western philosophy, in that by and large its tradition actually preceded its current focus, what it obsesses over and leans from in mind and body dualism (cartesianism, and subsequent empirical slants dealing with perceptual experience). What preceded this for the majority of western history, and back to the greeks was not mind and body, but some kind of functional monism; for instance, like Aristotle's idea of matter and the form it takes. I am not saying that means anything other than that these anthroprocentric trends exist, and that is deep in western philosopher's veins. Naturalism is, and metaphysics is too.

People want to shrug off the phenomenology and the inflated value of perceptual experience, in subject object relations, for another turn toward theoretical language, and pragmatism in the 20th and 21st century, and yet people do not know how, as they do anyway. There is the divide. I think generally it is best to deconstruct. For instance, anyone could say yes, we talk about theoretical relations of affairs, and those relations tend to come from a broad basis of empirically perceivings... And indeed empirical perceivings (objects) tend to have a common sense material substratum as their basis preceding them. This can be laid out over historical development of our conjectures. We act as if history is in tow, but really we don't know what we have our heads in most the time, not to insinuate too much. There are different kinds of illusions to have. It is not so much just the novelty of the phenomenon, but historically, western philosophers are a little too lost in what they project out into, in my opinion.

But I notice I am not either cynical or optimistic, in face of life, and I just try to stay close to my perceptions, some common sense and an ethic for real knowledge. I don't know how much this reflects our real world, or the way people want to talk but it is an insight of my own.


Edited by Kurt (01/17/17 07:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #24017596 - 01/17/17 02:39 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Excellent.:bigblunt:


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: pineninja] * 1
    #24017690 - 01/17/17 03:16 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Thanks :peace:

Just a thought, if a hefty one.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24018194 - 01/17/17 06:54 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
I'm totally willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to modern particle physics, but I still don't see how you can get subjectivity from quantum material or any material for that matter. You are implying that you have the answer to this problem that has plagued philosophy for the last couple hundred years. Or is there a difference between subjectivity and subjective correlates?




I don't have any answers. I just have what are really gut feelings, and it's taken a long time to reach conclusions that in reality I can't remotely prove. But I do think some of the connections I've made are valid, and quite possibly I can point to certain truths at least in outline. The various conclusions I've come to and the paths I've taken are far too involved to go into meaningfully, but in the end I'm just trying to explore. I think eventually subject and object are one, and if this is true, it implies that there is some interface between matter and consciousness that is fundamental. But this is a very abstract notion, and there is no way for me to explain it logically, as it relies more on experience than reasoning.




What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.

I have been told that the answer to the riddle lies in understanding the nature of mercury, i.e. a round pool of mercury can be divided and it will immediately form two self-sufficiently round pools, both of which are complete in themselves, unlike silver/gold/copper/tin etc.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] * 1
    #24018211 - 01/17/17 06:59 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

To not be aware of anothers is to be aware of your own, which is not possible without another.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] * 1
    #24018261 - 01/17/17 07:19 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

viktor said: What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.





The way I see it, it makes sense to me that we can be consciously aware of our own bodies because we are aware of our immediate environment through the sensory systems of our nervous system and brain.

While two human beings can both have conscious experiences and they do share a genetic inheritance, they do not share the same physical nervous system as they would if they came from the same families or parents.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24018363 - 01/17/17 07:56 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

But viktor is right. The consciousness is the same. Literally the same. And it's not a material.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24018381 - 01/17/17 08:01 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Ethics can exist in both people but are you saying we all have the same interpretation of ethics or sense of morality?

I don't think consciousness is a material but a measurable force of nature, like that of electromagnetism or radio waves.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24018393 - 01/17/17 08:04 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Ethics can exist in both people but are you saying we all have the same interpretation of ethics or sense of morality?




That's not at all what I'm saying.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24018426 - 01/17/17 08:14 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said: The consciousness is the same




Then what are you saying?

In my view, we as human beings can experience a similar situation but not the same situation as someone else.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 2
    #24018438 - 01/17/17 08:17 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.


--TOOL, "Reflection"


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24018445 - 01/17/17 08:20 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

We all come to our own choices, so be yourself and live out your values.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (01/17/17 08:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24018515 - 01/17/17 08:49 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
1) our senses are each limited to a certain small range

2) we are missing certain senses ( sonar, magnetism, etc.)

3) then we combine and interpret the results (the raw sense data) in the brain to form an inaccurate/approximate model of the world

4) then we overlay the model with our biases and conditionings

All this without considering particle physics, astronomical time scales and distances, our ignorance as regards death, the unconscious mind, the nature of the self, mind, the dream state, & consciousness.

And finally we ignore our ignorance, and are generally rather emotionally reactive as regards relatively unimportant things much of the time, which results in much unnecessary suffering.

