The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[TimeSeeker]

I tend to doubt that the shape of the universe would be a perfect 4-dimensional sphere.

My original point stands as long as you conceptualise the universe as any N-dimensional entity where N > 0 e.g shape that is (at least in principle) expressible in Mathematics/topology.

It is still subject to infinite regress when one asks "Where did the N-dimensional Universe come from?"
The way you've plugged that hole is to claim "It has always been there". As far as an axiom goes I am OK with it, but I imagine such a notion would cause emotional distress to most people who aren't comfortable with uncertainty and admitting ignorance.

It's a thing without a cause and as far as answering the "origin question" (where do we come from?) it's no better or worse answer than "God did it".
If you are optimising for parsimony (Occam's razor) then invoking a creator is a simpler explanation than invoking quantum physics.

Why is it simpler? Even a child can understand it! That is until they figure out even the god-idea is not immune to infinite regress.

[Atla]

I tend to doubt that the shape of the universe would be a perfect 4-dimensional sphere.

My original point stands as long as you conceptualise the universe as any N-dimensional entity where N > 0 e.g shape that is (at least in principle) expressible in Mathematics/topology.

It is still subject to infinite regress when one asks "Where did the N-dimensional Universe come from?"
The way you've plugged that hole is to claim "It has always been there". As far as an axiom goes I am OK with it, but I imagine such a notion would cause emotional distress to most people who aren't comfortable with uncertainty and admitting ignorance.

It's a thing without a cause and as far as answering the "origin question" (where do we come from?) it's no better or worse answer than "God did it".
If you are optimising for parsimony (Occam's razor) then invoking a creator is a simpler explanation than invoking quantum physics.

Why is it simpler? Even a child can understand it! That is until they figure out even the god-idea is not immune to infinite regress.

No, you don't have a point that stands, never had.

[TimeSeeker]

No, you don't have a point that stands, never had.

I never claimed to have a "point that stands". Nobody has a "point that stands". Because there is no ground (ontology!) to stand on! It's turtles all the way down.

That's why I am hanging from the ceiling of teleology.

But that makes for a great heuristic! The easiest way to spot an "intellectual fraud" - anybody who claims they have grounding!

[Atla]

No, you don't have a point that stands, never had.

Nobody has a "point that stands". Because there is no ground (ontology!) to stand on! It's turtles all the way down.

That's why I am hanging from the ceiling of 'teleology'.

But that makes for a great heuristic! The easiest way to spot an "intellectual fraud" - anybody who claims they have grounding!

Except you use the ceiling of teleology as grounding, which makes you an intellectual fraud

[TimeSeeker]

Except you use the ceiling of teleology as grounding, which makes you an intellectual fraud

You are using a made up and non-communicable ontology as grounding. So I guess you are an intellectual fraud too?

[Atla]

Except you use the ceiling of teleology as grounding, which makes you an intellectual fraud

You are using a made up and non-communicable ontology as grounding. So I guess you are an intellectual fraud too?

It's communicable (but you need to be fairly intelligent to grasp it), and it's not a grounding. So again you lied twice.

[TimeSeeker]

It's communicable (but you need to be fairly intelligent to grasp it), and it's not a grounding. So again you lied twice.

Well, you are in luck! My IQ is more than a handful of standard deviations to the right AND I am an expert on communication/information

So want to try again in communicating this "circular non-circle" idea ?

And if that's not your grounding - then are you saying that there is an ontology more fundamental than The Universe? Careful - you are going for theism again...

[Atla]

It's communicable (but you need to be fairly intelligent to grasp it), and it's not a grounding. So again you lied twice.

Well, you are in luck! My IQ is more than a handful of standard deviations to the right AND I am an expert on communication/information

So want to try again in communicating this "circular non-circle" idea ?

And if that's not your grounding - then are you saying that there is an ontology more fundamental than The Universe? Careful - you are going for theism again...

I don't buy that, you have too many comprehension issues, you usually fail to understand things in like 5 different ways at once. I've never seen such a dumb high-IQ person.
And again, you can't imagine things without a grounding - your intellectual failure.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't buy that, you have too many comprehension issues, you usually fail to understand things in like 5 different ways at once.

What you meant to say was: "I use such imprecise language and allow for so much ambiguity in what I say so that my words can be interpreted in at least 5 different ways!"

Precision is a learnable skill, but if you don't care to acquire it - I guess I'll never grasp your concept.

Your loss or mine. I guess I'll never find out

I've never seen such a dumb high-IQ person.

I've never seen such an intelligent person who can't communicate their ideas.

And again, you can't imagine things without a grounding - your intellectual failure.

Oh. Of I have a VERY vivid imagination!

I just have trouble conceptualising circular non-circles that are not toruses, kleinbottles or any N-dimensional shape that the LANUGAGE of Mathematical topology can express

[Atla]

I don't buy that, you have too many comprehension issues, you usually fail to understand things in like 5 different ways at once.

What you meant to say was: "I use such imprecise language and allow for so much ambiguity in what I say so that my words can be interpreted in at least 5 different ways!"

It is obvious to all that you do not know how to express your ideas clearly, while also claiming that your ideas are communicable.

Your loss or mine. I guess I'll never find out

I've never seen such a dumb high-IQ person.

I've never seen such an intelligent person who can't communicate their ideas.

And again, you can't imagine things without a grounding - your intellectual failure.

Oh. Of I have a VERY vivid imagination!

I just have trouble conceptualising circular non-circles that are not toruses, kleinbottles or any N-dimensional shape that the LANUGAGE of Mathematical topology can express

I can communicate my ideas just fine, I just won't waste my time on articulating them to you. The only reason I keep replying to you is because you keep randomly throwing lies at me on a public forum.

[TimeSeeker]

I can communicate my ideas just fine, I just won't waste my time on articulating them to you. The only reason I keep replying to you is because you keep randomly throwing lies at me on a public forum.

Won't or can't articulate them?

Mr circular non-circle who thinks the human body is more complex than the universe.

[Atla]

I can communicate my ideas just fine, I just won't waste my time on articulating them to you. The only reason I keep replying to you is because you keep randomly throwing lies at me on a public forum.

Won't or can't articulate them?

Mr "circular non-circle who thinks the human body is more complex than the universe".

Right, those are two lies for example, and both highlight your inability to process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Right, those are two lies for example, and both highlight your inability to process context.

But isn't the context "everything that exists" e.g The Universe? What other context is there? I thought you are not a dualist?

[Atla]

Right, those are two lies for example, and both highlight your inability to process context.

But isn't the context is "everything that exists"? I thought you are not a dualist?

Right, such nonsensical sentences highlight your inability to process context.

[TimeSeeker]

Right, such nonsensical sentences highlight your inability to process context.

OK sunshine. When we are talking about The Universe there is no need to "process context".

Because there is ONLY ONE CONTEXT - The Universe!

To appeal to context-switching is to admit dualism.