Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment

[Age]

…/Roy opens the box without any thoughts entering his consciousness. He simply witnesses free from interpretation./…

Dear roydop,

Setting aside the two Q’s in your OP for a moment; is it not in fact so that if you are seeing a cat at all, you are already interpreting the information before you?

My guess is that to actually “witness [proposed scenario] without interpretation” would result in not interpreting what is encountered as a ‘cat’, but rather, as abstract data.

Even in deep meditative states and/or trances where conscious thought is silenced; if and when exposed to sensory, the human mind will tend to interpret that sensory in 3D (as ‘cat’; if we’re talking Schrodinger's thought experiment). This is because, evolutionarily, a 3D perspective has sufficed - and indeed, best benefitted - the survival of our species.

My own view is not that humans cannot experience free from interpretation (to 3D), but that doing so exposes you to experiences for which we have no language and so, if you are experiencing without interpreting, there’s be no words with which to describe your experience to someone else. (Fun note: Though not established, it’s at times been suggested that people with a certain type of autism, may experience their surroundings in such an abstract manner.)


Humbly
Hermit

"roy" could also be a human baby.

[Dontaskme]

An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools.

team Roy team Roy

[Dontaskme]

Listen to others very carefully. Shut your inner noise and focus on verbal and non- verbal cues.

[Age]

There is no superposition (not up here on our level, anyway) That there cat is dead or alive (not both) and it's definitively one or the other even if no one opens the box (if alive, though, somebody ought to let it out, or it'll be dead).

Yes, there is superposition

( So up here on our level anyway) That there cat is neither dead nor alive. The supposition that the cat is definitely either dead or alive is only a belief held without proof or certain knowledge. It would be only an assumption or hypothesis.

But in the conceptual realm, the world of the known as concept, what is conceptually known is never absolute definitive truth, because that which is known knows absolutely nothing of truth. Truth is truthless.


.

'you', "dontaskme", appear to like to come across as though 'you' know about 'truth', yet 'you' are also known. So, as 'you' say and claim, that which is known, that is 'you', knows absolutely nothing of 'truth'.

Which therefore means that what 'you' say about 'truth' here "dontaskme" is, literally, absolutely nothing known by 'you'.

What 'you' say and claim about 'truth' here could therefore be the EXACT OPPOSITE, truthfully.

[MagsJ]

I'll be moving elsewhere now.

..missing you already.

[Age]

Since I am quite happily ALIVE why would I do such a terminally retarded thing?

You don't do anything, you are being done.

You cannot tell yourself you are dead, so what makes you think you know you are alive?


Except as concept known...and the point is - that which is known can know nothing.

Therefore, the human being known as "dontaskme" 'knows nothing' or 'never knows anything'. Which further means that absolutely EVERY thing "dontaskme" says and claims is NOT known AND can NOT be proven true.

[Age]

And yes, it does remove all emotion. T

And there it is in the open. A dualism that includes a distaste for emotion. How to cut yourself off from the limbic system

The emotions of "your name here" and their associated thoughts ("I...") are exactly what projects the appearance of a separately existing identity

If you think Self is some sort of convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations, you are in duality

Pure Awareness, transcendent of thought does not give rise to separately existing phenomena, as the thought experiment in the OP points out

Work out who and what is thee Self is, which has or is n pure Awareness, and, who and what the self is, which is, literally, the combination of thoughts and emotions, then what is uncovered is who and what thee one and only True One is, and WHY there exists the perception of duality, from the disillusioned ones here.

[Harbal]

Work out who and what is thee Self is, which has or is n pure Awareness, and, who and what the self is, which is, literally, the combination of thoughts and emotions, then what is uncovered is who and what thee one and only True One is, and WHY there exists the perception of duality, from the disillusioned ones here.

What do you mean by "duality", Age? People keep throwing the term about, and I am trying to get a handle on what they mean.

[Age]

Cessation of emotion, doesn’t mean emotion-less

But that's not what he said. He said 'Yes, it does remove all emotion.'
You even quoted that, in your response to me. Why change the words?

..the non-creation of, so being emotion less doesn’t mean being an emotionless person, but that a person’s emotions are under their own control.. hence my change of definition, to best-clarify the ‘state’ that Roy mentioned.

I wasn’t attempting to fool anyone, but to best-describe the ‘state’.

In any case: Have you removed all emotion? If not, then you are talking about something else.

I don't think you are correct about the meaning of cessate or cessation, but that's not so relevant.

I do not 'get triggered' by others, so there is no emotion/s to be removed.. I am emotion less, but not emotionless.

Cessation? ..a stopping of or ceasing of, an ‘action’ ‘thought’ or ‘feeling’.

If one had really, so-called, 'cessated' their emotions a long time ago, then they would now be emotionless.

And, if one really had NO emotions to be removed, then they would NOT be a full 'human being'.