Hence the terms maya and samsara would seem appropriate in describing the human condition.




1) The 8 senses we have, taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, vestibular (ear balance), proprioception (awareness of body in space) and stereognosis/interoception (visualisation of 3D objects with touch), together allow us to sense our immediate environment, which happens to be the planet Earth.
https://www.spdstar.org/basic/your-8-senses

2) We have 8 known senses and they run off of the nervous systems chemical and electrical interactions as anyone who has been to a biology class knows.

3) We visualise objects through a process known as Mental Synthesis in where set patterns of neural networks fire simultaneously in the brain.


4) Our abilities to conceptualise with Mental Synthesis are formed in the same way our memories are and we can only imagine as far as we can combine our experiences into a coherent image.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24018556 - 01/17/17 09:14 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

viktor said: What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.





The way I see it, it makes sense to me that we can be consciously aware of our own bodies because we are aware of our immediate environment through the sensory systems of our nervous system and brain.




So how do we dream, when there is no 'real' environment to be aware of and no nervous system to see it with, but we can still see it?


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor]
    #24018595 - 01/17/17 09:31 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

I think it's at least evident we can visualise throughout the day, and when we go to sleep EEG readers have shown our brain wave frequencies change to lower frequencies of different amplitudes. 

Quote:

"Delta and theta rhythms are low-frequency EEG patterns that increase during sleep in the normal adult.  As people move from lighter to deeper stages of sleep (prior to REM sleep), the occurrence of alpha waves diminish and is gradually replaced by the lower frequency theta and then delta frequency rhythms."
http://www.psych.westminster.edu/psybio/BN/Labs/Brainwaves.htm




Because of this I think sleep is when our brains go into an active state of mental synthesis that we experience as dreams.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (01/17/17 09:38 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24018679 - 01/17/17 10:23 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

My question is, if you believe that we are conscious of our bodies because of our nervous systems, how can you reconcile that with dreams in which a nervous system is 100% unnecessary to be conscious of a body?


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor]
    #24018696 - 01/17/17 10:35 PM (7 years, 13 days ago)

Because without a brain I doubt we could dream, and the brain is a part of the Central Nervous System.

For me I have an interpretation of the human experience that is modeled into a Tripartite Dichotomy.


How can you be sure the nervous system is 100% unnecessary for the experience of a dream?

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and our brains are full of chemo-electric action.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (01/18/17 12:03 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24018833 - 01/17/17 11:50 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

(...)


Edited by Kurt (01/18/17 04:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #24018848 - 01/18/17 12:01 AM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Redundancy of human identification? We as humans are capable of building cities and flying rockets to space.



As for opium I think it has powerful sedatory effects on portions of the brain.


And for how far common sense can go, it's pretty grey I guess, a bit of black and white, good and bad.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 1
    #24018875 - 01/18/17 12:17 AM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Life is essentially a joke that self-perpetuates once you get on top of it, once you realize you're being played only by yourself.

Doubts and fears can be removed but it is only to make the ego's life easier. Self has no such doubts or fears.

Self-realization is convoluted by our very formal language and ludicrously uptight society.

A good way to put it is,

This is That which Is. That's what This is.

Simply understand nothing. Nothing at all. All work is about undoing what you believe is true.

It's not that "it" is "perfect".

There is just the "is" or there is just the "perfect".

At some stage you have to lose yourself in ordinary awareness and you will be lost forever and always have been.

haha

Your contribution is to exist in that state. That state is life. The world is being, your state changes the world and influences everything karmically. Good vibes indeed!


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn]
    #24019032 - 01/18/17 02:04 AM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

A dragon biting it's own tail, Ouroboros
The 'infinite' cycle of nature, creation from destruction.

As Erwin Shrodinger put it, negative entropy.







--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor]
    #24019768 - 01/18/17 11:52 AM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

viktor said: What I find difficult is that I can be consciously aware of my body but not yours. Although the consciousness is in both cases the same.





The way I see it, it makes sense to me that we can be consciously aware of our own bodies because we are aware of our immediate environment through the sensory systems of our nervous system and brain.




So how do we dream, when there is no 'real' environment to be aware of and no nervous system to see it with, but we can still see it?



