Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment

[Age]

Okay. But when you 'try to' speak for me and/or "others", then I will remind you that I can CORRECT you.

These conversations always remind me of the pot calling the kettle black..they are just pointless and go nowhere, but round and round in endless circles. I'm right your wrong kind of nonesense.

I have only corrected you when you INFORM and TELL us that something can NOT be done. I do this mostly because I have ALREADY DONE what you say I can NOT do.

So, if this is going round and round in endless circles, then that is only happening WITHIN 'you'.

The point is, in my opinion anyway, is that we can only see what we are meant to see, and only hear what we are meant to hear, and only resonate with what feels right for us...

Well if that is the case, then just maybe 'i' was meant to SEE and HEAR far MORE than 'you'.

that until we are able to see another way, from another point of view.

I have ALREADY done and achieved this. And, it was from going through that process I am able to SEE and KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

And only when that time comes and not one second before. To assume someone is incorrect or wrong, is fine, because that's the only way the assumer can be right, if someone else is wrong.

As I KEEP INFORMING 'you', "dontaskme", unlike 'you' my views have changed so much that I do not, now, like to assume absolutely ANY thing.

Well, I'm just so over that mental word play where one has to be incorrect to make another correct, I'm so over it.

Well STOP doing it. I CERTAINLY do NOT do it.

I'm always speaking from my own direct truth as I have lived and experienced it here where my mind is located, and not from some other source.

1. 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what the 'mind' is, EXACTLY.

2. Yes we KNOW 'you' express 'your OWN truth', how 'you' see 'it'. But, unfortunately for 'you', 'you' keep INFORMING us that we can NOT do things.

3. Obviously, from 'your OWN perspective' 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to do those things, but this in absolutely NO WAY AT ALL infers NOR means that I or "others" can NOT do what 'you' OBVIOUSLY can NOT YET do. Is this FINALLY understood by 'you'?

I simply present it here on a philosophy forum that is designed to share philosophical ideas.

And, I just simply present the idea that I have ALREADY DONE what 'you' claim is an IMPOSSIBILITY to do.

Because you assume and believe that absolutely NO one can do it, you are, literally, DEAR and BLIND here.

Oh, and by the way, your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS are NOT necessarily 'philosophical ideas'.

I in no way expect other readers to believe or assume I am informing them that my model is the correct one.

And I am INFORMING you when 'your models' are False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

That's up to the reader to decide for themself. I don't care if people like you or any one else see my model as needing correction, because in my mental sphere, my model is correct because I am the one constructing it in the first place, and then I'm simply presenting it as my absolute truth...that's all.

Well with this attitude there is no wonder why it takes you so long to see other ways, and from "other" points of view.

One is obviously absolutely CLOSED if they are just presenting their 'absolute truth'.

Have you EVER considered that your OWN 'absolute truth' could be wrong? Or is this NOT a possibility?

I'm not forcing anyone to accept it...they can do what they like with it...even say it's incorrect, which is fine by me, I'll just keep plugging on with my own version, and no one elses opinion matters to me, it's simply water off a ducks back.

You could not be MORE CLOSED even if you wanted to be.

We all have a tendency to want to do that.

Wrong again.

See, when 'you' 'try to' speak for 'us', instead of just for 'you', and 'you' are Wrong or Incorrect, then I will INFORM 'you' of this.

I didn't agree with Roy when I first came to this forum when he talked about the idea of ending suffering on a permanent basis...but as I have delved more and more into his theory, I have had my mind changed, and realised I was wrong, and that Roy was right..and that's how this one here operates...I go soley by what feels right for me, yes, I can have my mind changed about things, I'm never totally fixed by just one idea...I'm always open and flexible.

LOL

How could one be open and flexible if they ALREADY have the 'absolute truth'?

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the CONTRADICTIONS you continually present?

Also, and by the way, it is NOT 'your mind' that changes.

In my logical way of thinking, you may think you are correcting me, and may even believe that is what you are doing, but in reality, you can no more correct what is already correct in my head here, than you can believe you know what's going on inside my head, that you feel the need to correct it, which you certainly cannot.

You twist and distort things so much here that "others" could not even be bothered correcting ALL of the Wrong and Incorrect things you say, as you have shown again just now.

Only I am inside my head, metaphorically speaking. Only I know what feels right for me here.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If only 'you' KNEW "dontaskme". If only 'you' KNEW.

[Age]

I mean, Harbal keeps it simple. Kudos.
But I find the details fascinating also.

What struck me, after the obvious, was the constant...
'the fact I can even navigate'
'I understand'
'I know'
'I understand'
'I knew what was going to happen'
'I knew what was going to happen'
'I know'
'I understand'
'I understand'

I, I, I, I and....understand.

Yeah, sure elephants in the room, but talk about being stuck up in your head and not noticing the context. Even, self-care. Not the smoking of a hallucinogen, but the posting this in youtube. The heady justifications for this are already forming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp7iP7Ayj0k&t=128s

This is exactly how it works for some people. It's not for everyone, but for those who recognise this, it's normal. This has happened to me many times...in fact I remember one time I felt like I was going to collapse because I could not catch my breath I was so overwhelmed by an epiphany I was having at the time.

As for the I

There is only I for there is no other I

But sometimes 'you' say and claim there is NO 'I'.

Also, what was the 'epiphany' you had that you could not catch your breath with?

