Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Age]

WHY is it when I put questions to people about their views they inevitably give up and want to leave?

Maybe because it appears that you're spinning in your own head, and people don't want to spin there with you. You seem to miss, distort, and falsely deny too much to hash through. It's not up to other people to continually point out the inconsistencies in what you say. It's neither fun or interesting after awhile.

I am not after continuation. Just at least one example or one piece of evidence provide with each and every accusation made about me will suffice. Is that to much to ask for?

For example look at how many accusations you have made against me just in your next quote alone.

You make four accusations about me, without linking/providing any examples at all. Yet you expect me NOT to question you, in regards to what you allege about me, as well as thinking you have the right to do this but also NOT have to respond, or "play" as you call it.

Communication doesn't have to be hard. People who hide behind their own convoluted distortions of words and meanings and applications--as if it's some sort of profound knowledge or reasoning--typically seem to be trying to maintain/nurture some self-indulgent delusions. It's their game... it's often all about them... and a lot of people don't want to play.

There is a lot of ASSUMING, IFS and MAYBES here.

WHY not just challenge and question what I say, if you perceive any thing to be delusional, wrong or incorrect, to find out IF what I am saying is ACTUALLY delusional, wrong and/or incorrect, instead of just ASSUMING it is which is based solely on only your past experiences anyway?

[Lacewing]

Well I did settle on a specific picture which is an infinite multiversal field (as I think that is the most probable guess).

That seems like a reasonable guess to me too.

I usually imagine it as a superposition of non-existence, one particle, two particles, three particles, four particles and so on up to infinity. Somewhere in that infinite mess there is also our own universe (it occurs infinitely many times actually).

I try to think in 5-7 "dimensions" depending on how we count, how parts of this infinite mess loop through themselves. And then some parts of that loop again, and so on again up to infinity.

That's an interesting set of ideas. Much more detailed than my description: "rising and falling of experience". I use that description because "experience" is a way of relating to it in human terms. But it could very well be a field of echoes and cross-overs, where entire lives/experiences are but flickers and blips on a vast network of dimensions. Which could explain deja vu'.

What is really depressing about my models is that we automatically assume that humanity has a future, which unfortunately might be highly unlikely.

Yes. But it's only depressing for those who think that way... and there are lots of people who don't think that way. We humans are so geared to timelines and growth, we superimpose that model over everything. Whereas, the (non-human) natural world seems to reflect more about birth and death and change and balance... rather than some long-term agenda/goal, yes? We humans are the ones who imagine all sorts of things around that model serving our own power/creation.

Maybe our peace of mind is to be found in accepting our place as a part of a natural world... rather than thinking of ourselves as the rulers/definers of all... and rather than thinking of our fanciful creations as so significant and permanent.

[Lacewing]

I am not after continuation. Just at least one example or one piece of evidence

You have ignored and dismissed what I've already presented to you (with "examples" of your exact text/claims and inconsistencies). So I'm done with that. You've ignored and dismissed other people too... yet you keep insisting that we're all not providing you with sufficient feedback to shed new light on, or deter you from, your claims and views.

Now you asked why people go away when you ask them questions, and I gave you an honest answer based on what I've seen of such communication/interactions. Communication that seems unconscious, false, and continually in denial may not be very interesting to interact with long-term. Sorry... I'm just repeating some of the feedback you've received repeatedly.

From my perspective... each of us has a unique trip that is pretty much for our own entertainment -- and we're all magnificent creators. We are also easily deceived by our own hypnotic indulgences.

[Logik]

He is freaking out because he is realizing noone is buying his stance and the "philosophy" he seeks to destroy cannot be programmed into a computer.

You are a computer. You are programmed. By your genetics. By your upbringing. By your culture. By your experiences


Oooops

Philosophy cannot be programmed, as "quality" or "meaning" cannot be programmed.

Then how come we have so many humans leading meaningful lives ?

Keep in mind he created a new account, after claiming he forgot which email he used to log in as...he is a computer programmer.

That's a lie, but hey

I am just going to run him into the ground and see how far his intelligence and endurance goes...such is the fate of sophists.

YES!!!!! Sharpen your sword! Prepare for battle, Don Quixote !

Just one question though: How are you going to "run me into the ground" when you don't know which way "the ground" is?

Dogmatic foundationalists

[Atla]

That's an interesting set of ideas. Much more detailed than my description: "rising and falling of experience". I use that description because "experience" is a way of relating to it in human terms. But it could very well be a field of echoes and cross-overs, where entire lives/experiences are but flickers and blips on a vast network of dimensions. Which could explain deja vu'.

Well I guess it's possible. Personally I think deja vu is just a psychological phenomenon unrelated to the idea of cosmic loops in loops in loops and so on.