If I may shortly answer this, because it's an easy one ?
Our visual cortex works both ways. That really in fact means that you can 'project' 'mental' pictures onto that part of the brain which works like a canvas.
Those pictures are seen crystal clear when you sleep/dream, or similar when you meditate (but not so clear), or what happened to me, taking a special combination of ayahuasca... closed my eyes and saw full screen, crystal clear, full contrast (even more than real contrast), brilliant picture/movie of that what I was thinking of.
As I witnessed this happen in full consciousness, it is proof enough for me that it is a basic and physical function of our brain/visual cortex.
And of course, when we sleep our nervous system is heavily active while we dream... rem sleep etc. But there are even beta waves and lambda waves when we don't dream.
While we dream, our body even has to be paralyzed, because the whole body would work like the visual context. As the whole neo-cortex seems a place for 'reflection which works both ways, like the visual cortex. [stimulus - reaction]
And if this paralyzation doesn't work, people start sleepwalking or hitting their partners in bed really hard or speak in sleep ...
:smile:


Edited by BlueCoyote (01/18/17 12:09 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: BlueCoyote] * 1
    #24019879 - 01/18/17 12:47 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

:thumbup:

A method of generally following discrete observations of experience (sense) in order to recognize a local faculty of perception in cognition; is a lot different than Sudly's formalistic and generally projected physicalism.

I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.

So I see a difference in the arguments, that Bluecoyote practically begins with sense experience, while Sudly theoretically postulates sense experiences, or a notion of cognition and neuroscience in a mostly unexamined and formally projected framework.

If the conclusion is similar in that we have discrete faculties of cognition in conscious experience, the difference is still significantly in how we come to this conclusion. We can come either through experiential observations, or projected sudly-esque categories. It makes sense to look to a real empirical/scientific approach when one is being claimed. At any rate, rigorous, practical observation will be crucial in anything considered to be a biological basis of consciousness.

:rocket:


Edited by Kurt (01/18/17 03:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24020104 - 01/18/17 02:02 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

some thing like this has been said:

‘thoughts about awareness are not awareness’

but

‘awareness of thought is awareness’

and thoughts are just one form of perception.

All perceptions are only contents, within the context of awareness.

some other forms of perception are:

feelings

auditory: external sounds
and
internal self talk

vision:
external vision
and
internal imagery

Kinesthetic: sense of touch, balance, temperature etc
sense of smell and taste

    Through sense perceptions a model of the world is built up, in the brain, in which we presume objects exist, and we also presume that a separate, stable, self exists. Much of this modeling takes place unconsciously, but arrives in consciousness where we take it as fact. Note that this model is itself, a perception or content of consciousness and not awareness itself.
    Hence it is said, not that: ‘there is no self’, but that: ‘the self is not what we THINK it is’.
    In dreams we perceive objects and various persons or selves and react to them as if they are real and separate. When ‘awake’ we make exactly the same presumptions, again forgetting the primality of awareness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24020283 - 01/18/17 02:57 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

some thing like this has been said:

‘thoughts about awareness are not awareness’

but

‘awareness of thought is awareness’

and thoughts are just one form of perception.

All perceptions are only contents, within the context of awareness.

some other forms of perception are:

feelings

auditory: external sounds
and
internal self talk

vision:
external vision
and
internal imagery

Kinesthetic: sense of touch, balance, temperature etc
sense of smell and taste

    Through sense perceptions a model of the world is built up, in the brain, in which we presume objects exist, and we also presume that a separate, stable, self exists. Much of this modeling takes place unconsciously, but arrives in consciousness where we take it as fact. Note that this model is itself, a perception or content of consciousness and not awareness itself.
    Hence it is said, not that: ‘there is no self’, but that: ‘the self is not what we THINK it is’.
    In dreams we perceive objects and various persons or selves and react to them as if they are real and separate. When ‘awake’ we make exactly the same presumptions, again forgetting the primality of awareness.





I really like how you put this, and it is something I didn't previously realize. Seems like a good principle:

Quote:

some thing like this has been said:

‘thoughts about awareness are not awareness’

but

‘awareness of thought is awareness’




As I understand, this means it is possible to observe or perceive thoughts. But it is not possible to "think" (ie. rationalize) one's observations, so far as they are actual observations.

This would go as much for meditation, as good science. Same principle. In either case observation has to be actual.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24020316 - 01/18/17 03:03 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
    Hence it is said, not that: ‘there is no self’, but that: ‘the self is not what we THINK it is’.





:thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24020402 - 01/18/17 03:30 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

'The self' really loves to test those inner concepts against reality :crazy2:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #24020586 - 01/18/17 04:33 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Congratulations you've described mental synthesis. :thumbup:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 2
    #24020613 - 01/18/17 04:41 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Bullshit.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #24020620 - 01/18/17 04:43 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
:thumbup:

A method of generally following discrete observations of experience (sense) in order to recognize a local faculty of perception in cognition; is a lot different than Sudly's formalistic and generally projected physicalism.

I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.

So I see a difference in the arguments, that Bluecoyote practically begins with sense experience, while Sudly theoretically postulates sense experiences, or a notion of cognition and neuroscience in a mostly unexamined and formally projected framework.