Also, not 'getting triggered by others', does not mean that there are NO emotions. Emotions can continually come and go, and they so do, without there ever being any necessity for 'getting triggered by others' at all.

And of course reducing stress levels, if they are unhealthy, is a good thing.

..ever been stuck in ‘fight or flight’? ..is why.

Nobody cares whether you’re struggling and stressed.. you gotta do that yourself.. control input/output, to lesson the unnecessary burden of others’ whims.

[Age]

No thing is either / or Dead nor Alive

Everything is living and dying SIMULTANEOUSLY infinitely for eternity
This is the Absolute truth

Is that the same 'Absolute truth', which 'you' keep informing 'us' that we can NOT know of?

The artificial conceptual overlay superimposed upon 0 is the exact mirror image of itself and is the cause of all knowledge which is an illusion, because how can 1 exist…the illusion has to be real

[Age]

Work out who and what is thee Self is, which has or is n pure Awareness, and, who and what the self is, which is, literally, the combination of thoughts and emotions, then what is uncovered is who and what thee one and only True One is, and WHY there exists the perception of duality, from the disillusioned ones here.

What do you mean by "duality", Age? People keep throwing the term about, and I am trying to get a handle on what they mean.

Firstly, thank you for the question.

Secondly, what 'they' mean could be as varied and different as there are as many of 'them'. In other words absolutely EVERY one could mean something varied, or different, in regards to the term 'duality', or any other term for that matter.

But what the word 'duality' means to me here is 'there is a perception of more than One existing'.

There is no actual separation anywhere, obviously other than the ones that are perceived to be here. Or, in other words, there is really only just One 'thing' ONLY, but which gets split into two, or more, that is; 'duality', through conceptual thinking, alone.

For any more clarity about this, then just ask further questions.

[Harbal]

But what the word 'duality' means to me here is 'there is a perception of more than One existing'.

There is no actual separation anywhere, obviously other than the ones that are perceived to be here. Or, in other words, there is really only just One 'thing' ONLY, but which gets split into two, or more, that is; 'duality', through conceptual thinking, alone.

Since I became aware of the term "duality", I have taken it to mean the drawing of a distinction between mind and body, or mental and physical. Is that the context in which the term is being used here? If so, what is the mistake a "dualist" is making?

[Age]

But what the word 'duality' means to me here is 'there is a perception of more than One existing'.

There is no actual separation anywhere, obviously other than the ones that are perceived to be here. Or, in other words, there is really only just One 'thing' ONLY, but which gets split into two, or more, that is; 'duality', through conceptual thinking, alone.

Since I became aware of the term "duality", I have taken it to mean the drawing of a distinction between mind and body, or mental and physical.

To be able to gain an unadulterated, undistorted, and uniformed clear picture or sense of things is to know the distinction between mind and mental is about the same as the distinction between mental and physical.

Is that the context in which the term is being used here? If so, what is the mistake a "dualist" is making?

I am NOT sure of the context of how "others" are using the term 'duality' here.

The mistake a so-called "dualist" makes is the EXACT SAME mistake the so-called "nondualist" makes. That is; thinking or believing that there could actually be such things as "dualists" and "nondualists", in Life.

There ARE these 'things' known as human bodies, with, obviously, different thoughts within. But there is NO actual 'thing', which could be a "dualist" nor "nondualist" only.

Well to me anyway.

And, if ANY one wants to claim that there are actually "dualists" or "nondualists", then I suggest that that one defines what these 'things' ARE, EXACTLY.

[Sculptor]

Are you implying that crawling back under his rock is more enlightening than venturing into the dusky realms of Philosophy Now.

No, I am suggesting that his recent visit to the forum has increased his awareness of the nature of reality.

lol
Evidence??

[Harbal]

To be able to gain an unadulterated, undistorted, and uniformed clear picture or sense of things is to know the distinction between mind and mental is about the same as the distinction between mental and physical.

That sounds interesting, but I won't pretend that I know what the distinction between mind and mental is.

The mistake a so-called "dualist" makes is the EXACT SAME mistake the so-called "nondualist" makes. That is; thinking or believing that there could actually be such things as "dualists" and "nondualists", in Life.

There ARE these 'things' known as human bodies, with, obviously, different thoughts within. But there is NO actual 'thing', which could be a "dualist" nor "nondualist" only.

Well to me anyway.

It sounds like we might think along similar lines here, but I won't take that for granted, as I might not have understood you properly. Like everyone else here, I do think about the nature of existence and "reality" in relation to myself as an existing entity, but, unlike many, I haven't come to any firm conclusions. Perhaps that's because I can settle for, "I don't know", more than some people can. Anyway, in all my thinking, I haven't come up against any need to think in terms of duality or non-duality. It seems to me that once you start adopting terms like that, and feeling that you have to stay within them, you are placing constraints on yourself that limit your thinking.

To be honest, I get the feeling that some of those who talk about duality and non-duality don't know what they mean any more than I know what they mean.