Another good thing about this multiversal looping idea is that I think it resolves the quantum measurement problem, in fact I see it as the only valid natural solution to it.

Yes. But it's only depressing for those who think that way... and there are lots of people who don't think that way. We humans are so geared to timelines and growth, we superimpose that model over everything. Whereas, the (non-human) natural world seems to reflect more about birth and death and change and balance... rather than some long-term agenda/goal, yes? We humans are the ones who imagine all sorts of things around that model serving our own power/creation.

Maybe our peace of mind is to be found in accepting our place as a part of a natural world... rather than thinking of ourselves as the rulers/definers of all... and rather than thinking of our fanciful creations as so significant and permanent.

And the end may come pretty soon actually, for almost everyone at least. But there might come a mind-blowing continuation for one or a few people, after that.. I haven't been able to find enough clues in this world to tell whether this will happen or not, but I plan to stick around and see.

[Dontaskme]

That is extremely EASY and SIMPLE to answer and SHOW.

Show it then... Don’t just say it, show it ....Where is the individual self?

Wrapped up in individual thought/s.

Within every human body there are two selves, the individual self and the true Self.

You believe that Self is easy and simple to answer and show...and the above reply is your answer to my request to SHOW it?

Age.. all you've done is described it..you haven't shown it...if the individual Self exists which you say it does, then show it...does the individual self exist as a physical seen thing? ...if so, show it? That's all I'm asking you to do..maybe I didn't make it clear enough for you...so I'll do that now....does the individual self exist physically? ...or is it just an idea, a thought...?

Below in the rest of your response you state the following...

each seemingly "separate" human body has its own unique individual experiences, which ultimately become the invisible thoughts and feelings that are held within each unique, "separate", individual brain with each human body, then this is what causes the apparent 'individual self'. So, where the individual self is, is within each individual human body.

Here you have stated that the individual self is within the body, because you assume that's where the thought (I exist as a separate self exists)...is that what you are saying?

Do you see then if that is the case then the individual self is actually invisible, it's never been seen, it's only existence is an invisible thought

The individual self, (small s), is the one that thinks it knows what is true, right and correct. This self is the one that talks about "i see ...", "i do ...", "i am ...". As the thoughts evolve as an individual body ages so to does that individual i, self, (small i). For arguments sake a human body is born without thought. But gains thoughts along the way. 'Thought' is just a word describing the body of knowledge containing views, perceptions, ideas, concepts, beliefs, assumptions, opinions, et cetera, et cetera. All of an individual body of knowledge, within one human body, combined with all of the internal feelings within that unique human body, at any given moment, form the individual self. This individual is always changing as the unique human body has its own "separate" individual different experiences. Because each seemingly "separate" human body has its own unique individual experiences, which ultimately become the invisible thoughts and feelings that are held within each unique, "separate", individual brain with each human body, then this is what causes the apparent 'individual self'. So, where the individual self is, is within each individual human body.

This self though is completely invisible to the human eye so that is WHY it can not be seen. But it can be point to, through descriptive words. Descriptive words (language) can and do illustrate things. ALL things can be SHOWN and SEEN, through and with the correct and proper language.

This self is not only invisible to the human eye, it's invisible to the SEER period...As the SEER ...CANNOT ....SEE ITSELF.

Words / language are fictions they are optical illusions of light and sound heard as words ..but ultimately point to nothing.
No-thing (word) can ever experience it's own presence or absence.The entity's totality is experiential.....It emerges into imaginary existence within the gulf between subject and object.It can never see it's self simply because it exists only as an idea.

There is no self actually there / here except in this [CON-ception) aka fictional story.

When you try to point to the actual location of the individual SELF ...where is it?

Where i point to is the individual self is within an individual human body.

SEE, this individual self (the individual thoughts and feelings within this human body) writing under the banner "age", can now be SEEN through these very words.

The word is not what it is pointing to...words are a fiction upon no-thing - put there by no-thing. For example: there is no water in the WORD water.

Who is this i that can point to an individual i ? ..that would require you to have two i's...one to point and the other to be that which is being pointed to ...
In reality the self cannot point to itself...it would have to split itself in two...there simply is no individual self, there is ONLY NONDUAL SELF...

This individual self, which originated from within this body, is now here for all to SEE, LOOK AT, study, and become AWARE OF. Although the individual self, through individual body experiences, comes into being within the human body as thought/s, those thought/s if shared are spread out and so then that individual self continues on effecting change through causing actions and reactions. Now if you want to LOOK AT this on a much more deeper and thorough level and gain a much higher level of understanding, from the true Self's perspective, then we can do that also?