If the conclusion is similar in that we have discrete faculties of cognition in conscious experience, the difference is still significantly in how we come to this conclusion. We can come either through experiential observations, or projected sudly-esque categories. It makes sense to look to a real empirical/scientific approach when one is being claimed. At any rate, rigorous, practical observation will be crucial in anything considered to be a biological basis of consciousness.

:rocket:




So I theoretically postulate sense experiences, as if that means anything.. I reference a lot of what I say but I can't control if you people actually look at them.

I've said it before but the object of science to be be able to grasp the hypothetical and it remains a powerful demonstration of force.

I take senses into consideration but I don't take my gut feelings seriously all of the time, I think there's got to be some critical thinking and rational to it as well. 

Relying solely on experiential observations may work for some things but it also leads to stories of Jesus and ghosts.

An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #24020638 - 01/18/17 04:46 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

BlueCoyote said: Our visual cortex works both ways. That really in fact means that you can 'project' 'mental' pictures onto that part of the brain which works like a canvas.

Those pictures are seen crystal clear when you sleep/dream, or similar when you meditate (but not so clear), or what happened to me, taking a special combination of ayahuasca... closed my eyes and saw full screen, crystal clear, full contrast (even more than real contrast), brilliant picture/movie of that what I was thinking of.




Quote:

Sudly said: 3) We visualise objects through a process known as Mental Synthesis in where set patterns of neural networks fire simultaneously in the brain.


4) Our abilities to conceptualise with Mental Synthesis are formed in the same way our memories are through neural networking and we can only imagine as far as we can combine our experiences into a coherent image.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 1
    #24020916 - 01/18/17 06:29 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kurt said:
:thumbup:

A method of generally following discrete observations of experience (sense) in order to recognize a local faculty of perception in cognition; is a lot different than Sudly's formalistic and generally projected physicalism.

I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.

So I see a difference in the arguments, that Bluecoyote practically begins with sense experience, while Sudly theoretically postulates sense experiences, or a notion of cognition and neuroscience in a mostly unexamined and formally projected framework.

If the conclusion is similar in that we have discrete faculties of cognition in conscious experience, the difference is still significantly in how we come to this conclusion. We can come either through experiential observations, or projected sudly-esque categories. It makes sense to look to a real empirical/scientific approach when one is being claimed. At any rate, rigorous, practical observation will be crucial in anything considered to be a biological basis of consciousness.

:rocket:




So I theoretically postulate sense experiences, as if that means anything.. I reference a lot of what I say but I can't control if you people actually look at them.

I've said it before but the object of science to be be able to grasp the hypothetical and it remains a powerful demonstration of force.

I take senses into consideration but I don't take my gut feelings seriously all of the time, I think there's got to be some critical thinking and rational to it as well. 

Relying solely on experiential observations may work for some things but it also leads to stories of Jesus and ghosts.

An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.




Heap of bullshit strawman.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 2
    #24020954 - 01/18/17 06:40 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.




I agree with Kurt, this is horse shit.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #24020957 - 01/18/17 06:40 PM (7 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Kurt said: I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.




I start with the senses then process them through critical thought. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

And how am I making the straw man if I'm not the one postulating something that isn't true?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24021784 - 01/19/17 12:44 AM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.




You really don't belong on this forum.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor]
    #24021797 - 01/19/17 01:06 AM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Neurological signals aren't any more thoughts or ideas than waves are what you hear when you listen to music.

It's an error of category, or something.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn]
    #24021934 - 01/19/17 04:16 AM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

beforethedawn said:
Neurological signals aren't any more thoughts or ideas than waves are what you hear when you listen to music.

It's an error of category, or something.




If we're talking about neurological signals don't forget to include brain wave frequencies.



We can measure sound waves too.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] * 2
    #24022635 - 01/19/17 10:56 AM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I don't think it is wrong for him to talk about a cogitive and neurological basis for conscious experience. He just doesn't seem to grasp how to honestly argue a point in dialogue, or contend with a real world in general, according to his philosophical assumption. He iust keeps going and going here like an energizer bunny.

Does "beginning with sense experience" mean starting from a basis and sphere of one's own experience, such as what is observed and possibly confirmed in the world through his senses? That is one idea of beginning with experience; specifically as an empirical notion. What alot of people have talked about here is that, beginning with a basis of experience.

To someone like Sudly who has identified strongly with a projected philosophical narrative, "beginning with the experience" does not mean a scientific or meditative approach to understanding the world. When he pretends to, this is just an idea of that he is aping. To him, a world that begins with sense experience is a theoretical construct, and ideology he associates with, and idolizes, and clings to, and generally splays about the forum, in pretended responses to posters and in pretended connection to the world.