[Dontaskme]

If only 'you' KNEW "dontaskme". If only 'you' KNEW.

As you like it.

[Dontaskme]

But sometimes 'you' say and claim there is NO 'I'.

There is no I because there is none other than I

No one knows this, no one claims this...this is simply known and that which is known knows nothing.

As you like it.

[Iwannaplato]

So, this video....maybe what will stand out is how teenager on pot having insights silliness of it. Others may be struck by the lack of self-care. Not of smoking this hallucinogen, but of posting it.

It took me a little while to work out what was going on in this bizarre video. My first thought was that Roy had been woken from his afternoon nap on the sofa by a severe bout of cramp in his leg, and was having one of those not knowing whether to laugh or cry episodes. The amount of effing that Roy was doing supported that impression, as it is what I also do when I am woken by cramp in my leg. I can't say how similar my performance is to Roy's in any other respect, as I don't tend to have a video camera trained on my sofa in order to capture such moments. It did, however, gradually become apparent that what was being witnessed here was a man in the midst of having an epiphany, in real time, as it was happening. And that also better explains the presence of the video camera. While one might wonder why someone would set up a camera to document an occurence of cramp, should it happen, it is quite easy to see why they would want to record an instance of pure enlightenment unfolding. And that suggests a considerable amount of foresight on Roy's part.

Yes, he smoked a hallucinogen, and had the camera to record what happened.

[Harbal]

There is no I because there is none other than I

There's me. Don't forget me.

[Dontaskme]

There is no I because there is none other than I

There's me. Don't forget me.

You are I too

How could I forget that? I can't because I re-membered you
I knew we were both members of the same place, namely here.

I never leave you. You leave I

[Dontaskme]

You twist and distort things so much here that "others" could not even be bothered correcting ALL of the Wrong and Incorrect things you say, as you have shown again just now.

As you like it. If you say so. I have no desire to object.

In fact: Personally, metaphorically speaking, not literally, I would willingly and gladly hang myself from the nearest tree until dead, just so that you AGE could SHINE BRILLIANTLY uninterrupted like the brightest of all LIGHT. I'd really want that for you.


Bye.

[MagsJ]

Roy seems quite the character

Harbal, your analyses of him were good insights.. I thought the same, in that he had cramp, too.

Boy were we both wrong.

[Harbal]

I thought the same, in that he had cramp, too.

Yes, that genuinely was my first thought.

Boy were we both wrong.

[Age]

But sometimes 'you' say and claim there is NO 'I'.

There is no I because there is none other than I

So, to "dontaskme" there is only I, but there is no I.

No one knows this, no one claims this...this is simply known and that which is known knows nothing.

As you like it.

[roydop]

"I have ALREADY done and achieved this. And, it was from going through that process I am able to SEE and KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct."

Could you write down in a few sentences and in a way that is clear and precise, this irrefutable truth?

Thanks.

[roydop]

Sally opens the box and sadly declares the state of a dead cat.

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

In Sally's world there is a dead cat and Roy's world is still in superposition.

A: Are there two worlds?

Yes, because you said there is "sally's world" AND "roy's world".

So what I say is reality?

B: Which world is more fundamental?

Neither.

Elaborate.

[Age]

Sally opens the box and sadly declares the state of a dead cat.

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

In Sally's world there is a dead cat and Roy's world is still in superposition.

A: Are there two worlds?

Yes, because you said there is "sally's world" AND "roy's world".

So what I say is reality?

It would be to you, correct?

If what you say is true and real, to you, then, in "your world", it would be reality, right?

If no, then why not?

(And let us not forget that 'your' or 'anyone's' 'reality' does not necessarily match and align with the one and only actual and irrefutable 'Reality'.)

B: Which world is more fundamental?

Neither.

Elaborate.
[/quote]

Either of those 'worlds' are just one person's particular view of things, which does not necessarily have any bearing on what is the actual and irrefutable 'world'.

The 'fundamental world' is just a term used to replace what is essentially just what the Universe is fundamentally, (made up of and/or the way It works). Unless, of course, you are meaning something else.

Now, there is only One 'fundamental world', and when that One is KNOWN, then all other views that do not align to 'that world' are 'just views'. ALL views are either of the 'fundamental world' or they are 'not', and ALL of those views that do not align with the 'fundamental world', like the ones above, are NOT of the 'fundamental world', so it does not matter if they are more or less 'fundamental'. If they do not match the One and only 'fundamental world', then they are really just not worthy of being repeated nor discussed.

[Age]

"I have ALREADY done and achieved this. And, it was from going through that process I am able to SEE and KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct."

Could you write down in a few sentences and in a way that is clear and precise, this irrefutable truth?

Thanks.

But I NEVER spoke of some 'irrefutable truth' here, like there was only One. And, in what I was replying to there was NO mention of some 'irrefutable truth' either.

What was said and written, which I was replying to, was;
"that until we are able to see another way, from another point of view."

Which was in relation to 'you', human beings, only being able to see what 'you' are meant to see, and only hear what 'you' are meant to hear, and only resonate with what feels right for 'you'.

So, in my reply I was saying that I have ALREADY done and achieved being able to see ANOTHER way, from ANOTHER point of view.

And,

That it was going through that process I learned and discovered how it is possible for absolutely EVERY one to ALSO be able to SEE and KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Now, when you say, 'this' irrefutable truth', which one are you referring to, specifically?