No, as I've explained above, no individual self can be SEEN..it's only an invisible idea, it's an invisible construct. That which is apparently SEEN is the SEEING that can never be SEEN. The idea that the SEER can be SEEN isn't true...there is no ''thing'' Seeing or Being...although seeing and being IS apparent.

That's all that can be known, it's known via direct experience. Everything else is a fiction, a conceptual overlay upon Not-Knowing Being and Seeing.

It's obvious that there is an intelligence behind all life..but that intelligence doesn't belong to any locatable knowable ''thing'' ..

.

[surreptitious57]

I can understand that both my body and mind are manifestations of Consciousness
But I cannot accept it because I am not actually aware that Consciousness exists

I like it as an idea though because it appeals to my sense of being detached
I do not deny this reality but simply let it be for controlling it is not possible

I am only passing through this life so no need to get too attached to it as I will not always be here
I am actually only here between conception and death as the rest of the time I am not here at all

[Dontaskme]

I can understand that both my body and mind are manifestations of Consciousness
But I cannot accept it because I am not actually aware that Consciousness exists

The manifestations of consciousness are the contents of consciousness already here, and not outside of that arena...manifestations as 'thoughts' inseparable from consciousness. Consciousness in itself is not a thought or a thing...but only becomes so when a thought arises in it..no physical manifested thing ever thought a thought ...thoughts are appearances of consciousness itself, known only by that consciousness.

That which is aware of consciousness is not consciousness, it's a ''thought'' in consciousness known by consciousness only, the only knowing there is.
Consciousness does not know it exists, knowing is within the conceptual dream of separation within arising in and of consciousness only.
Consciousness is no thing dreaming it is a thing.

I am only passing through this life so no need to get too attached to it as I will not always be here
I am actually only here between conception and death as the rest of the time I am not here at all

You have never not been here...as consciousness you cannot appear or disappear...that which you are has never appeared or disappeared. Consciousness is that in which all experiences / ideas come and go...the passing through from apparent birth to death is an experience consciousness is having..it's the dream of separation (knowing itself as a concept) dream of living and dying...in that which was never born and cannot die..In reality, there is no thing living or dying except the idea/concept within consciousness....KNOWN only by consciousness.

.

[Dontaskme]

Humans cannot get rid of their ego no more than they can get rid of their consciousness.

All concepts such as ego and human have no reality in and of themselves, they are conceptual characters within the dream of separation.

There is only consciousness.

Humans cannot experience or witness the absence or presence of consciousness, because there is no human being - being consciousness, so concepts like ego and human are just thoughts known only by consciousness the only knowing there is.
Consciousness / mind can know itself as no thing but not as a thing. Consciousness / mind can experience itself as no thing but not as a thing.
Subject and Object are ONE in the same instantaneous moment which is always NOW

Why can't mind know or experience itself as a thing? ..is because a ''conceptual thing'' is ONLY KNOWN by no thing...never SEEN...
ALL ''known things'' DON'T AND CAN'T know anything.

Knowing any-thing is what creates a knower...in which the knowing is apparently housed...it's a centrelesss centre, the apparent illusory gap between one thought and another.

The 'knower' cannot know that there is no knower - to know that-would need a knower.

There is only the knowing.

The knower and the known emerge from within the split mind.They are conceptual overlays....the dream of separation where there isn't one.
The mind that creates the apparent gap cannot close the gap because the gap never existed.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

He is freaking out because he is realizing noone is buying his stance and the "philosophy" he seeks to destroy cannot be programmed into a computer.

You are a computer. You are programmed. By your genetics. By your upbringing. By your culture. By your experiences


Oooops

So what you are saying is that people are tools to be used?

Philosophy cannot be programmed, as "quality" or "meaning" cannot be programmed.

Then how come we have so many humans leading meaningful lives ?

Because philosophy cannot be limited to programming.

Keep in mind he created a new account, after claiming he forgot which email he used to log in as...he is a computer programmer.

That's a lie, but hey

I know...I also think you are lying about alot of other stuff as well. Truth and morality, as you claim, are not connected.

So you created a new account, after and did not lose the old one? Is that what yo are stating?

I am just going to run him into the ground and see how far his intelligence and endurance goes...such is the fate of sophists.

YES!!!!! Sharpen your sword! Prepare for battle, Don Quixote !

Just one question though: How are you going to "run me into the ground" when you don't know which way "the ground" is?

Dogmatic foundationalists

I know, you pushing the dogma of asymmetry, lamba calc, etc...is a very foundationalist approach.

[Logik]

So what you are saying is that people are tools to be used?[/color]

Is that how you interpret it? If the shoe fits - wear it.

Because philosophy cannot be limited to programming.