Sudly does not begin or typically rely on an experiential basis, experience through experience, but a projected idea of physical organisms' experiences, like how perception, can be projectively considered brain dependent, and can be treated as physical object in the world, and he constantly looks to rationalize this as a pet philosophical ideal (materialism).

I would say he is well in his right to have a material view, but it seems like he could speak a whole lot more from an empirical baseline, rather than just projecting and attempting to force feed his philosophical/ontological assumption, about a nature that is physical.

There is definitely room for critique! Most of what Sudly says is highly suspect, and smells of bullshit. His physical categorialism, and his pet theories, usually do not make contact with the real world, or argument about it. This is because he is just aping science. He has the formality of a scientist, or at least the "cargo cult" of science down. But there is actually a big difference between what Sudly talks about as a "sense based" world, or a world that begins with the sense experience, and what a rigorous empiricist speaks of in that way.

The practical scientist actually, and in a practical way, begins with experiences, a baseline of experiential observations of the world, whereas Sudly, a pseudo-empiricist merely aping science, only has a theory of a sense based world, and a way of pretentiously representing himself as some great scientific theoretician. So ironically, in his physicalism, (again an opinion that is welcome here in general) Sudly seems to be far away from actually thinking living and dwelling close to his experience of the world, and his actual senses. As an empiricist he is nowhere near rigorous enough.

It's just bad science.


Edited by Kurt (01/19/17 01:56 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] * 3
    #24022653 - 01/19/17 11:00 AM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Excellent and correct summary.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 2
    #24022894 - 01/19/17 01:00 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Everyone knows one cannot eat the word: ‘pie’ or the word: ’bread’.

    Rene Magritte painted a picture of a pipe titled: “This is not a pipe”.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=This+is+not+a+pipe&FORM=HDRSC2

    This is a valid philosophical point. Of course the adult brains of english speakers, immediately associate the english word ‘pipe’, with the picture, although we also know we cannot smoke it.
And if we turn some pictures upside down we might not recognize them right away. As Magritte points out ‘really’ there is only paint on a canvas.
    (However in the case of the picture of an ‘attractive’ nude person sexual arousal may be produced, this Magritte does not address. In the case of movies, even more emotional effects may be produced, purely by 2 dimensional imagery at 24-32 frames per second. As we all know advertisers as well as artists exploit the human tendencies, of identification, projection, and association).
    So in many cases s symbol may function as that which it represents, while in other cases it may function as a symbol, and lastly it may function deceptively. Money of course is also a symbol, with special properties of it’s own. A whole other subject.
    We can also defy categories in many ways. For instance by writing the word ‘bread’ with bread crumbs which can be eaten.

  Also however note that we do not attempt to explain how it is possible for pie or bread or a pipe to exist. They are objects, and we talk about them with words which are symbols and don’t confuse the two.
    Likewise we constantly use abstractions such as numbers and do not spend great effort debating how real they are and where they come from. The more intelligent we are the better we are at math. Most intelligent people do not debate wether they exist only in the intelligent mind or in the radius of a circle or spiral of a nautilus shell.

    In the case of awareness aka consciousness however it seems people mistake a fine theory for awareness aka consciousness itself. A great recipe for cake is no good if in fact the milk, eggs, and flour you have, have actually spoiled. And the recipe cannot make or bake itself - this is crucial. A theory cannot become aware, but we already are, and it is some degree of this very awareness that makes the game of theorizing possible.
    The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects.
Space exists regardless of the forms that are born into it, transform in it and decay in it. The forms do not define or control space. It is space that permits forms to arise. It is the same with awareness and perceptions. Thoughts about awareness can never define it. That much we can say about ‘it’. And it is awareness that makes possible all that we experience and choose to categorize with the linguistic symbol; ”reality”. But there is in ‘reality’ no such thing as reality.
Experiencing is a verb not a thing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Meta    (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

About (its own category)  In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24022931 - 01/19/17 01:25 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Everyone knows one cannot eat the word: ‘pie’ or the word: ’bread’.

    Rene Magritte painted a picture of a pipe titled: “This is not a pipe”.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=This+is+not+a+pipe&FORM=HDRSC2

    This is a valid philosophical point. Of course the adult brains of english speakers, immediately associate the english word ‘pipe’, with the picture, although we also know we cannot smoke it.
And if we turn some pictures upside down we might not recognize them right away. As Magritte points out ‘really’ there is only paint on a canvas.
    (However in the case of the picture of an ‘attractive’ nude person sexual arousal may be produced, this Magritte does not address. In the case of movies, even more emotional effects may be produced, purely by 2 dimensional imagery at 24-32 frames per second. As we all know advertisers as well as artists exploit the human tendencies, of identification, projection, and association).
    So in many cases s symbol may function as that which it represents, while in other cases it may function as a symbol, and lastly it may function deceptively. Money of course is also a symbol, with special properties of it’s own. A whole other subject.
    We can also defy categories in many ways. For instance by writing the word ‘bread’ with bread crumbs which can be eaten.

  Also however note that we do not attempt to explain how it is possible for pie or bread or a pipe to exist. They are objects, and we talk about them with words which are symbols and don’t confuse the two.
    Likewise we constantly use abstractions such as numbers and do not spend great effort debating how real they are and where they come from. The more intelligent we are the better we are at math. Most intelligent people do not debate wether they exist only in the intelligent mind or in the radius of a circle or spiral of a nautilus shell.

    In the case of awareness aka consciousness however it seems people mistake a fine theory for awareness aka consciousness itself. A great recipe for cake is no good if in fact the milk, eggs, and flour you have, have actually spoiled. And the recipe cannot make or bake itself - this is crucial. A theory cannot become aware, but we already are, and it is some degree of this very awareness that makes the game of theorizing possible.
    The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects.
Space exists regardless of the forms that are born into it, transform in it and decay in it. The forms do not define or control space. It is space that permits forms to arise. It is the same with awareness and perceptions. Thoughts about awareness can never define it. That much we can say about ‘it’. And it is awareness that makes possible all that we experience and choose to categorize with the linguistic symbol; ”reality”. But there is in ‘reality’ no such thing as reality.
Experiencing is a verb not a thing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Meta    (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

About (its own category)  In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on).




Nice post. I especially resonate with the following:

Quote:

The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects.




Couldn't have put it better.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24023294 - 01/19/17 03:55 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

hello
awareness is also thought

this is where it get kookie:

all mental content is thought or thought is the same as any mental content; thought is not just the imagining of words but it is also:

everything being experienced is thought - it all is either transduced from sensation into mental content, or it is expressed from memory potentials triggered from existing (fading) mental content.

Even meditation is thought, though gurus may try to tell you that word thought is thought and meditation is not thought - but then they tell you how to meditate and it involves putting your awareness in a spot (chakkra) and repeating a mantra or some such. all of which is thought. it all happens in the mind.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #24023588 - 01/19/17 05:52 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I have had what many would call spiritual experiences but I've realised that the things I thought were external forces were actually the influences of my subconscious thoughts.

Here you are saying I pretend to have experiences..

I think in order to do good science you can't rely on your gut feelings, as a little rational and critical thought are required.

Quote:

Kurt said: He has the formality of a scientist, or at least the "cargo cult" of science down.



I don't think you're a serious person.. :facepalm:
Quote:

Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. They focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magical means, by building landing strips, mock aircraft, mock radios, and the like.




Even so I understand your point that you think I'm laying out some sort of pseudo-scientific trap to capture the attention of people like you.

Instead of trying to bash the air how about you ask a question about something you're not satisfied with in relation to my 'pet theory'?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24023647 - 01/19/17 06:07 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24023661 - 01/19/17 06:10 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Instead of trying to bash the air how about you ask a question about something you're not satisfied with in relation to my 'pet theory'?





Who is bashing the air?

The argument is done as far as I am concerned. I am okay with everything that has been said.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #24023799 - 01/19/17 06:54 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I don't know who this is aimed at because I advocate for the idea that we process our sensual experiences through critical thought as perceptions, i.e. Explicit feelings/Implicit thoughts, a duality of experience so as to say.

Quote:

Kurt said: To someone like Sudly who has identified strongly with a projected philosophical narrative, "beginning with the experience" does not mean a scientific or meditative approach to understanding the world. When he pretends to, this is just an idea of that he is aping. To him, a world that begins with sense experience is a theoretical construct, and ideology he associates with, and idolizes, and clings to, and generally splays about the forum, in pretended responses to posters and in pretended connection to the world.

Sudly does not begin or typically rely on an experiential basis, experience through experience, but a projected idea of physical organisms' experiences, like how perception, can be projectively considered brain dependent, and can be treated as physical object in the world, and he constantly looks to rationalize this as a pet philosophical ideal (materialism).






--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24023843 - 01/19/17 07:09 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

sudly, the hole has been deep enough for awhile, yet you insist on continuing to dig.

:shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24023894 - 01/19/17 07:22 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I'm still doing what I can to develop my pet theory on explaining what I think is the existence of an anatomical Tripartite-Dichotomy.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] * 1
    #24023979 - 01/19/17 07:47 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is a property which arises in consciousness, and depending on the nature of this knowledge it may track the reality existing outside of consciousness better or worse eg. it might take more of a leap to get to a particular conclusion than some other way of conceptualising a phenomena. Your scientific and theoretical insights probably track reality existing outside conscious awareness better than most, but it is still first an appearance in consciousness and not necessarily a material reality, and this is something you are unable to admit, probably because you have total faith in your theories or at least an unrefined level of enthusiasm, and perhaps a lack of understanding of the qualitative dimensions of reality, which clouds your judgement.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling]
    #24024032 - 01/19/17 08:10 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Again, I think the object of science is to be able to grasp the hypothetical as true.