So the games philosophers play - you don't think they have a purpose? An end-goal? OK

I know...I also think you are lying about alot of other stuff as well. Truth and morality, as you claim, are not connected.

So you created a new account, after and did not lose the old one? Is that what yo are stating?

What I am saying is that I don't have to explain myself to you. I don't have access to the TimeSeeker e-mail address anymore.

I know, you pushing the dogma of asymmetry, lamba calc, etc...is a very foundationalist approach.

No it's not. It's a teleological approach.

[Eodnhoj7]

So what you are saying is that people are tools to be used?[/color]

Is that how you interpret it? If the shoe fits - wear it.

Your claim is computers are tools, people are computers...therefore people are tools.

Because philosophy cannot be limited to programming.

So the games philosophers play - you don't think they have a purpose? An end-goal? OK


Formation of perspective is not limited to games alone, and what does programming do but create games and simulations...ie "illusions".

I know...I also think you are lying about alot of other stuff as well. Truth and morality, as you claim, are not connected.

So you created a new account, after and did not lose the old one? Is that what yo are stating?

What I am saying is that I don't have to explain myself to you. I don't have access to the TimeSeeker e-mail address anymore.

Uh I see, first you forgot it...then you "didn't forget it?"

I know, you pushing the dogma of asymmetry, lamba calc, etc...is a very foundationalist approach.

No it's not. It's a teleological approach.

false, definition (as teleology is grounded in definition) observes cohenterism as foundationalism where definition alone is foundation. In observing the universal nature of definition we are left with spatial axioms as the foundation of consciousness and measurement and as such cannot be computed or axioms strictly through programming alone without the programming being a replication of basic looping and linearism in how the symbols orient themselves.

The infinite axioms of space effectively nullify modern computing in this context.

[Logik]

false, definition (as teleology is grounded in definition) observes cohenterism as foundationalism where definition alone is foundation.

No, it isn't. It's grounded in purpose. Function. Direction. End result. Destination. Not foundation and definitely not definition.

Observe below that you argue for infinitism:

In observing the universal nature of definition we are left with spatial axioms as the foundation of consciousness and measurement and as such cannot be computed or axioms strictly through programming alone without the programming being a replication of basic looping and linearism in how the symbols orient themselves.

Observe below that you argue for intuitionism.

I don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.
EB

Agreed, both are needed.

Observe below that you argue for contextualism:

Expanding context is just a new context.

In the finite space of your mind - those three are incompatible ideas.

Because if you insist on intuitionism, then you are arguing for finitism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism
If you insist on finitism you are arguing for strict formalism.

And if you insist on finite formalism you are arguing for the Chomsky hierarchy. Because the Chomsky hierachy IS a containment hierarchy.

The more you fight it

[Eodnhoj7]

false, definition (as teleology is grounded in definition) observes cohenterism as foundationalism where definition alone is foundation.

No, it isn't. It's grounded in purpose. Function. Direction. End result. Destination. Not foundation and definitely not definition.

Observe below that you argue for infinitism:

Function (movement), Direction (linearism), Destination (point of inversion)...all spatial contructs you can replicate but not cause a computer to axiomize without it going into overload.


Not a foundation? "Is Grounded in..." so foundations are not grounds? Lol...

Not definition? So one variable, or self evident truth, progressing to another is not a direction...is not a definition? How can you argue that without giving further definition of the axioms by directing us to further axioms?

In observing the universal nature of definition we are left with spatial axioms as the foundation of consciousness and measurement and as such cannot be computed or axioms strictly through programming alone without the programming being a replication of basic looping and linearism in how the symbols orient themselves.

Observe below that you argue for intuitionism.

And programming to achieve "wants" is not grounded in projecting intuitive feelings?

I don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.
EB

Agreed, both are needed.

Observe below that you argue for contextualism:

Context to context is conherentism as context applies and results in definition.

Expanding context is just a new context.

In the finite space of your mind - those three are incompatible ideas.

What is finite about void?

Because if you insist on intuitionism, then you are arguing for finitism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism
If you insist on finitism you are arguing for strict formalism.

And if you insist on finite formalism you are arguing for the Chomsky hierarchy. Because the Chomsky hierachy IS a containment hierarchy.

The more you fight it

Fight no... X leads to Y, and Y leads to both X and Z...etc. You can apply useless labels all you want...they have not identity according to you.


The more you fight it...what are you trying to do reinvent the wheel?

[Logik]

The more you fight it...what are you trying to do reinvent the wheel?

No. I am trying to prevent YOU from doing it. I am trying to get you to see that others have observed that which you are observing.
I am trying to get you to the top of that pyramid so you don't have to re-discover all of human knowledge from first principles.

But, of course - your time is your time and you are allowed to waste it as you see fit.