To be able to hypothesise, I think, is a human trait granted by our disproportionately large fore brains.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24024057 - 01/19/17 08:20 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I thought the point of science is to set and then challenge a hypothesis or series of hypotheses, and eventually when a hypothesis withstands as much criticism as can be mustered it is granted to be true based on the present information available. What your describing sounds more like religion on the face of it :shrug:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: blingbling]
    #24024083 - 01/19/17 08:29 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

I think that what we can do is set and challenge a hypothesis by believing it as true until we encounter better evidence or a more informed line of rational that supposes another idea or a wider perspective.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24024144 - 01/19/17 08:46 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think that what we can do is set and challenge a hypothesis by believing it as true until we encounter better evidence or a more informed line of rational that supposes another idea or a wider perspective.




Hypothesis are not believed - they are tested
they are also required to make predictions -  that are falsifiable - and can be tested

It is possible to have different hypotheses that explain the same thing, which again shows they are not to be believed. They  are therefore required to make falsifiable predictions, in order to gain more probability of being correct or partially correct, if experimentation bears out the predictions.

And experimentation is required to have controls, and possibly be 'blind' if human subjects are involved. Everything is done to rule out belief.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24024152 - 01/19/17 08:48 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

You don't challenge something by believing its true, but I think I know what you mean. We take something to be true based on the best evidence available at the time.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: redgreenvines] * 3
    #24024162 - 01/19/17 08:51 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
it all happens in the mind.




Yet perhaps not all in the head.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24024198 - 01/19/17 09:05 PM (7 years, 11 days ago)

To want to test a hypothesis you would have to believe that at least some portion of it is true or?

I think we test the predictive capabilities of a hypothesis until we have enough evidence to call it a theory.

I agree that falsifiable research questions are important.
Quote:

Is it possible to subjugate the fight or flight response through psychedelic habituation to develop ethics by being able to draw back from instinct to think critically and make the best decision for survival?




Mankind has done plenty of experimentation that we can learn from, it's how we know about radiowaves and the anatomy of human beings, I think that sometimes all that we may need to do to prove a hypothetical as true is to find a pattern in the experimental evidence of our past.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24025653 - 01/20/17 01:21 PM (7 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
To want to test a hypothesis you would have to believe that at least some portion of it is true or?
....




....I think that sometimes all that we may need to do to prove a hypothetical as true is to find a pattern in the experimental evidence of our past.




No you don't have to believe anything. A better word is 'probability'. So we could say: "One suspects there is a reasonable probability...'that at least some portion of it is true'.

this is because:  "It is possible to have different hypotheses that explain the same thing, which again shows they are not to be believed."

Also finding patterns is not accepted as a substitute for conducting experiments. The scientific method even requires experiments to be replicable or repeatable by others.
As well as have controls, etc.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
    #24026314 - 01/20/17 05:18 PM (7 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

No you don't have to believe anything. A better word is 'probability'. So we could say: "One suspects there is a reasonable probability...'that at least some portion of it is true'.



Fair enough.

Finding patterns in the evidence of previous experiments*


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24032515 - 01/23/17 05:17 AM (7 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

redgreenvines said:
it all happens in the mind.




Yet perhaps not all in the head.




Quoting redgreenvines for truth.

Wherever you are, there is your mind. Wherever you go, there is your mind. As you leave to go somewhere else, there is your mind.

It is not solipsistic, but you are somehow creating pretty much everything. Not 100% but 98%.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: beforethedawn]
    #24032950 - 01/23/17 10:36 AM (7 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

beforethedawn said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

redgreenvines said:
it all happens in the mind.




Yet perhaps not all in the head.




Quoting redgreenvines for truth.

Wherever you are, there is your mind. Wherever you go, there is your mind. As you leave to go somewhere else, there is your mind.

It is not solipsistic, but you are somehow creating pretty much everything. Not 100% but 98%.




I agree but the head and the mind aren't the same. I don't know that gurus say some things are thought and some things are not. Perhaps some of them do, but perhaps they have a reason. I think there is a time and place for everything in that regard. Placing one's focus on a particular chakra is like that. In a general sense I think remaining calm is ideal but do not assume parts of the mind to be useless, or off limits for retrospection.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24033759 - 01/23/17 05:00 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

I seem to think we can feel 7 Chakras but that their energy is only produced by 3 locations of the head, the chest and the gut. :shrug:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24033787 - 01/23/17 05:10 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

It seems to me that energy is produced at each and every chakra. Maybe you're heavy on Ajna, Anahata and Manipura? You could have a preponderance in those places. :shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24033892 - 01/23/17 05:44 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

That's certainly fair to say.



Though I would probably group Sahasrara, Ajna and Vishuddha as the head, then Anahata, Manipura and Svadhisthana at the center and Muladhara as the Desire/Instinct.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (01/23/17 09:02 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24033930 - 01/23/17 05:57 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

That's not unreasonable, though I would not prefer it.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24034021 - 01/23/17 06:22 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I seem to think we can feel 7 Chakras but that their energy is only produced by 3 locations of the head, the chest and the gut. :shrug:




Your model is more pragmatic in casual conversation and immediately approachable in that sense but I think with your level of interest as a matter of personal inquiry it is only a matter of time before you move on from three.

I see it loosely as 3/1/3 for particular reasons that go beyond location. For instance, beyond having specific locations the "three appetites" are very different from one another. One is associated with relaxing while the other two are very stimulating but in different ways. In feeling, Manipura is closer to Anahata (spirit) than the others. They are all like that, different but sharing qualities with their neighbors.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24034590 - 01/23/17 09:17 PM (7 years, 7 days ago)

Fair enough, and though I don't know too much about the Chakras I think you're interpretation does make more sense to me with the Sahasrara, Ajna and Vishudda within the head, Anahata as the center soul or chest, and finally with Manipura, Svadhisthana and Muladhara as the appetitive and instinctive desires of the body/gut.

Correct me if that doesn't seem fitting but I think it goes the head, the chest and then the body.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24034756 - 01/23/17 10:52 PM (7 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Fair enough, and though I don't know too much about the Chakras I think you're interpretation does make more sense to me with the Sahasrara, Ajna and Vishudda within the head, Anahata as the center soul or chest, and finally with Manipura, Svadhisthana and Muladhara as the appetitive and instinctive desires of the body/gut.

Correct me if that doesn't seem fitting but I think it goes the head, the chest and then the body.




It could be said that in a visceral sense they are variations of each other like frequencies in a linear scale. 3 or 7 are points on a scale that is not metered. There could be 1. There could be 3 or 7, or more. If there are three, there are at least 7... or is there only one? :wink:



--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24034823 - 01/23/17 11:32 PM (7 years, 6 days ago)

How ever many Chakras may be felt in the individual, I am under the impression that the sensations are mediated by the electrical output of 3 anatomical locations.

These include:
  • brainwaves from the head and brain,
  • the cardiac and breathing activity of the chest, the heart and the diaphragm,
  • and finally the processes of metabolisation and digestion that take place throughout the gut of the body.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24035821 - 01/24/17 11:35 AM (7 years, 6 days ago)

3 and 7 are numbers we use to examine division of sensation and functionality. I don't see the usefulness in identifying divisions in the brain, but you have an interest and if it's useful to you I'm glad. I find both perspectives in dividing sensation and functionality to be illuminating and yet also perceive them to be more than their specific functions which causes the perception of division.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Rahz]
    #24036879 - 01/24/17 06:23 PM (7 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

I find both perspectives in dividing sensation and functionality to be illuminating and yet also perceive them to be more than their specific functions which causes the perception of division.




I don't think I'm dividing sensation and functionality but rather unifying it into a whole collective system called the human nervous system.

Either way though we all have our own views.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (01/24/17 06:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
    #24037184 - 01/24/17 08:24 PM (7 years, 6 days ago)

I should have said, perceiving division of sensation and functionality, which is what we do when perceiving 3 or 7 or any other number of brain function or emotive variances in the nervous system.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reality is your best friend
( 1 2 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 5,598 35 10/06/10 02:47 PM
by trentinxd
* the nature of life, the unverse, and hollographic jazz Moonshoe 503 7 10/27/04 04:38 PM
by Gomp
* Reality and illusions and so forth... Sclorch 2,698 15 06/24/02 12:32 PM
by Sclorch
* The nature of the mother... GernBlanston 722 5 07/17/03 12:40 PM
by MAIA
* Creating reality - does God really help?
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,617 47 03/08/03 01:31 AM
by The_Clash_UK
* If humans were categorized by humans Ravus 1,090 13 11/20/04 09:21 PM
by JacquesCousteau
* Reality vs. the mushroom
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AbstractSoul 10,550 64 02/18/02 03:36 PM
by AbstractSoul
* Reality Is Alive
( 1 2 all )
pattern 4,632 29 05/27/08 11:22 PM
by fubuvsfitch

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,276 topic views. 1 members, 13 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.06 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 12 queries.